The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence Report for the 2006/2007 Sam Nunn Security Program Energy Policy Exercise 9 February 2007 *

Santiago Balestrini ([email protected]) Jan Osburg† ([email protected]) Michael Shannon* ([email protected])

1

Introduction

“Team Nuke” (members of the 2006/2007 class of fellows of the Sam Nunn Security Program at Georgia Tech) was tasked with analyzing the possible contribution toward reducing the future level of US oil imports that could be obtained from increased nuclear power generation. With increased instability of the world oil markets, the ongoing crises in the Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Israel, etc.), decreasing domestic natural resources and the increased health and environmental risks associated with fossil fuels, it has become apparent that alternative energy sources must be explored in order to eliminate US dependence on foreign oil. Politicians often use this line of rhetoric when on the campaign trail to win votes; however, decreasing dependence on foreign oil is not a trivial problem to solve. Why is oil so important? Americans love cars! The American people have an insatiable need for oil, as evidenced by the boom of the Sports Utility Vehicle industry over the past 15 years. Today, more and more Americans are purchasing and driving automobiles, which leads to an increase in national oil consumption. The United States continues to be the world’s largest importer of oil as reflected in Government Accounting Office data shown in Figure 1. Furthermore, the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) estimates that transportation sector crude oil consumption will increase from 4.8B barrels in 2004 to 6.8B barrels in 2030 (1.35% annual rate of increase; 43% total) ([1] p. 1). However, Figure 2 shows that 100% of US nuclear electric power in 2005 went to electricity production ([40]). So, one may ask how does nuclear fit into a strategy for decreasing US dependence on foreign oil? The pundits will argue that ethanol and/or hydrogen are the answer. In spite of this, the answer is not that simple. From a technological perspective, the production of alternative transportation fuels, such as ethanol and hydrogen, require electricity. Electricity is used in the production of extremely large volumes of heat, such as that used in thermal depolymerization and transesterification. This electricity/heat must come from a reliable source that counterbalances the US energy mix. To date, a full-proof alternative has not been convincingly suggested. Additionally, the EIA estimates that US electricity generation sector will increase from 3.6B MWh in 2004 to 5.3B MWh in 2030 (1.5% average increase per year; 47% total) * †

Graduate Student, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA Research Engineer II, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA

([1] p. 2). These data, coupled with the need to expand nuclear power to accommodate the production of alternative fuels, shows that national priorities must be refocused. However, historical data show that the cost of technology exploration of new electricity sources in terms of money and time is not a national priority. According to the GAO, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) R&D budget dropped over 85% (in real terms over the past 25 plus years) [33]. Figure 3 shows this R&D trend.

Figure 1: Top Net World Oil Importers (2004) [32][33]

Figure 2: U.S. Primary Energy Consumption by Source and Sector [40]

Figure 3: Budget Authority for Renewable, Fossil, and Nuclear R&D, Fiscal Years 1978-2005 [33]

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 2

Team Nuke proposes a policy strategy that endorses the production of alternative fuels via the expansion of electricity generation utilizing nuclear power. Nuclear power is clean, safe, environmentally affable and contrary to the critics, is becoming increasingly more economically viable. Implementing this policy will not place the US alone in this type of effort. Canada, with its’ vast reserves of oil in its tar sands deposits in northern Alberta, is aggressively moving towards utilizing CANDU reactors to generate the heat required to “mine” the oil from the tar sands. America must embrace a future that includes increased nuclear energy just as many other countries (i.e. France, China, the Republic of Korea) have and continue to do. Movement in this direction will require a paradigm shift from Cold War fears of nuclear holocaust to a future that includes using the best nuclear technology available to power more advanced technology in the home, office and on our highways. In May 2001, the Bush Administration released the National Energy Policy. This document was the first comprehensive energy plan developed by an administration in recent memory. Now, more than six years later, the Congress and administration continue to battle over the true way-ahead for national energy policy. Although this landmark effort provided a catalyst for discussion of a plan, it failed to comprehensively forge a roadmap on how to get there. Then came the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when US national security policy was arguably changed forever. The threat posed by global terrorism make it more than evident why America needs a sound energy strategy for future generations. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 offers some key incentives to promoting increased nuclear power [34]. Energy security is an integral variable in the overall national security equation. The policy strategy we propose is consistent with the 2006 National Security Strategy of the United States which calls for the promotion of renewable energy production and nuclear power [44]. The US impetus for the advancement of nuclear power is the new DOE program known as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). GNEP is both a major research and technology development initiative and a major international policy partnership initiative which provides a comprehensive strategy to increase U.S. and global energy security, reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation, encourage clean development around the world, and improve the environment [45]. Our proposed policy strategy is consistent with the tenants of GNEP and will show the importance of implementing a sound national energy policy to decrease US demand on foreign oil and which is grounded in the use and advancement of nuclear energy.

2

Motivation for Increased Nuclear Power Generation: the Security Perspective

Several factors highlight the overall motivation to increase nuclear power generation. Many of these factors all have implications relative to national security. The following discussion will highlight a few of the many key factors which motivate an increase in nuclear power to decrease foreign oil imports and thus enhance US national security. So, what’s wrong with oil?

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 3

2.1 Geopolitics Geopolitics plays a key role in energy security, especially in world oil markets. Oil consuming countries are in a constant tug-of-war for oil resources. This is evidenced in the growth of China’s oil demand contrasted against the fact that it is an emerging world economy. Furthermore, the behavior of the world’s “oil kings” is volatile and questionable. These key world players, which include Putin, Chavez, Iran and even Al Qaeda, have the ability to effectively change the world’s oil azimuth. The following sections will highlight some of the uncertainties that geopolitics presents to the world’s oil sector contrasted against the uranium sector.

2.1.1 Geopolitical Uncertainty - Oil The first factor to highlight is the geopolitical relationship between neighboring states in terms of the transport of oil across state boundaries via pipelines, trading relations, etc. One such instance is the tense end-of-year (2006) haggling between Russia and Belarus over gas pricing and ownership of Belarussian gas infrastructure. The first week of January, 2007 saw Russia and Belarus trade accusations that each was countermanding an agreement dating to 1995 by imposing new levies on one another for oil volumes shipped to and through Belarus from Russia. Russia demanded that Belarus lift its hefty transit-fee duty before any "negotiations" could begin and to guarantee transit volumes would resume. Belarus complied, and volumes were resumed on January 10, 2007. Much of this disagreement stemmed from the reality that the era of post-Soviet energy subsidies to former Soviet states from Russia has been in the process of ending for some time and even Belarus is being affected. In the case of oil, it's also about subsidies, but more in the sense of subsidies Belarus granted itself at Russia's expense [4]. This situation also affected the European Union, causing the chancellor of Germany and acting president of the EU, to urge German lawmakers to reconsider the national policy of forgoing the expansion of nuclear power [10], [14]. Another example of the geopolitical uncertainty in world oil markets is the status of geographic chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz. This area is the 20-mile-wide bottleneck in the Persian Gulf through which roughly 40% of the world’s oil needs to pass each day. Several published reports in 2006 indicated that this key maritime terrain was on the brink of being blockaded by Iranian naval forces [5]. Such reports have a heavy effect on world oil markets which tend to be very volatile. The military control of the Strait of Hormuz is critical to U.S. national security.

2.1.2 Geopolitical Certainty - Uranium The supply of uranium to produce nuclear reactor fuel is promising and fairly certain. Table 1 shows that the United States possesses a healthy uranium (U) reserve. This, coupled with the fact that two of the United States’ closest allies Canada and Australia produce over one half of the world’s uranium output [41], make the future of U mining quite promising. Figure 4 shows Canadian and Australian recent uranium production data. Canada projects a steady increase in uranium output due to the opening of new

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 4

mines and extraction facilities. Canada and Australia are solid signatories to the NPT. Furthermore, US relations with both of these nations are steady and solid. Weighing all of the above data, one can ascertain that from a geopolitical perspective, uranium supply is not a concern.

Table 1: U.S. Forward-Cost Uranium Reserves by State as of December 31, 2003 [42] $30 per pound

$50 per pound

State(s)

Ore (million tons)

Gradea (percent U3O8)

U3O8 (million pounds)

Ore (million tons)

Gradea (percent U3O8)

U3O8 (million pounds)

Wyoming

41

0.129

106

238

0.076

363

New Mexico

15

0.280

84

102

0.167

341

Arizona, Colorado, Utah

8

0.281

45

45

0.138

123

Texas

4

0.077

6

18

0.063

23

6

0.199

24

21

0.094

40

74

0.178

265

424

0.105

890

Other

b

Total a

Weighted average percent U3O8 per ton of ore. Includes California, Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, and Washington.

b

Figure 4: Canada and Australia Share of World Uranium Production [41]

2.2 Physical Supply Physical supply plays a key role in energy security, especially in terms of long term projections of world oil resources. The following sections will highlight the uncertainty of the oil sector contrasted against the uranium sector.

2.2.1 Supply Uncertainty - Oil Another factor which creates uncertainty is the notion that world oil reserves are not unlimited. Global “proven” oil reserves number 1,190T barrels; OPEC possesses 890B barrels of these reserves (733B

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 5

barrels being Middle East reserves and 263B being Saudi Arabian reserves)[37]. Matthew Simmons predicts (based on his company’s research) that Saudi Arabia’s 8 major oil fields have either peaked or are near peak [6]. The implications of this and other similar predictions, is that the assumptions of the mid-20th Century that “middle eastern oil reserves are boundless,” are proving to be false. As Yettiv claims, the US needs to take the first steps on the “pothole-ridden road out of the oil era” [12].

2.2.2 Supply Certainty - Uranium Canada’s known uranium resources (Reasonably Assured Resources plus Inferred Resources to US$ 130/kgU) are 524,000 tons of U3O8 (444,000 tU, 9% of world total), compared with Australia's reserves of 2.5 times that [41]. From an order of magnitude standpoint, world uranium reserves are in much better shape than natural gas and oil as presented by the World Energy Council in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Order of Magnitude View of the World’s Energy Resources [39]

An additional promising fact is that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is heavily engaged in the development of a world nuclear fuel bank. This bank would allow a readily usable supply of low enriched uranium to be available for sale if geopolitics hinders a state from obtaining fuel. The details of this program are currently under study, however, much progress has been made. In September 2006, Senator Sam Nunn, Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, offered a pledge of $50 million to help create a low enriched uranium stockpile owned and managed by the IAEA [43]. This program is not a silver bullet, but is a signal that world nuclear experts want to ensure that the uranium market is not as susceptible to volatility as is the world oil market.

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 6

Figure 6: Worldwide Distribution of Nuclear Power Plants [48]

3

Analysis Process

The process used by the team started with a thorough literature research effort. Major sources of information included reports issued by the various organizations and institutions linked to nuclear energy and energy policy in general, and select research publications from the field. The insights gained from these references were grouped under three headings: advantages, technological disadvantages, and non-technological disadvantages of nuclear energy generation. They are summarized in report sections 4, 5 and 6, respectively. This information was then evaluated to determine the potential contributions of nuclear power generation to the nation’s strategic energy policy. Information consistent across multiple independent sources was given preference. Based on available data, the feasibility of significantly expanding domestic nuclear energy production in order to reduce the demand for imported oil was assessed (cf. Section 7). Ultimately, a set of recommendations was developed that, if implemented, will lead to a significant decrease of future oil imports and fossil energy use, with the associated strategic and environmental benefits.

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 7

4

The Good

This section summarizes some of the technical, economic and strategic advantages of nuclear power.

4.1 Technical Advantages Nuclear technology is proven and mature, supplying one-sixth of the world’s electric power. Secondgeneration nuclear reactors built in the last several decades have turned out to be a very reliable and efficient way to generate baseline electrical power. At the time of this writing, an average of 20% of the US electricity is produced by nuclear reactors, with some states’ nuclear energy fraction being even higher (e.g. 75% in Vermont; [24]). 104 reactors are operated at 65 sites in 31 states [15]. However, none have been built recently, and only a limited number (13) are approaching license submittal [18]. These “Generation III” plants are expected to come on-line within the next decade ([1] p. 3). In addition to generating electricity, the heat produced by nuclear reactors can be used to directly and economically desalinate water [22], thus reducing the impact of the “water wars” expected for the mid- to long-term future ([20], [21]). Next-generation reactors are being designed to operate at high temperatures, enabling the direct “cracking” of water, resulting in efficient generation of hydrogen – a key element of the envisioned “hydrogen economy” of the future. These “Generation IV” technologies are scheduled for deployment after 2020 ([1] p. 3) and include sodium-cooled fast reactors and gas-cooled very high temperature reactors ([1] p. 25). The latter are designed to have exceptional passive safety ([9] p. 3), with developers focusing on two alternative configurations: prismatic fuel rods with hexagonal cross-sections that have lower development risk and will be easier to model, simulate and certify, and “pebble-bed” fueled reactors with better continuous performance, lower maintenance cost, and even more efficient fuel utilization ([9] p. 12). But even the current generation of nuclear power plants are making a major contribution to reducing the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. With no CO2 or other noxious emissions, nuclear power already has a share of over 70% of US emission-free energy generation [24]. Nuclear plants also release less radioactivity during regular operation than e.g. coal-fired plants. As far as safety is concerned, even the most severe nuclear reactor accidents have caused significantly fewer deaths (below 50, including regular workplace accidents) than conventional coal/gas/hydro power generation (over 11,000 combined in the 1970 – 1992 timeframe) [16]. The most significant nuclear reactor accident in the US, at the Three Mile Island plant, caused no deaths or significant injuries or radioactive releases (cf. Section 5). Furthermore, recent studies have shown that the risk resulting from terrorist attacks (e.g. a deliberate airplane strike on a reactor containment building or a spent fuel rods storage area) has been mitigated [17].

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 8

Figure 7: Nuclear Power Plant Locations in the US [15]

4.2 Economic Advantages Many of the technological advantages outlined above translate directly into economic benefits. Modern nuclear power plants have very low variable operations & maintenance cost (at a level of 10% that of coal-fired plants) and fuel cost (at a level of 10% that of natural gas-powered plants) ([7] p. 41). However, 57% of nuclear energy generation costs are investment cost, with only 20% spent on the fuel cycle and 23% on operations and maintenance [26]. These figures indicate that non-technological issues such as capital cost and the regulatory environment drive the economic viability of nuclear power (cf. Section 6). The Federal government has already taken steps to mitigate this issue, e.g. through recently introduced tax credits for new nuclear power plants ([1] p. 3). Substantial incentives – an estimated $14B over the next decade – are offered across the energy sector, with nuclear plants expected to particularly benefit [7]. However, more needs to be done, since recent reports (e.g. [11]) indicate that nuclear power needs more substantial (>25%, [6]) construction and capital cost reductions to become competitive over conventional coal and natural gas plants ([1] p. 38). A “carbon tax” is imposed on polluting fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas would be an alternative approach to leveling the playing field [6]). Generation IV technology will further improve the competitiveness of nuclear power, since pebble-bed reactors can be designed and mass-produced as e.g. 100 MW modules, resulting in increased flexibility and reduced capital cost [6].

4.3 Strategic Advantages The nation also stands to benefit strategically from the increased use of nuclear power (cf. Section 2). US uranium is mainly supplied by long-time allies such as Australia and Canada. Due to its high energy density, a multi-year strategic stockpile can be stored in a relatively small volume [24]. For the long term,

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 9

technology for extracting uranium from sea water is already being developed [2], and existing supplies of Uranium are estimated to last for over one hundred years using current-generation technology, and thousands to millions of years using fast reactors and other advanced designs ([29], [30]). As an example, France has responded to the 1973 oil crisis with a national commitment to strategic nuclear power, and now generates 75% of its power with nuclear reactors. The next generation of French nuclear reactors will come on-line in 2012 ([1] p. 52). In recent years, a global movement towards next-generation nuclear reactors has begun (“Nuclear Renaissance”; [5], [19], [23]). A tripling of the world’s nuclear power base by 2050 (to 1 TW – 1000 Billion Watts; [11]) could save over one billion tons of CO2 per year [6]. US investment in accident- and proliferation-safe nuclear technology, and dissemination through the new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership [25], will enable this nuclear expansion to occur responsibly and safely. Furthermore, a strategic shift towards an environmentally friendly and sustainable “hydrogen economy” ([27], [28]) requires a reliable, scaleable, affordable, non-fossil source of hydrogen: nucleargenerated electrical power for electrolysis at the small scale, and nuclear reactors designed for high temperatures for direct hydrogen generation at the large scale ([8] slide 20).

5

The Bad

This section discusses technical obstacles to the broader use of nuclear power in the United States. The main difficulties are the risk of a meltdown or other significant reactor accident, the disposal of nuclear waste, and the imminent lack of trained personnel to design, manufacture and operate nuclear power plants.

5.1 Risk of Nuclear Reactor Accidents The risk of severe accidents with subsequent radiation releases taking place is a clear detriment to nuclear power. Unlike the explosion of a coal burning plant, which in the worst-case scenario would jeopardize the lives of the people immediately adjacent to the plant, a nuclear meltdown could affect an entire continent, or even hemisphere [46]. Nonetheless, the long-term effects of Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident in history, were minimal even at distances of 100 kilometers from the meltdown and have proven to be less hazardous than the most benign predictions [46]. Of the about 1000 emergency workers and plant personnel that responded to the immediate aftermath of the accident, 28 died in the year of the accident (1986) and 19 more since then due to radiation exposure ([3] p. 14). The increase in cancer mortality among the hundreds of thousands of “liquidators” charged with the cleanup of the reactor site, and the millions of inhabitants of the areas where increased radiation levels were measured after the accident, is estimated to be around one percent or less and therefore is below the detection threshold of epidemiological techniques ([3] p. 16; [4] p. 107). The most significant health impact on the general

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 10

population in the affected areas was posed by several thousand non-lethal cases of thyroid cancer ([3] p. 20; [4] p. 23), which is almost entirely avoidable through timely iodide prophylaxis, proper nutritional guidelines and evacuation; and by the psychological distress of evacuations and uncertainty due to “exaggerated or misplaced health fears” ([3] p. 37), which can be mitigated through proper information management and risk communication ([3] p. 20; [4] p. 95). Thus, the threat of a severe accident, even though real, is exaggerated by misperceptions and misinformation. The three most severe nuclear incidents so far, Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986) and Tokaimura (1999), were directly caused by human error and lax safety procedures. Since then, more rigorous enforcement of safety protocols has produced a nearly spotless record for the nuclear power industry.

5.2 Waste Management and Storage The difficulty of developing and obtaining permission to develop spent fuel storage facilities like the one intended underneath Yucca Mountain, as evidenced in [56], have made the problem quite apparent to the general public. The director of the DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management recently commented in an interview [67] that he is confident that the DOE will be able to submit the required applications before the NRC deadline in 2008 and comply with the application process, with a possible initiation of operations by 2017. He acknowledges that there are uncertainties in the process, namely the number of lawsuits that will be initiated once the permit is applied for. Estimating the time required to address these is difficult at this stage, but he estimates a total of three years [67]. Regardless of what happens, the amount of nuclear waste being produced at the current rate demands the creation of another facility similar to the Yucca Mountain project, and based on the difficulties in certifying such a complex, DOE is planning to report to Congress by no later than 2009 with its plan[67]. Nevertheless there are solutions to the question of what to do with long-term storage of nuclear waste. The ideal solution from a cost and ecological perspective would be to reprocess that fuel ([1] p. 41), the problem is that weapons grade nuclear material can be produced, and therefore it creates diplomatic and security considerations. DOE is pursuing the new UREX cycle that makes reprocessed fuel not suitable for proliferators, but at this stage industry representatives complain that it is too expensive for it to be competitive ([1] p. 41). Nevertheless, if the global production of nuclear power is expanded to one terawatt using the open cycle (no reprocessing) enough high-level waste and spent fuel will be produced to fill the Yucca Mountain repository every three and a half years ([6] p. 5). This clearly shows that some form of reprocessing is necessary. The additional difficulty is the transportation of the nuclear material between

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 11

reactors, but that is considered to be a “soft” problem and will be discussed in further detail in the next section.

5.3 Development of the Nuclear Workforce A very real problem for the American nuclear power industry is the lack of trained engineers and technicians to design and operate the next-generation nuclear power plants. According to [49], 17% of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) engineers are eligible for retirement, and 4% of the current workforce of engineers in the nuclear industry will become eligible for retirement each year from now on. Currently, there are great incentives for students that pursue nuclear engineering, but these do not seem to be encouraging enough talented young people. The problem can be characterized as a supply and demand problem, as well as a perception and marketing problem. The total number of reactors in the US has decreased by more than 5% since 1994 [68]. As these plants age, they will be decommissioned, further decreasing the demand for nuclear engineers. If the future does not hold many job opportunities for nuclear engineers, students are not incited to pursue a career in that field. A NEA report on the subject [55] states that the perception students have is an important factor affecting low enrollment. It mentions that it is affected by educational circumstances, public perception, industry’s activities and government-funded nuclear programs. It also states that it is a vicious cycle as low enrollment affects budgets, which in turn limit the facilities available for nuclear programs and the ability to train new nuclear scientists and engineers. Furthermore, and more importantly, valuable knowledge is lost on a daily basis [55]. Recommendations to revert the situation include for the universities to change their curriculums, use pro-active marketing and external contact, and for industry to improve advertising, working conditions and career development [55]. These recommendations lack clear guidelines, but describe the general path that must be followed to ensure the future supply of manpower for the nuclear industry.

6

The Ugly

This section describes the non-technological (e.g. organizational, psychological and bureaucratic) difficulties that impede the further use of nuclear power in the United States. These are man-made problems in the sense that are not problems that necessarily arise from the technology itself. In short, these issues could be rapidly solved if legislation and public opinion were to change.

6.1 Unnecessary Costs The comprehensive life-cycle cost of all the activities related to the design, certification, operation and disposal of nuclear power plants and material is often perceived as a drawback. It is hard to estimate an exact cost to the public for producing a kWe-hr of electric energy using nuclear versus a different method because the cost propagates to such a large number of items and is entangled with subsidies and taxation

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 12

policies as well as indirect intangible costs, such as health costs. Furthermore, the comprehensive cost estimates published do not always detail what is included and what assumptions are made. Table 2 compares the estimated costs for producing a kWe-hr for nuclear, coal and gas in Europe and the United States. Regardless of the fact that the two columns were obtained from different sources, the relative cost between coal and nuclear is disproportionate for the two regions. In Europe, nuclear is onetenth of the cost of coal, while in the US nuclear is 60% more costly than coal. The European figures are competitive versus those of the US because they do not include the artificial costs imposed on the technology, namely those of certification, litigation and financing. The high risk associated with constructing a power plant and delays suffered throughout the building of the plant add to the cost of financing the operation, and discourage investors [11]. Electric utilities face considerable regulatory challenges when attempting to build a nuclear power plant ([1] p. 4). Even though these have been expedited considerably by the new reactor licensing process [53], the process remains troublesome for the electric utilities ([1] p. 4). The long wait times and legal and bureaucratic delays add unexpected and financial costs to the construction of these reactors. It is imperative that if nuclear power is to become competitive in the US, these artificial and bureaucratic costs be reduced through a more friendly and time efficient certification process.

6.2 Public Opinion The public reaction to the Three Mile Island incident, Chernobyl and Tokaimura are clear examples of how inadequate information and leadership can exaggerate the dangers of radiation and lead to massive hysteria [3]. These exaggerated fears propel activists to oppose the installation of nuclear power plants, and lead to one of the clearest examples of the “not in my back yard” (NIMBY) phenomenon. This is not the case in other countries like France and Japan, where citizens welcome the installment of nuclear power plants and processing facilities in their vicinity because it has proven to be safe, and bring good jobs to the local community [59]. These countries have engaged the local communities and worked with them, turning potentially controversial issues, into a safe, profit generating industry as recently presented in [59]. In the United States, the prospect of nuclear power is improving, a poll from 2005 [63] shows that

Table 2: Estimated Cost Comparison between Europe and the US

Nuclear Coal Gas

Europe (€ cents/kWe-hr) [48] 0.4 4.0 2.0

United States (U$S cents/kWe-hr) [11] 7.0 4.4 4.1

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 13

76% of people living within 10 miles from a nuclear reactor welcome the building of a new reactor in their vicinity and support extending the licenses to the utilities that have high safety standards. This poll excluded people related to employees of the nuclear facility. It is argued that the cause of this is that communities that live close to nuclear plants generally are aware of their safety standards and are happy with the benefits that a nuclear power plant brings to their community. The NIMBY phenomenon makes the building of new reactors difficult in areas that previously didn’t have a nuclear site in their vicinity. Traditionally this has been a problem for utilities but there is evidence that this phenomenon may also be reversing in some parts of the country [64]. This is not to say that utilities do not face resistance to the construction of a new nuclear power plant, but this does not seem to be spurred by the community in general, but by environmental organizations and conservationists [64]. Nuclear plants are attractive to small towns that have lost considerable portions of their industrial base to globalization, but larger communities that enjoy a better economic situation do not seem to readily welcome the construction of a nuclear power plant [1]. It is important that utilities, communities and environmental groups work together and build a dialogue, avoiding length and costly litigations that take away job opportunities from the community. There is hope in improving the dialogue between environmental groups and the nuclear community, as evidenced by the recent testimony to the U.S. Senate by the co-founder and former head of Greenpeace [69].

6.3 Transportation and Reprocessing of Nuclear Fuel As mentioned in the previous section, politics, diplomatic concerns and lobbying have impeded the nuclear industry from reprocessing the used fuel. A study by the National Academies’ National Research Council (NANRC) [58] determined that the issues impeding the transportation of used fuel are not technical barriers. The NANRC recommends that used nuclear fuel is safe to transport but further studies should be conducted on the security of such shipments against malevolent acts. This must be done by a commission that can have access to classified data. According to the National Council of State Legislatures, seven states have prohibited the construction of new nuclear plants until the spent fuel issue is resolved ([1] p. 40). Yucca Mountain has been delayed by political decisions by nearly 20 years at this point, and unless the issue can be resolved, the industry will continue to suffer ([1] p. 39).

6.4 The Linear No-Threshold Dogma The Linear No-Threshold (LNT) dogma is arguably the most significant problem in terms of public perception. The LNT hypothesis originated from the results of a 1927 study on fruit fly mutations induced by X-rays [70]. The results indicated a linear relationship between the number of mutations and the dose of X-rays that struck the insect. Therefore, LNT argues that all non-zero levels of radiation can cause genetic mutation and therefore is related to cancer. What is not recognized by the LNT advocates is that

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 14

those experiments used very large doses of X-rays and that it does not prove that radiation causes cancer, merely genetic mutations. Furthermore, there is evidence that low levels of radiation do not necessarily produce cancer. For example, of the approximately 70,000 survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the number of excess cancers in the group is less than 1% [65]. A former director of the National Cancer Institute [65] argued that we are surrounded by radioactive materials and that we are trying to regulate doses that are below those found in nature. For example, the EPA advocates a radiation exposure from a single source or site to 15 millirem, while the average background radiation in the US is 350 millirem, and in some areas of the country is many times that [65]. He and others argue that it is this unfounded fear that blows things out of proportion in the public’s mind.

6.5 Terrorism Terrorist attacks on nuclear infrastructure not only pose a national risk, but the risk of it increase the operational cost of the plants as mentioned in the previous section. It is estimated by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) that since September 11, 2001, the cost of protecting all the nuclear reactors in the US has amounted to $1.2 billion dollars [54]. As described in [54], the threats that the utilities are responsible for, versus the threats the United States’ government is responsible for are not clearly delineated. This is one of the mayor criticisms that the GAO has towards the NRC when selecting the threats that will be considered in their site inspections. It is important for government to clearly communicate which threats it will be responsible for, so that utilities can better invest their resources and streamline their operations. Within the general category of terrorism, there is a subcategory denominated ecological terrorism or “eco-terrorism.” Environmental extremism is on the rise in the United States as evidenced by the incidents in California, Colorado, Indiana and Illinois [50] in the last few years. The FBI has named environmentalist groups, such as the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), as “one of the most active extremist elements in the United States”, and a “terrorist threat” [51]. Despite the fact that no eco-terrorist attempt has taken place towards a nuclear power plant in the United States, the FBI has testified that attempts and plots against nuclear power plants by eco-terrorists have been foiled [51]. The only documented terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant was perpetrated in France on the 18th of January 1982, when attackers believed to be associated with the terrorist Carlos, fired five soviet bazooka rockets at the nuclear central Superphénix [57]. It was later acknowledged that in fact the attack had been perpetrated by a Swiss antinuclear group, with support from German communist activists.

6.6 Inconsistent Support from Government Department of Energy’s funding for nuclear power R&D was cut down to nearly zero at the end of the 1990s ([1] p. 13) as illustrated in Figure 8. After the Three Mile Island incident, the DOE expenditures for nuclear R&D focused on improving the safety and efficiency of operations in order to rebuild “public and

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 15

regulator confidence” [1]. By the mid-1990s the safety record and performance of the nuclear power industry had exceeded that of any other source of energy, leading Congress to cut funding in 1998. In 1999 DOE began a new series of long-term initiatives to attract funding in nuclear R&D. The most critical of these were the pursuit of proliferation-resistant fuel cycles, new technologies to manage waste and the design of fourth generation nuclear reactors [1]. This new shift in R&D is indicative of the good track record that the nuclear power industry enjoys in the United States, but is not sufficient to support the rapid and safe growth of the nuclear power industry. More funding is needed to improve and streamline the certification process, NRC has not issued a reactor permit in over 30 years and there is unrest regarding the ease with which NRC will do it now, or if the delays experienced in the 60s and 70s will be experienced once again [1]. As mentioned previously, this increases significantly the financial costs.

6.7 Circulation of Nuclear Materials As it was presented previously the more reactors that come online, more nuclear fuel will be used, and more material will have to be disposed off. The increased amount of nuclear materials in circulation, particularly weapons-grade U235 and Pu239, create a security dilemma for the US. Figure 6 shows that the five NPT countries with nuclear weapons (USA, Russia, China, UK and France) are the ones that have the largest number of reactors and therefore consume the most nuclear material, 51% of all operational nuclear reactors and 32% of those under construction are in those five countries. If these countries were to reprocess their used fuel, the amount of nuclear material generated would be drastically diminished with a minimum risk of vertical proliferation, the only concern being the stealing of material by sub-national groups ([11] p. 66). IAEA treaties and safeguards would impede proliferation and the consequences of having fissile material stolen would ensure that the required resources to secure these stocks are invested. The question of which close cycle should be pursued is important. Currently the PUREX/MOX cycles are the most widely implemented, but produce separated Plutonium, making it a non-ideal solution in terms of proliferation ([11] p. 68). The US should encourage and work with France, Russia, China and the UK to develop and pursue more advanced closed cycles that are proliferation resistant. As previously mentioned, nuclear energy has the benefit of being a near-zero emission alternative, but its byproducts need to be studied carefully and the processes should be tailored to decrease the amount of proliferation materials in circulation.

7

Assessing the Impact of Nuclear Energy Generation on US Oil Imports

Most imported oil is used as a propellant in the transportation sector. One likely future alternative transportation fuel is Hydrogen, which can be generated by nuclear power plants (see Section 4). Thus, in order to assess the potential impact of nuclear energy generation on US oil imports, Team Nuke estimated

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 16

Figure 8: DOE’s Budget Authority for Renewable, Fossil and Nuclear Research and Development [1]

the number of nuclear plants that would have to be built over the course of the next several decades to replace 50% of the estimated transportation oil needs with hydrogen in 2030. The analysis was performed using a spreadsheet-based tool that provided annual estimates for several key factors for each year from the present time to 2030. These factors included transportation oil demand, miles driven by the car fleet, percentage of transportation oil replaced by hydrogen, electrical power demand, fraction of electricity produced by nuclear plants, number of nuclear plants needed to satisfy demand for electrical energy, and number of additional nuclear plants needed to also generate sufficient hydrogen for transportation. Figure 9 shows a screenshot of the tool. The team’s analysis was subject to the following assumptions and constraints: ƒ

Initial 19% share of nuclear power in electric energy generation, reduced to 15.5% by 2030

ƒ

Transportation oil demand increasing from 4.8E9 barrels per year in 2004 to 6.8E9 barrels per year in 2030 [33]

ƒ

Average fossil fuel efficiency for the US car fleet increasing from 20.8 mpg in 2004 [72] to 25 mpg in 2030

ƒ

Average hydrogen fuel efficiency of 50 miles per kg in 2008 [73] increasing by 2% per year

ƒ

Electrical power generation of 3.97E9 MWh per year in 2004, increasing by 2% per year [33]

ƒ

0.07752 MWh of thermal energy required to generate one kg of hydrogen;

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 17

Figure 9: Spreadsheet Tool Used for Impact Assessment The results indicate that an average of two new nuclear reactors (1000 MW) need to come on line each year just to satisfy the expected increased demand in electrical power. Providing the desired 50% of the transportation fuel needs would require construction of approximately eleven additional reactors. Our analysis is reflected in the data presented in Figure 10. This may seem like a huge increase but it does have a significant effect on oil imports. Figure 11 indicates that this would enable a full trend reversal for the transportation oil demand, and thus for the need for imported oil. Projected Total Nuclear Reactors in Operation w/o H2 production

with H2 production

2030: w/o H2 Production - 127 reactors w/ H2 Production - 328 reactors

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 2008

2012

2016

2020

2024

2028

Figure 10: Proposed Nuclear Reactor Fleet

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 18

Transportation Oil Demand (barrels) w/o H2 production

with H2 production

8.0E+09

7.0E+09

6.0E+09

5.0E+09

4.0E+09

3.0E+09

2.0E+09

1.0E+09

0.0E+00 2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

Figure 11: Effect of Hydrogen as a Transportation Fuel on Oil Demand

While the hydrogen production and logistics infrastructure may not yet be ready for large-scale transportation use, a similar calculation could be performed for other alternative fuels with better shortterm viability, such as lignocellulosic ethanol and the various biodiesels. All these require large amounts of electrical or thermal energy in order to be effective. At the scales required, and under zero-emission constraints, this energy can only be supplied by nuclear power. Mid-term developments of electric-only cars like the powerful models being developed e.g. by Tesla Motors [31] would add even more flexibility to the transportation energy mix, and contribute to the case for emission-free nuclear power.

8

Conclusions

Now that the baseline issues of nuclear energy are established, the question remains, if nuclear energy is the solution to the issue of energy security, how do we get there? The solution is complex yet simple. The answer to where do we go lies in strategic policy and planning. In the following recommendations, a roadmap will be forged, which encompasses the proposed policy strategy.

8.1 Recommendations - Nuclear Power Roadmap Recommendation 1: Build human resources capital. One of the greatest needs and challenges in the expansion of nuclear power is the education and training of the professional and skilled nuclear labor force. A recent GAO report shows that by 2010, about one third of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) workforce with mission-critical skills will be eligible to retire. At the same time, NRC’s workforce needs to expand because NRC expects to receive at least 20 applications for 29 new nuclear power

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 19

reactors beginning in October 2007[71]. We concur with the GAO recommendation for the NRC relook its’ human capital campaign to ensure that the commission will be able to handle future requirements. Furthermore, since nuclear power plants have not been built in over 20 years, the Department of Energy should launch programs (fellowship and scholarship programs at universities and vocational programs as well) in order to mount an intense effort to train and equip the American people to respond to this challenge. The United States does have an historical record of mounting this type of effort (i.e. the Manhattan Project, NASA efforts to launch men to the moon, etc.). Recommendation 2: Commit to reactor, associated technology and efficiency R&D. It is clear that the DOE must continue to advance the use of state-of-the-art reactor technology to make future plants safer and more efficient. A key technology gap in future reactor development which exists, is the need for high temperature materials to support Generation IV high-temperature (1000°C) hydrogen-producing reactors ([8] slide 22; [9] p. 1). Additionally, we recommend that the NRC in concert with DOE experts, select 2 or 3 standardized/modular reactor concepts and pursue the ability to build them in clusters utilizing an assembly line production or “modular” approach ([8] slide 22; [11]). We believe an approach of standardization and mass production is key to allowing this strategy to work. Furthermore, we recommend that the DOE take additional steps to increase the efficiency of electrical motors and generators, boost renewable energy sources, and increase CO2 filtering and capture[11]. The aforementioned initiatives may require that the DOE subsidize research and development in industry, academia as well as in the national laboratory framework but the initial investment will return large dividends down the road. Within in the context of long-term national security, we recommend that the DOE recommit funds to this type of research and reverse the negative R&D trends discussed earlier in this report. Recommendation 3: Develop a long-term vision for the regulatory climate. The NRC must do its part by developing and providing a regulatory environment that rewards innovation and progress while continuing to be safe. There has been great adversity among the industry and the NRC over the years. Bridging this gap while protecting the vital regulatory relationship that must exist is key to the rapid advancement of the industry. The GAO cites uncertainty in the new NRC licensing process as one of the key concerns to advancing nuclear power [33]. The NRC must work with the utilities to ease this uncertainty. Recommendation 4: Move forward with Yucca Mountain. The politicians on Capital Hill must take effective steps to getting the Yucca Mountain project moving in the right direction. The science is clear and must be supported. The proposals outlined in GNEP are promising, in terms of reprocessing spent fuel, however, this is the long term approach. The Yucca Mountain project is matured enough to be a mid-term approach.

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 20

Recommendation 5: Launch Citizen Education Programs. This is perhaps one of the most vital initiatives that will be recommended. Since the aftermath of World War II left America knowing nuclear energy only as a weapon, there has always been trepidation by many Americans for nuclear energy. The fact is, the nuclear industry has not always done the best job in educating people on the facts about radiation. There are a number of fine organizations that have done a good job of educating the public. The Nuclear Energy Institute as well as the American Nuclear Society and the Health Physics Society have done a discernible job in public education but so much more needs to be done. The suggestion here would be to launch a major campaign to educate the public on radiation and its benefits. We presentation this recommendation in the overall context of a strategic policy plan. We recommend that this education process begin at the earliest level. Educating young children will develop a responsible knowledge of nuclear energy and allowing for its unrepressed advancement. Recommendation 6: Exploit World-wide experience. The U.S. nuclear industry must draw on the experience and success of the worldwide nuclear community and exploit the lessons learned to make a difference. There is much to learn from other nations about success in nuclear power. Many countries abroad have embraced nuclear power as the solution to their energy dilemmas. France and the UK have long and distinguished nuclear energy programs. Asia in particular is taking advantage and is rapidly increasing its nuclear power infrastructure. Some dialogue already exists; however, it must be more aggressively pursued in the highest international forums. Recommendation 7: Assist in Developing a Positive Economic Climate. Capital Hill must become a catalyst for the future expansion of the nuclear power industry. The concessions made in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 will provide an initial catalyst but it is recommended that further action be taken. In addition to creating vision on Capital Hill, a push also needs to be made to educate and build confidence in the industry on Wall Street. It seems that this type of change is beginning to take place when one looks at comments from national business leaders who want answers to their energy security concerns and know that they lie in nuclear power. In the recent California energy crisis, Silicon Valley leaders were screaming for energy answers and a few voiced interest in the nuclear solution. Another avenue which must be explored is a national effort to mass production and master-planned growth of nuclear infrastructure, comparable to building of the transcontinental railroad, a major and historic national effort.

8.2 Short-Term & Long-Term Strategy So now that a philosophical roadmap has been described, what is the physical map? What are the steps that need to be taken to see these ideas become reality? This final discussion will attempt to outline this roadmap. Currently, there is a great deal of emphasis in Washington on energy policy. It is clear that reliance on oil from the Middle East will only weaken the United States as evidenced by recent events. So what needs to be done? We propose a significant increase in US nuclear power generation. This increase

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 21

will not only assist in improving the US energy mix, but also help in reducing GHG emissions. One terawatt of nuclear power (one million MW) is needed worldwide by 2050 to make a significant dent (about 20%) into the expected CO2 emission increase [6]. This implies 300k MW of new nuclear capacity in the US, tripling the current level (100 large reactors to 300 large reactors). Our strategy calls for a two-pronged approach for decreasing dependence on foreign oil. The short term approach is to utilize Generation III reactor technology to harvest ethanol and tar sands to increase the availability of transportation fuels. This can be accomplished by upgrading US power generation capability with latest-generation nuclear plants, with government support for “first movers” [11]. The long term approach is the development of high temperature reactors (Generation IV and beyond) which will support the shift to a hydrogen economy. In the long term, science and technology must play a key role in solving some of the 20th Century challenges that the industry still faces. The dilemma of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, consistent with the priorities of GNEP, must be addressed and safely answered. Unlimited potential in this area exists for novel technologies which cannot be underestimated. The regulatory climate must favor expansion. The NRC has moved great distances in the past few years in terms of making the regulatory processes more efficient and user-friendly. This spirit must continue and allow for utilities to sense and know that the future favors expansion. This environment must be balanced with a continued focus on safety and ensuring that the public is protected. Our plan calls for developing the technology/strategy to produce eleven new reactors per year. This increase demands the notion of standardization and modularization to enable "mass production, which is the hallmark of other nuclear programs, such as those of France and China. With current technology, the power of American scientific activity, and corporate America’s support, this should not be an obstacle. The industry must assume risk and pursue plans to build new units. Now it is easy for someone to sit back and play armchair quarterback, saying that the industry needs to do this and do that. However, the time has come to move forward with this process. The conditions are becoming increasingly favorable to allow for such a move. If one utility would announce intent to build a new facility, the entire industry would take note and begin to calculate when they would do the same. This move forward would be analogous to many of the daring steps taken by American industry to expand and grow. The risk is high yet the rewards of success are even higher.

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 22

9 [1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5] [6] [7]

[8] [9]

[10] [11]

[12] [13]

[14] [15] [16]

References “Key Challenges Remain for Developing and Deploying Advanced Energy Technologies to Meet Future Needs”. GAO Report to Congressional Requesters, GAO-07-106, Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC, December 2006. URL: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07106.pdf Seko, Noriaki, et al.: “Aquaculture of Uranium in Seawater by a Fabric-Adsorbent Submerged System”. Journal of Nuclear Technology, Volume 144, Number 2, pages 274-278. American Nuclear Society, November 2003. URL: http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/nt/va-144-2-274-278 “Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts”. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2005. URL: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf Bennett, Burton, et al.: “Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes”. World Health Organization, 2006. URL: http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/who_chernobyl_report_2006.pdf Falksohn, Rüdiger: “A Nuclear Power Renaissance”. Spiegel Online, Hamburg, Germany, 16 January 2007. URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,460011,00.html Deutch, John M.; Moniz, Ernest J.: “The Nuclear Option”. Scientific American, September 2006. URL: http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/deutch/policy/80TheNuclearOption2006.pdf Metcalf, Gilbert E.: “Federal Tax Policy towards Energy”. Working Paper 12568, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, October 2006. URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12568 Brown, Marylin A.: “Energy Trends and Future Prospects”. Presentation, Georgia Institute of Technology, January 2007. MacDonald, P.E. et al.: “The Next Generation Nuclear Plant - Insights Gained from the INEEL Point Design Studies”. INEEL/CON-04-01563 Preprint. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, August 2004. URL: http://www.inl.gov/technicalpublications/Documents/2761753.pdf “Merkel, EU’s Barroso Condemn Russian Pipeline Shut-Off”. Spiegel Online, 9 January 2007. URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,458573,00.html “The Future of Nuclear Power - An Interdisciplinary MIT Study”. ISBN 0-615-12420-8. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2003. URL: http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/ Yetiv, Steve A.: “Crude Awakenings - Global Oil Security and American Foreign Policy”. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 2002. Bull, Stanley R.; Billman, Lynn L.: “Renewable Energy: Ready to Meet Its Promise?” The Washington Quarterly, Winter 2000, pp. 229 - 244. Center for Strategic and International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999. URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/016366000560674 “Russia Resumes Oil Shipments to Europe”. Spiegel Online, 11 January 2007. URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,459053,00.html “US Nuclear Power Plants”. Nuclear Energy Institute. Website, 2007. URL: http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?catnum=2&catid=342 “Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors”. World Nuclear Association Website, January 2007. URL: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 23

[17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

[23]

[24] [25] [26] [27]

[28] [29]

[30]

[31] [32] [33]

[34] [35] [36] [37]

Chapin, Douglas M., et al.: “Nuclear Power Plants and Their Fuel as Terrorist Targets”. Science Vol. 297, pp. 1997 – 2001, 20 September 2002. URL: http://www.uic.com.au/terrorism.pdf “New Nuclear Plants”. Nuclear Energy Institute, 2006. URL: http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=344 Reiss, Spencer: “Let a Thousand Reactors Bloom”. Wired Magazine, 12.09, September 2004. URL: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china_pr.html Starr, Joyce R.: “Water Wars”. Foreign Policy 82 (Spring), pp. 17 – 36, 1991. URL: http://www.ciesin.org/docs/006-304/006-304.html deVilliers, Marq: “Water Wars of the Near Future”. ITT Industries Guidebook to Global Water Issues, 2007. URL: http://www.itt.com/waterbook/Wars.asp “Pakistan embarks on nuclear desalination”. World Nuclear News, 19 January 2007. URL: http://www.world-nuclearnews.org/newNuclear/190107Pakistan_embarks_on_nuclear_desalination.shtml “Merkel does not support nuclear phase out”. World Nuclear News, 11 January 2007. URL: http://www.worldnuclearnews.org/nuclearPolicies/110107German_Chancellor_does_not_support _nuclear_phase_out.shtml Hertel, Nolan: “Nuclear Energy”. Presentation, Georgia Institute of Technology, January 2007. “The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership - Greater Energy Security in a Cleaner, Safer World”. US Department of Energy Website, 2007. URL: http://www.gnep.energy.gov Pauluis, G.; Van den Durpel, L.: “Trends in the nuclear fuel cycle”. NEA News No. 19-2, 2001. URL: http://is.nea.fr/html/pub/newsletter/2001/trends19-2.pdf Crabtree, George W.; Dresselhaus, Mildred S.; Buchanan, Michelle: “The Hydrogen Economy”. Physics Today, Vol. 57, Issue 12, page 39. American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD, December 2004. URL: http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-57/iss-12/p39.html “US Department of Energy Hydrogen Program”. Website, January 2007. URL: http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/ Sokolov, Yuri: “Uranium Resources: Plenty to Sustain Growth of Nuclear Power”. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, June 2006. URL: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/DDGs/2006/sokolov01062006.html Kidd, Steven: “Uranium – Resources, Sustainability and Environment”. 17th Congress of the World Energy Council, 2004. URL: http://www.worldenergy.org/wecgeis/publications/default/tech_papers/17th_congress/3_2_12.asp “The Tesla Roadster”. Tesla Motors website, January 2007. URL: http://www.teslamotors.com/ US Government Accountability Office Report, International Energy: International Forums Contribute to Energy Cooperation within Constraints. GAO-07-170, December 19, 2006. US Government Accountability Office Report, Key Challenges Remain for Developing and Deploying Advanced Energy Technologies to Meet Future Needs. GAO-07-106, December 20, 2006. US Congress, Energy Policy Act of 2005, URL: http://www.gnep.energy.gov/pdfs/epactActOf2005Final.pdf U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Moscow Office Weekly Report #1, January 8-12, 2007. Iran Readies Plan to Close Strait of Hormuz, NewsMax.com, March 1, 2006, URL: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/28/181730.shtml?s=lh Simmons, Matthew R., Depletion And Peak Oil: A Serious Issue Or An Over Exaggerated Fear?, American Meteorological Society Energy Briefing, Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., July 25, 2005.

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 24

[38] [39] [40] [41] [42]

[43]

[44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]

[51]

[52] [53]

[54]

[55] [56]

[57]

Simmons, Matthew R., Saudi Arabia’s Oil: A Reality or a Mirage, November 2005. URL: http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/Texas%20alliance%20of%20Energy%20Partners.pdf World Energy Council, Survey of Energy Resources 2004, London. US Energy Information Administration, 2005 Annual Energy Review , URL: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/ep/ep_frame.html Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper #3, Uranium Information Centre, October 2005. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-858, "Uranium Industry Annual Survey," Schedule A, Uranium Raw Material Activities (1984-2002) and Form EIA-851A, "Domestic Uranium Production Report" (2003). Nunn, Sam, 50th IAEA General Conference Special Event, New Framework for the Utilization of Nuclear Energy in the 21st Century: Assurances of Supply and Nonproliferation, Vienna, Austria, September 19, 2006, URL: http://www.nti.org The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, March 2006, URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/nss2006.pdf Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Overview, URL: http://www.gnep.energy.gov/ “Chernobyl: Assessment of Radiological and Health Impacts,” Nuclear Energy Agency, 2002. URL: www.nea.fr/html/rp/reports/2003/nea3508-chernobyl.pdf “UN report on fallout is disputed,” Associated Press, April 19, 2006. URL: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/18/news/chernobyl.php “Energy Analysis of Power Systems,” UIC Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper # 57, March 2006. URL: http://www.uic.com.au/nip57.htm Roberson, J., “Why I support Nuclear as a Key Energy Source for the Future,” Nuclear Business Group. URL: http://www.engr.utk.edu/nuclear/colloquia/Archive/ Freeh, L.J., “Threat of Terrorism to the United States,” Statement for the Record before the Unites States Senate, Congressional Statement, Federal Bureau of Investigation, May 10, 2001. URL: http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress01/freeh051001.htm Jarboe, J.F., “The Threat of Eco-Terrorism,” Testimony before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, Counterterrorism Division, FBI, February 12, 2002. URL: http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm “The New Economics of Nuclear Power,” World Nuclear Association, December 2005. URL: www.touchbriefings.com/pdf/2178/Kidd.pdf “Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800) Proposed Revisions and Combined License (COL) Application Guidance,” United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. URL: www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col-appl-guide.html “Nuclear Power: Plants Have Upgraded Security, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Needs to Improve Its Process for Revising the Design Basis Threat,” United States Government Accountability Office, April 2006. URL: www.gao.gov/new.items/d06555t.pdf “Nuclear Education and Training: Cause for Concern?” Nuclear Energy Agency, 2000. URL: www.nea.fr/html/ndd/reports/2000/nea2428-education.pdf “Nuclear Waste: Technical, Schedule, and Cost Uncertainties of the Yucca Mountain Repository Project,” United States Government Accountability Office, December 2001. URL: www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-191 “Former Green Local Councillor Admits Attack on Nuclear Power Station,” Swissinfo, 8 May 2003. URL: www.wise-paris.org/english/othersnews/year_2003/othersnews030509b.html

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 25

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62] [63] [64]

[65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73]

“Going the Distance? The Safe Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste in the United States,” The National Academies, Division of Earth and Life Studies, February 9, 2006. URL: http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11538.html Eichelkraut, C., “Japanese Trip Highlights Transport of Nuclear Fuel,” Pahrump Valley Times, Dec. 13, 2006. URL: www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2006/Dec-13-Wed2006/news/11361737.html Nivola, Pietro S., “The Political Economy of Nuclear Energy in the United States,” The Brookings Institute, Policy Brief #138, September 2004. URL: http://www.brook.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb138.htm Wald, M.L., “Is Ethanol for the Long Haul?” Scientific American, January 2007 issue. URL: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=9349BB10-E7F2-99DF3A5B6177D3B5B9BD Falksohn, Rüdiger, “A Nuclear Power Renaissance,” Der Spiegel, January 16, 2007. URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,460011,00.html “EPZ Survey,” Bisconti Research, Inc., August 2005. URL: http://www.nei.org/documents/Survey_Plant_Neighbors_10-12-05.pdf Lyman, R., “Town Sees Nuclear Plans as a Boon, Not a Threat,” New York Times, April 10, 2006. URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/us/10nuke.html?ex=1302321600&en=d4acc154d03c08da& ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Kolata, G., “For Radiation, How Much is Too Much?” The New York Times, November 27, 2001. URL: http://www.shundahai.org/Radiation_How_Much.htm “Nuclear Proliferation,” Wikipedia, retrived: 01/30/2007. URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation “Ward Sproat: Comments on the DOE’s Yucca Mountain Project,” Nuclear News, pp. 29-32, January 2007. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, table 8.1, various issues. URL: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactsum.html Moore, P., “Climate Change Solutions Must Include Nuclear Energy,” Statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, January 30, 2007. Lipshitz, H.D., “Ed Lewis and his science,” Journal of Genetics, Vol. 83, No. 2, August 2004. URL: http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol83No2/201.pdf US Government Accountability Office Report, Retirements and Anticipated New Reactor Applications Will Challenge NRC’s Workforce, GAO-07-105, January 2007. Doggett, Tom., “US Average Vehicle Fuel Economy Unchanged in 2004”, Forbes, April 2004, URL: http://www.forbes.com/business/newswire/2004/04/28/rtr1351776.html Brooks, Alec., “Why Hyrdogen?” CARB Hydrogen Highway Network Workshop, November 2005, Slide 9, URL: http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/sb76/workshop/brooks_nov2.pdf

Sam Nunn Security Program 2006/2007 Energy Exercise: The Nuclear Option for Long-Term Energy Independence

Page 26