Climate discussions in Paris have changed drastically into hidden talks of international agreements. All of this is aimed at capping the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear power is a necessary consideration and is acknowledged by all of those involved.
To decrease global warming to 2 Celsius, there is a nuclear capacity that must be met by the year 2050. The International Energy Agency states that there must be a doubling of usage. The 2 degree Celsius mark has been set by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The goal is meant to keep catastrophic events from happening. Sixty-six nuclear reactors are in the construction phase as of 2015. This number excels past any previous amount of the past 25 years. The number of civilian reactors in use worldwide is 437, says the World Nuclear Association.
The United States, however, seems to be moving backward considering this endeavor. Many plants in the U.S. have been closed, and many others have been told they will also be. A minimum of 3 reactors is planning for shutdown throughout the next five years. The reason for this may be due to their age. The U.S. reactors average at around 35 years old. This is close to the expiration of many operating licenses. Between the present and the year 2025 about one dozen plants are meant to be shutdown. The megawatt capacity of these, combined, is 12,189 megawatts.
If these plants cease to operate an extra 67.3 million tons of Carbon Dioxide will enter the atmosphere each year. The power they supply will have to be replaced with fossil-fuel methods, resulting in the increased emissions. The James A. FitzPatrick plant that resides on the shore of Lake Ontario is included in this list. Its closure date is early in the year 2017.
There is some hope of keeping these plants open, however. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission often grants new licenses to older plants that have surpassed their original license time. The new licenses are often permits given for 20 years, but some are up to 80 years. Eighty plants have already been renewed, and many others will be considered in the following decade.
The concern about allowing these plants to continue past their original planned time has to do with the possibilities of damage and operating failures. These can cause some dangerous and severe consequences. Groups aimed at protecting the environment have been fighting against a renewal for the Davis-Besse Station in Ohio. This station is run by the company, First Energy. There are many cracks in the containment building exterior side. Pat Marida represented the Ohio Sierra Club’s Nuclear-Free committee and stated to reporters that First Energy “should retire Davis-Besse as planned, on Earth Day, 2017, rather than continuing to play radioactive Russian roulette on the Lake Erie shore for 20 more years.”
The commissioners ignored the recommendations from technical staff about the relicensing procedures. It was stated that increased concerns about the time gap from 60 to 80 years of license renewal should be taken seriously and changed. The current guidelines are allowing a second renewal application at the same time, limiting the chances that damage to the plants will keep them from operating in a bad condition, at some point. This can increase the danger to the public and environment.
There is continuous wear that takes place over the years in operation at a nuclear plant. The reactor vessel is prone to embrittlement resulting from the bombardment of neutrons over the vast amount of years. It is unknown what damage will occur 7 or 8 decades into a production cycle. The Generic Aging Lessons Learned Report will be available at the end of the year, published by the NRC. This will address these issues.
READ ALSO: Nuclear Power – is it to be the ‘Next Big Thing’?
The NRC has submitted approval after consideration in many instances. They usually go at these complications with a “not yet” approach. A consistent “no” has never been established. The NRC, however, does like to consider the possibilities of these renewals. Once such turn of events involved the Beaver Valley Plant in Pennsylvania. The NRC first rejected the renewal, then later approved it.
The belief is that 80 years is a realistic operational time frame for nuclear reactors. The concern is growing, however, around the unknown complications. Since these plants were built in the 1970’s and 1980’s, this is the first time that any of them have reached this age. We simply do not know exactly how they will hold up. The economic pitfalls are also one of the major determining factors, as well. Natural gas has allowed for less expensive energy options, and electricity is not in as high demand. Older nuclear plants are, often, not the most economical choice for utility companies in today’s market. The cost of keeping these plants running may not be cost-effective.
Entergy has made the choice to close the FitzPatrick plant due to the loss of money rather than technical complications. The year 2016 is predicted by a UBS Securities analyst to lose about $40 million. Entergy is facing the same problem with two more of its plants based in New England. These are also scheduled to be shut down.
The closure of these plants, however, will make it impossible to meet the EPA’s Clean Power Plan requirements. The power must be replaced somehow, and it will be replaced with more environmentally damaging products. The Paris talks are likely to enforce even more requirements to meet the global warming goals. Jacopo Buongiorno, director of the Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems at MIT states, “If these plants shut down, our emissions reduction targets are going to go down the toilet.”