The document examines whether a nuclear renaissance is fact or fiction by analyzing potential drivers and constraints. It finds that while nuclear power provides clean energy and energy security, industrial bottlenecks, high costs, and politics make a large-scale renaissance unlikely. Climate change and energy security concerns may slightly favor nuclear power, but are not strong enough drivers to overcome constraints like industrial limitations and expensive upfront costs compared to alternatives. On balance, the analysis concludes a nuclear renaissance is improbable.

1. Nuclear Renaissance:
Fact or Fiction
Thomas Simmons
Thomas Edison State College

2. Why we chose this topic

3. Our Approach
•
•
•
•
Sort through the hype
Determine drivers and constraints
Research
Find the balance

4. My Topics
•
•
•
•
•
•
Abstract
Introduction
Industrial Bottlenecks
Energy Security
Climate Change
Politics

5. Industrial Bottlenecks
•
•
•
•
•
Last major expansion occurred in the 80s
150 reactors under construction in that era
Diminished capacity since then
Milestone for future projections
What can we build now?
– 35 to 60 1,000 MW reactors per year

6. Industrial Bottlenecks
• Problems with this projection
– Most of the construction occurred in only
three countries
– Some plants are “under construction” for
years

7. Industrial Bottlenecks
• Despite the skewed numbers, historical
growth rates could be matched
• But it would require more than simply
building new plants

8. Industrial Bottlenecks
• Heavy forgings = most significant
bottleneck
• Only 3 suppliers in the world
• Why not build more?
– Hugely expensive so investors won’t move
forward without firm orders in place

9. Industrial Bottlenecks
• Effect of bottlenecks will vary by country
depending on the type of economy
• No single company can build a nuclear
power plant  collaboration is required for
expansion
• As a whole, industrial bottlenecks act as a
constraint

10. Energy Security
• What is energy security?
• Not self-sufficiency
• Rather it is diversity of production method
and reliability of source

11. Energy Security
• How does nuclear provide energy
security?
– Uranium is relatively cheap
– It’s easy to stockpile
– It’s abundant
• A very reliable source

12. Energy Security
• More uranium would be required to
support a renaissance
• Secondary sources of uranium:
– Phosphate deposits
– Seawater
• These only become viable if the price of
uranium rises

13. Energy Security
• Thorium as a reactor fuel?
– More abundant than uranium
– Not fissionable in its natural state
• Verdict:
– Not in the near future

14. Energy Security
• Mixed Oxide Fuel – another alternative
• Currently employed in France
• Drawbacks:
– Requires reprocessing capability
– Difficult and dangerous to fabricate
– Expensive
– Minimal overall waste reduction
– Proliferation risks

15. Energy Security
• Drawbacks of nuclear as a means to
achieve energy security:
– Unsuitable for varying electricity demand
– High fixed costs vs. variable costs
– Must be run at full capacity
– Only suitable for baseload electrical power
– Cannot provide energy to the transportation
sector

16. Energy Security
• Most significant drawback:
Entire industry is supplied by a handful of
countries and companies
• Only 2 power plant vendors left
• Nuclear power = dependence

17. Energy Security
•
•
•
•
Nuclear power increases diversity
Excellent source of baseload electricity
Uranium is a dependable fuel supply
Cannot provide independence

18. Energy Security
• Energy security means different things to
different countries
• Energy policies will vary widely
• Will this be a constraint or driver for a
renaissance?
– Depends on the country

19. Climate Change
• Is climate change a driver?
– Depends on how the world reacts to the
perceived threat
– And how nuclear compares to the alternatives

20. Climate Change
• Why is nuclear so appealing as a means
to combat climate change?
– It provides large amounts of energy while
producing no carbon dioxide

21. Climate Change
• Other options for reducing carbon
emissions:
– Solar, wind, conservation and efficiency
measures
• Nuclear has long lead times and huge upfront costs
• Not the most cost-effective way to combat
climate change

22. Climate Change
• Driver or constraint?
• Gives people a reason to consider nuclear
 driver
• Nuclear doesn’t compare well with the
alternatives  constraint
• Overall impact  neutral

23. Politics
• Politics influence energy policy
• A nuclear energy program represents
national power
• This may override other concerns

24. Politics
• “Nuclear hedging” – another motivation
• May prompt some countries to pursue
nuclear energy

25. Politics
• The idea of a renaissance has been
strongly promoted by the United States
• Nuclear Power 2010 Program – provided
subsidies for new generation plants
• Global Nuclear Energy Partnership –
promotes the use of nuclear power
throughout the world

26. Politics
• France aggressively promotes nuclear
power
– Home to Areva & EDF
• Russia hopes to follow the French
example

27. Politics
• Other advocates of nuclear power:
– International Atomic Energy Agency
– Nuclear Energy Agency
– World Nuclear Association

28. Politics
• Public support on the rise
• International :
– 2009 poll of 10,000 people in 20 countries
found more than 2/3 in favor
• United States:
– 2008 poll found 67% in favor

29. Politics
• Public opinion is nuanced and support is
not overwhelming
• A “landscape of beliefs” exists – not simply
pro- or anti-nuclear stances
• Support is conditional – could easily be
lost
• Support fell after Fukushima
• Advocacy by government/industry can
skew public opinion

30. Politics
• Many claim public support is a key driver
for a nuclear renaissance
• Yet it has significant weaknesses:
– It’s conditional
– It’s fragile
– Swayed by pro- and anti-nuclear agents
• Public opinion is not a true driver

31. Conclusion
• Industrial Bottlenecks  Constraint
• Energy Security & Climate Change  may
be Neutral
• Politics  not a strong Driver
• Nuclear renaissance is unlikely

32. References
• Accenture Newsroom. (2009, March). Consumers Warm
to Nuclear Power in Fight Against Fossil Fuel
Dependency. Retrieved January 30, 2014, from
http://newsroom.accenture.com/article_display.cfm?articl
e_id=4810
• Alger, J. (2009, September). From Nuclear To The
Bomb: The Proliferation Potential Of New Nuclear
Energy Programs. (Nuclear Energy Futures Paper No.6).
Ontario, Canada: Centre for International Governance
Innovation.

33. References
• Commonwealth of Australia. (2006). Uranium
Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy – Opportunities
for Australia. Retrieved February 1, 2014, from
http://www.ansto.gov.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0005/3897
5/Umpner_report_2006.pdf
• Frogatt, A. & Schneider, M. (2008). The World Nuclear
Industry Status Report 2007. Brussels, Belgium:
European Parliament.
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007).
Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Retrieved
February 4, 2014, from
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

34. References
• International Framework for Nuclear Energy
Cooperation. (n.d.). Retrieved January 29, 2014, from
http://en.wikipedia.orgwikiInternational_Framework_for_
Nuclear_Energy_Cooperation
• Keystone Center. (2007, June). Nuclear Power Joint
Fact-Finding. Keystone, Colorado: Keystone Center.
• Loukianova, A. (2008, November). The International
Uranium Enrichment Centre at Argansk: A Step Towards
Assured Fuel Supply. Retrieved January 30, 2014, from
http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/uranium-enrichmentangarsk/

35. References
• Lovins, A. & Sheikh, I. (2008). The Nuclear Illusion.
Retrieved February 4, 2014, from
http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/E0801_NuclearIllusion.
• MacKay, D. (2009). Sustainable Energy Without the Hot
Air. Cambridge, United Kingdom: UIT.
• MacLachlan, A. (2008, April). Newcomers to Nuclear
Power Urged to Join Nuclear Safety Convention.
Nucleonics Week, April 17.
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2003). Future of
Nuclear Power. Boston: MIT.

36. References
• Nuclear Energy Agency. (2008, November). Nuclear
Energy Outlook 2008. (NEA No. 6436). Paris, France:
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
• Nuclear Power 2010 Program. (n.d.). Retrieved January
29, 2014, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Power_2010_Progra
m
• Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. (2013).
Annual Statistical Bulletin 2013. Vienna, Austria:
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

37. References
• Pew Research Center. (2011, March). Opposition to
Nuclear Power Rises Amid Japanese Crisis. Retrieved
January 31, 2014, from http://www.peoplepress.org/2011/03/21/opposition-to-nuclear-power-risesamid-japanese-crisis/
• Pidgeon, N., Henwood, K., & Simmons, P. (2008). Living
with Nuclear Power in Britain: A Mixed-Methods Study.
Retrieved January 31, 2014, from Cardiff University
School of Psychology Web site:
http://psych.cf.ac.uk/understandingrisk/docs/livingwithnu
clearpower.pdf

38. References
• Pomper, M. A. (2009, December). US International
Nuclear Energy Policy: Change and Continuity. (Nuclear
Energy Futures Paper No. 10). Ontario, Canada. Centre
for International Governance Innovation.
• Position of the ASN Commission: “The safety of new
nuclear reactor construction projects worldwide has to be
ensured”. (2008, June). Retrieved January
29, 2014, from http://www.french-nuclearsafety.fr/index.php/English-version/Newsreleases/2008/Position-of-the-ASN-Commission-Thesafety-of-new-nuclear-reactor

39. References
• Pouret, L. & Nuttall, W. (n.d.). Can Nuclear Power Be
Flexible?. United Kingdom: University of
Cambridge, Judge Business School.
• Research Council of Norway. (2008, February). Thorium
as an Energy Source – Opportunities for Norway.
Retrieved February 2, 2014, from
http://www.forskningsradet.no/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=u
rldata
&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=
Content-Disposition%3A&blobheadervalue1=+
attachment%3B+filename%3D%22ThoriumReport2008.
pdf%22&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere
=1274460381214&ssbinary=true

40. References
• United States Energy Information Administration. (n.d.)
Annual Energy Outlook 2014. Retrieved February
1, 2014, from
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/0383er(2014).pdf
• Von Hippel, F. (2008). “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More
Trouble Than It’s Worth”. Scientific American, 298, 90.
• World Nuclear Association. (2013, August). Heavy
Manufacturing of Power Plants. Retrieved January
31, 2014, from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/NuclearFuel-Cycle/Power-Reactors/Heavy-Manufacturing-ofPower-Plants/

41. References
• World Nuclear Association. (2013, September).
Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel. Retrieved February
2, 2014, from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/NuclearFuel-Cycle/Fuel-Recycling/Processing-of-Used-NuclearFuel/
• World Nuclear Association. (n.d.). Retrieved January
30, 2014, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Nuclear_
Association
• World Nuclear News. (2008, June). Poll: Two-thirds of
Americans back new nuclear. Retrieved January
30, 2014, from http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ITTwo-