Ralph L. Andersen, CHPDirector – Health Physics & LLRW

Nuclear Energy InstituteMay 15, 2008

The Resurgence of Nuclear Power

Health Physics SocietyBaltimore-Washington Chapter

Gaithersburg, MD

2

Today’s Briefing

Nuclear Power — Today and Tomorrow

Environmental Considerations

Outlook for Radiation Protection

NuclearPower — Today and Tomorrow

4

Sources of U.S. Electricity (2007)

21.5% Natural GasLow construction cost

Volatile fuel costCombined cycle capacity factor: 43.3%

Steam plant capacity factor: 16.0%Emissions: NOx, CO2

Source: Global Energy Decisions / Energy Information Administration 4/08

1.6% Oil Volatile fuel cost

Capacity factor: 19.6%Emissions: SO2, NOx, CO2

3.2% Renewables (and Other) High construction cost No fuel cost

Capacity factors: 30.4% (Wind), 19.8% (Solar) 75.0% (Geothermal) 70.9% (Biomass)

Emissions: None

48.6% CoalHigh construction costCapacity factor: 71.1%

Emissions: SO2, NOx, CO2,

particulates, mercury, toxic metals

19.4% Nuclear High construction cost

Stable fuel costCapacity factor: 91.8%

Emissions: None

5.8% HydroLarge-scale opportunities gone

No fuel costCapacity factor: 27.8%

Emissions: None

5

Nuclear Power in the United States — Today

104 operating commercial reactors (102 operating naval reactors)

Stable and affordable production costs 1.76 cents/KWh 92% average capacity factor Nearly 20% of US electricity supply with

10% of the installed capacity Used fuel safely stored on 64 sites Zero GHG emissions during electricity

production Valuable business assets

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Coal - 2.47Gas - 6.78Nuclear - 1.76Petroleum - 10.26

2007

U.S. Electricity Production Costs

1995-2007, In 2007 cents per kilowatt-hour

Production Costs = Operations and Maintenance Costs + Fuel Costs

Source: Global Energy DecisionsUpdated: 5/08

7

48 Granted

8 Under NRC Review 6 Filed in 2006

26 Intend to Renew

Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

22 Unannounced

Renewal of Operating Licenses Continues

8

What’s Driving the Interest in New Nuclear?

Growing need for baseload generation Near-term need for new generating

capacity (e.g. Northeast, mid-Atlantic, Southeast, South, Texas)

25% increase in electricity demand by 2030

Increasing environmental concerns and potential controls on carbon emissions

Chronic volatility in natural gas prices Nuclear power safety record

9

Today’s Scorecard

Design certification (evolutionary designs) 2 certified (Westinghouse AP-1000,

GE ABWR) 3 under NRC review (GE ESBWR,

Areva EPR, Mitsubishi APWR)

Construction/operating licenses (COLs) 9 complete applications for 15 reactors

10

Short-Term Outlook (to 2010)

Expect 7 to 11 additional COLs by the end of 2008

First wave of plants (likely 4 to 8 plants) 2008: Start procurement of long-lead

components (reactor pressure vessels, turbines, steam generators)

Late 2008 - 2009: Start site preparation (land clearing, roads, grading, construction-support facilities, excavation)

Late 2009: Other procurement starts 2009 - 2010: Arrange financing Late 2010: COL approval, start safety-related

construction

11

Long-Term Outlook (to 2020)

First wave (4 to 8 reactors) expected to start commercial operation beginning in 2016

Potential for 15 to 20 new nuclear reactor plants (up to 30 GW) coming on-line by 2020 — avoidance of 140 million metric tons of CO2 per year

Build rate and number of plants will depend on success of first wave (within cost and schedule estimates, without licensing mishaps)

Environmental Considerations

13

Emissions Produced by 1 Kilowatt-hour of Electricity

Based on Life-Cycle Analysis

Generation Option

Greenhouse gas emissions gram

equiv. (in CO2/kWh)

Sulfur dioxide emissions (in milligrams/kW

h)

Nitrogen oxide emissions (in milligrams/kW

h)

NMVOC (in milligrams /

kWh**)

Particulate matter (in milligrams

/kWh)

Hydropower 2 – 48 5 – 60 3 – 42 0 5

Nuclear 2 – 59 3 – 50 2 – 100 0 2

Wind 7 – 124 21 – 87 14 – 50 0 5 – 35

Solar photovoltaic

13 – 731 24 – 490 16 – 340 70 12 – 190

Biomass forestry waste combustion

15 – 101 12 – 140 701 – 1,950 0 217 – 320

Natural gas (combined cycle)

389 – 511 4 – 15,000[*] 13 – 1,500 72 – 164 1 – 10

Coal – modern plant

790 – 1,182 700 – 32,321 700 – 5,273 18 – 29 30 – 663Source: “Hydropower-Internalized Costs and Externalized Benefits,” Frans H. Koch, International Energy Agency (IEA)-Implementing Agreement for Hydropower Technologies and Programs, Ottawa, Canada, 2000.

Order of magnitude validation by University of Wisconsin study (August 2002) and WNA Energy Analysis of Power Systems (March 2006)

14

U.S. Electricity Sources Which Do Not Emit Greenhouse Gases

Nuclear70.9%

Wind2.3%

Geothermal1.3%

Solar0.0%

Hydro25.4%

Source: Global Energy Decisions / Energy Information Administration Updated: 4/07

15

681.2

241.9

22.2 12.8 0.4

Nuclear Hydro Geothermal Wind Solar

U.S. Electric Power Industry CO2

Avoided

Source: Emissions avoided are calculated using regional and national fossil fuel emissions rates from the Environmental Protection Agency and plant generation data from the Energy Information Administration. Updated: 4/07

Million Metric Tons

16

Perspective on CO2 Emissions Prevented By U.S. Nuclear Plants

681.2709.3

Source: Emissions avoided by nuclear power are calculated using regional fossil fuel emission rates from the Environmental Protection Agency and plant generation data from the Energy Information Administration. Car emissions from EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality Emissions Facts. Updated: 4/07

equals CO2 from

131 million cars

CO2 emissions prevented by U.S. nuclear power plants (2006)

CO2 emitted by all 136 million U.S. passenger cars

(2005)

17

Environmentalists Support Nuclear Energy

“The important and overriding consideration is time; we have nuclear power now, and new nuclear building should be started immediately. All of the alternatives, including fusion energy, require decades of development before they can be employed on a scale that would significantly reduce emissions. In the next few years, renewables will add an increment of emission-free energy, mainly from wind, but it is quite small when compared with the nuclear potential.”

— James LovelockAuthor “The Revenge of Gaia: Earth's Climate Crisis and the Fate of Humanity”

July 2006

“There were legitimate reasons to worry about nuclear power, but now that we know about the threat of climate change, we have to put the risks in perspective. Sure, nuclear waste is a problem, but the great thing about it is you know where it is and you can guard it.”

— Stewart BrandNoted environmentalist and founder, publisher, and editor of The Whole Earth Catalog

The New York Times February 27, 2007

18

Strong Public Support Near Existing Plants

82% Favor

nuclear energy

81%Utility

protecting environment

86%Favorable impression of nearest

plant

Source: Bisconti Research Inc.

August 2007 poll of 1,152 U.S. adults; margin of error is +/- 3%

71%Willing tosee new reactor

built near them

86%Give

nuclearhigh safety

rating