Pr 07 Environmental impact and cost analysis of coal versus nuclear power

Environmental impact and cost analysis of coal versus nuclear power:

The U.S. case

Jasmina Vuji

c

_{, Dragoljub P. Anti}

_c

_{, Zorka Vukmirovi}

_c

b_{ENECONIT Center, Belgrade, Serbia}

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:

Received 7 September 2011 Received in revised form 3 February 2012 Accepted 4 February 2012 Available online 13 March 2012

Keywords:

Sustainable energy sources Nuclear power

Fossil-burning plants Environmental impact Cost estimates

a b s t r a c t

With all energy production systems there are environmental issues to be considered, risks to be assessed, and challenges to be addressed. It must be emphasized that an ideal energy source that is at the same time efficient, cost-effective, environment-friendly, and risk-free does not exist. There are always some necessary trade-offs to be made, in order to ensure optimal use of energy resources, while limiting environmental and health impacts. Nuclear energy is currently the only technology with a secure base-load electricity supply and no greenhouse gas emissions that has the potential to expand at a large scale. However, the spent fuel and safety issues must be addressed. Another base-load electricity sourceethe fossil-burning power plantsealthough affordable, emits various air pollutants (chemical and radioactive effluents, dust, ash, etc.), which are dispersed from a power source and transported through various pathways that could lead to the general population exposure. This paper summarizes current status and future trends in base-load electricity sources in the U.S., including environmental footprints, new regulatory requirements, and cost issues. It also presents an analysis of challenges that need to be overcome and opportunities that could us lead us closer to a sustainable energy future.

Ó2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

The world is facing considerable energy and environmental challenges, having in mind that about one-third of the world’s population still does not have access to electricity, and that underdeveloped and developing countries mostly use fossil fuels as the major source of energy. This trend will continue in the future, unless more affordable and environment friendlier source of elec-tricity could be supplied to them. In the recently published inter-national energy projections through 2035[1], an assessment was given of the outlook for energy (including electricity) demand and supply. Based on this study, the world net electricity generation will increase by 87 percent (in the basic scenario), from 18.8 trillion kWh (18.81012kWh) in 2007 to 25.0 trillion kWh in 2020 and to

35.2 trillion kWh in 2035 (Fig. 1). Specifically, the increase in non-OECD countries (82% of the 2010 world population) is predicted to be 3.3 percent per year, and in OECD countries 1.1 percent. While the renewable energy use for electricity generation will increase from 18% in 2007 to 23% in 2035 (an average of 3.0% per year), the

coal-_fired generation will increase by an average of 2.3%, and nuclear power by 2.0% per year (Fig. 1).

The outlook for coal-fired generation could be considerably modi_fied depending on the future environmental legislation that would substantially limit greenhouse gas emissions. Worldwide, hydropower and wind power are predicted to provide the largest share of the projected increase in total renewable generations e

other renewable generation technologies are not predicted to be economically competitive with fossil fuels over the projection period. Electricity generation from nuclear power is predicted to increase from about 2.6 trillion kWh in 2007 to 3.6 trillion kWh in 2020 and to 4.5 trillion kWh in 2035. However, there is consider-able uncertainty with the predictions for nuclear power growth, related to radioactive waste disposal, safety, non-proliferation issues, as well as rising construction cost and investment risk.

Unless non-OECD countries introduce national policies that would limit greenhouse gas emissions, or if binding international agreements are signed, the world coal consumption will continue to increase. This study projects that the coal consumption will increase form 132 quadrillion Btu1_{in 2007 to 206 quadrillion Btu in}

*Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses:[email protected] (J. Vujic),[email protected]

(D.P. Antic),[email protected](Z. Vukmirovic).

1 _{The British thermal unit (Btu) is a traditional unit of energy equal to 1,055.056 J.}

MMBtu represents one million Btu. A quadrillion Btu represents 1015_Btu. Contents lists available atSciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / e n e r g y

2035, with an average annual rate of increase of 1.6%. Non-OECD Asian countries including China (55% of the 2010 world pop-ulation) will account for 95% of the total net increase in world coal use from 2007 to 2035 (Fig. 2).

In this paper, we are mostly interested in environmental impact of nuclear and coal-based electricity production under regular (not accidental) situations. Section 2 includes the discussion about comparative costs of new power generating plants, and various factors that will shape it in the future: changing national and international regulatory requirements for environmental protec-tion, changes in demand from developing countries, the cost of carbon capture and its storage, the uncertainty in commodities and construction costs, the electricity market deregulations, etc. In Section 3, we discuss general environmental footprint of various electricity sources, including the average fuel consumption per year and the amount of waste generated. Section4analyses the envi-ronmental impact of coal electricity generation in the U.S. and discusses the new environmental regulations proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Section 5 gives the current situation in nuclear electricity generation in the U.S. Having in mind that nuclear power is currently the only technology with a secure base-load electricity supply and no greenhouse gas emissions that has the potential to expand at a large scale, we will discuss what role nuclear power should play in meeting increased energy demands in a safe and proliferation resistant manner, and with minimal waste production through recycling. In conclusion, we point out what are some of the challenges that the base-load electric power sources (coal and nuclear) need to be overcome to stay as a part of energy mix for a sustainable energy future.

2. Comparative cost estimates for new generating capacity in the U.S.

Several detailed studies were published recently that provide the newest capital cost and production cost estimates for electricity generation plants in the U.S.[2e5]. The cost of a new power plant

consists of three major elements: capital cost (the cost of the equipment, materials, and labor required to build the plant), financing costs, and operating costs. The capital andfinancing costs make up the total project cost.Table 1provides the“overnight”2 cost estimates that were developed for a list of generic facilities

of speci_fic size and con_figuration[2]. The nominal capacity of the generic plants ranges from a 7 MW solar plant to a 2236 MW advanced dual-unit nuclear power plant. Environmental footprint for each generic plant is included, with the cost increase due to implementations of particular technology for reduction of green-house gas emissions.Table 1includes the following power plant options: a generic nuclear power plant consisting of two 1117 MWe Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear power units build in a“brownfield” (existing nuclear facility site), a nominal 650 MWe or 1300 MWe dual unit coal-fired supercritical steam-electric generating plant built in a“green_field”location, and various other plants.

The estimated capital cost inTable 1 (e.g., the total project engineering, procurement and construction) includes the following categories: civil/structural material and installation, mechanical equipment supply and installation, electrical instrumentation and controls supply and installation, project indirect cost, fees and contingency, and owner’s cost (insurance, property taxes, asset management fees, excluding projectfinancing costs). Fixed opera-tion and maintenance (O&M) expenses include: staffing and monthly fees under pertinent operating agreements, typical bonuses paid to the given plant operator, plant support equipment, plant-related general and administrative expenses, routine preventive and predictive maintenance performed during opera-tions, maintenance of structures and grounds. Variable O&M (VOM) expenses are production-related costs which vary with electrical generation and might include: raw water, waste and wastewater disposal expenses, purchase power, demand charges and related utilities, chemicals, catalysts and gases, lubricants, consumable materials and supplies.

FromTable 1it is clear that coal and nuclear power plants have compatible“overnight”cost, particularly when the cost of carbon capture and sequestration is included for coal power plants. There is also a trend of rising cost of capital-intensive power technologies, commodities, construction materials, and cost increase due to regulatory requirements with respect to pollution and waste. In addition, there are very few companies in the world that have ability and expertise for complex engineering project such as construction of nuclear or advanced coal power plants.

It is also clear that renewable electricity generation (excluding hydro) suffers from higher “overnight” cost, and low capacity availability factors particularly for solar and wind generation plants. The capacity factor is usually used as a measure of power plant operating efficiency. It is defined as the total amount of energy produced during a period of time divided by the amount of energy that the plant would have produced at full capacity (times 100, if expressed in percent). While capacity availability factors for Fig. 1.World net electricity generation by fuel, 2007e2035 (trillion kWh)[1]. _{Fig. 2.Coal consumption in selected world regions, 1990e2035 (quadrillion Btu}1_)[1].

2 _{“Overnight”cost is an estimate of the cost at which a plant could be constructed}

coal and nuclear are 85% and 90%, respectively, the capacity avail-ability factor for hydro is 52%, for offshore wind 34%, for solar-thermal 18%, and for photovoltaic 24%[3]. The average capacity factors of power plants by fuel type in the U.S. are presented in Table 2 [4].

This means that the estimated power plant capital and oper-ating costs need to be increased (in some cases, several times) in order to offset the smaller capacity availability factors and deter-mine the“real”cost to investors.Fig. 3shows the U.S. electricity production cost in the period from 1995 to 2009, in 2009 cents per kWh. The production cost is defined as the sum of O&M costs and fuel costs[4].

Important factor is the cost of fuel. While the percentage of fuel cost for nuclear power is only 28%, the cost of fuel for gas-powered plant is 89%, and for coal-burning plant 78% of overall production cost in 2009 [4]. The nuclear fuel cost consists of following components: the cost of conversion (4%), fabrication (8%), waste fund (15%), enrichment (31%), and uranium (42%).

The levelized cost of electricity production from new baseload generation of electricity (nuclear, coal-fired, and gas-fired plants) has been studied many times, and the results of the most recent study[6]are presented inTable 3. It is shown that nuclear elec-tricity production is cost-competitive at 6.6 cents/kWh as

compared to 6.2 cents/kWh for coal and 6.5 cents/kWh for gas. This is valid if the technology risk premium is removed from_financing assumptions. Also, it is shown that nuclear electricity generation is increasingly competitive if the cost of carbon capture and seques-tration is included for coal and gas. InTable 3, it is shown that a $25/ ton carbon tax would increase the price of coal-fired generation to 8.3 cents/kWh and gas-fired generation to 7.5 cents/kWh, while nuclear generation remains at 6.6 c/kWh.

A detailed analysis of cost of electricity, including various finance options is presented inTable 4 [7].

The following assumptions were made in the model: the nuclear cases assume 48-month construction, 6-month start-up, owner’s cost of $300/kWe and 10% contingency, 6.5% interest rate on commercial debt for unregulated entities, 6.0% interest rate on commercial debt for regulated entities, 4.5% interest rate on government-guaranteed debt, 15% return on equity for project finance and 12% allowed rate of return for rate base, 2% loan guarantee cost, 90% capacity factor, O&M cost of $9.50/MWh and fuel cost of $6.50/MWh. The capital cost estimate for supercritical pulverized coal (SCPC) and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) are from[3].

This model shows that a merchant nuclear power plant with an 80% debt and 20% equity capital structure, supported by a federal loan guarantee, could produce electricity in the range of $84/MWh

Table 2

The U.S. average capacity factors by fuel type (2010)[4].

Fuel Type Average capacity factors (%)

Nuclear 91.2

Biomass 85.5

Geothermal 71.6

Coal (steam turbine) 65.4

Gas (combined cycle) 45.8

Hydro 29.4

Wind 29.1

Solar 17.7

Gas (steam turbine) 12.9

Oil (steam turbine) 8.9

Fig. 3.U.S. electricity production cost in 2009 cents per kWh[4].

Table 1

Estimates of power plant capital and operating costs[2,3].

Technology Fuel Nominal

capacity (kW)

Capacity factor (%)

Capital cost ($/kW)

Fixed O&M ($/kW-yr)

Variable O&M ($/kW-yr)

Dual unit APCa _{Coal 1,300,000 85 $2,844 $29.67 $4.25}

Dual unit APC/CCSb _{Coal 1,300,000 85 $4,579 $63.21 $9.05}

Single unit APC/CCS Coal 650,000 85 $5,099 $76.62 $9.05

Single unit IGCC/CCSc _{Coal 520,000 85 $5,343 $69.30 $8.04}

Conventional NGCC Gas 540,000 87 $978 $14.39 $3.43

Advanced NGCCd _{Gas 400,000 87 $1,003 $14.62 $3.11}

A-NGCC/CCS Gas 340,000 87 $2,063 $30.25 $6.45

Fuel cells Gas 10,000 60 $6,835 $350.00 0

Dual unit nuclear Uranium 2,236,000 90 $5,339 $88.75 $2.04

Biomass combined cycle

Biomass 20,000 83 $7,894 $338.79 $16.64

Biomass BFBe _{Biomass 50,000 83 $3,860 $100.50 $5.00}

Geothermal dual flash

Geothermal 50,000 92 $5,578 $84.27 $9.64

Hydroelectric Hydro 500,000 52 $3,076 $13.44 0

Hydro-pumped storage

Hydro 250,000 $5,595 $13.03 0

Onshore wind Wind 100,000 25 $2,438 $28.07 0

Offshore wind Wind 400,000 34 $5,975 $53.33 0

Solar thermal Solar 100,000 18 $4,692 $64.00 0

Photovoltaic Solar 7,000 24 $6,050 $26.04 0

a_{Advanced pulverized coal.}

b _{Advanced pulverized coal with carbon capture and sequestration.}

c _{Integrated gasification combined cycle with carbon capture and sequestration.} d _{Advanced natural gas combined cycle.}

to $91/MWh. The conclusions from this analysis suggest that “although nuclear project costs are undeniably large, total project cost does not measure a project’s economic viability. The relevant metric is the cost of the electricity produced by the nuclear project relative to alternative sources of electricity and relative to the market price of the electricity at the time the nuclear power comes into service.”

2.1. Impact of deregulation and consolidation on nuclear electricity generation

Over the last several decades, market deregulations were the way (at least in theory) to force industry to increase efficiency, cut costs, make new investments and support technological innova-tions. Some cases of market deregulations were more successful that others, and in many cases deregulation lead to industry consolidation. Having in mind that the U.S. nuclear power industry was for decades owned by regulated utilities, there was a wide-spread concern how would nuclear electricity generation compete in deregulated markets. Recently published paper [28] gives a detailed analysis of impact of market deregulation and consoli-dation on nuclear electricity generation ef_ficiency and cost. We will present a brief summary of thefindings presented in that paper.

By late 1990s electricity markets in many U.S. states were deregulated. Majority of the U.S. nuclear power plants were sold to independent power producers selling power in competitive wholesale markets, which lead to consolidation, and today the three largest companies control more than one-third of all U.S. nuclear capacity. Between 1999 and 2002, a total of 36 reactors were divested and reclassified as independent power producers. An additional 12 reactors were divested between 2004 and 2007. The main_finding in this paper[28]is that“deregulation and consoli-dation were associated with a 10 percent increase in operating

efficiency, achieved primarily by reducing the frequency and duration of reactor outages,” which lead to an increase in electricity production of more that 40 billion kWh annually (valued at $2.5 billion annually), without any new plant construction.

Fig. 4shows the U.S. Nuclear Industry Capacity Factors for the period from 1971 to 2010[4]. It gives the clear evidence of efficiency gains from deregulation and consolidation of nuclear power reac-tors. The companies that now own large number of the U.S. power reactors (namely Exelon and Entergy) succeeded in achieving the highest levels of nuclear reactor operating efficiency in history (over 90.1%), and profited from it.

Due to the large size of nuclear power plants in the U.S., even small improvements in operating efficiency imply substantial amounts of additional electricity produced. The following example is illustrative[28]: a typical two-reactor 2000 MWe nuclear plant, that operates at 80% capacity produces electrical energy worth approximately $840 million dollars annually, at typical wholesale electricity prices ($60 per MWh). An increase in capacity factor from 80% to 85% increases revenues by $52 million dollars annually, $120,000 for each additional hour that the plant is operating. Having in mind that the average fuel cost for nuclear plants (about $7 per MWh) is low compared to wholesale prices of electricity, any increase in capacity factors will directly generate profit for the plant owner.

The paper also points out: “because the increased electricity production displaces mostly coal and natural gasfired power, these gains in efficiency also have substantial implications for the environ-ment, implying an annual decrease of 38 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. Using a conservative estimate for the social cost of carbon dioxide ($20 per ton) this is an additional $760 million in benefits annually. To put this into perspective, this is more carbon abatement than was achieved by all the U.S. wind and solar generation combined during the same period.”[28]

Table 4

Cost of electricity from various generating technologies (in 2010 dollars)a_[7].

Technology Nuclear Coal (SCPC) Coal (IGCC) Gas (combined cycle)

Project Structure Projectfinance with loan guarantee

Rate base with CWIPb

Rate base with CWIP

Projectfinance with loan guarantee

Rate base with CWIP

Projectfinance

80% Debt 20% equity 50% Debt 50% equity

50% Debt 50% equity

80% Debt 20% equity

50% Debt 50% equity

50% Debt 50% equity

EPC cost ($/kWe) $4500 5000 $3200 $3600 $1000

Total costc_{($/kWe) S6000e$6600 $5300e$5800 $3500 $4500 $4000 $1200 $1200}

Fuel cost (nucleare$/WYVh) (coal/gase$/mmBtu)

$7.50 $2.00 $2.00 $5.00 $7.00

Capacity (MWe) 1400 800 600 400

First Year Busbar ($/MWh) $84-91 $115-$126 $99 $81 $113 $63 $77

Levelized Busbar ($/MWh) NA $86-$93 $75 NA $85 NA NA

Impact of CO2price at $30/Ton ($/MWh)

NA NA Add $25.00 Add $25.00 Add $18.00

Notes: The nuclear Cases assume 48-month construction, 6-month start-up; owner’s cost of $300/kWe and 10% contingency; 6.5% Interest rate on commercial debt for unregulated entities, 6.0% interest rate on commercial debt for regulated entities, 4.5% interest rate on government-guaranteed debt, 15% return on equity for projectfinance and 12% allowed rate of return for rate base; 2% loan guarantee cost; 90% capacity factor; O&M cost of $9.50/MWh and fuel cost of $7.50/Mm. The capital cost estimates for supercritical pulverized coal (SCPC) and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) are from the Energy Information Administration

a_{Estimates calculated using the NET Financial Model Version 8.10, August 2010.} b_{CWIP¼Construction Work In Progress.}

c _{Estimated Total Cost values from the NEI Financial Model include EPC cost, owner’s costs, decommissioning funding (nuclear units only), andfinancing. Values are rounded} to nearest hundred.

Table 3

Levelized cost of baseload electricity[6].

Technology Nuclear with risk premium Nuclear without risk premium Coal Gas

Capital cost ($2007/kW) 4000 4000 2300 850

Fuel cost ($2007/MMBtu) 0.67 0.67 2.60 7.00

Levelized cost (cents/kWh) 8.4 6.6 6.2 6.5

3. Environmental impact of electricity generation

Environmental impact of various electricity generation sources could be characterized as follows: (a) Use of natural resources (fossil fuel and ore, land, water or air), (b) Thermal pollution, (c) Emission of chemical pollutants (in atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere), (d) Emission of radionuclides (in atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere), and (e) Various social an economical impacts. Effect on people could be direct (inhalation, ingestion or exposure to emitted pollutants) or indirect (through impact on food chains, climate effects, changes offlora and fauna). The societal risk perception and even aesthetic aspects should not be neglected. Short- and long-term environmental impact studies are very complex because of many interactions in the ecosystems. A detailed multidisciplinary analysis and modelling of physical, chemical and biological processes is necessary for reliable estimations, taking into account many uncertainties. A life cycle analysis methodology should be used to compare different electricity generation options. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a technique for assessing the envi-ronmental aspects and potential impacts associated with a product from the cradle to the grave.

Two main baselode electricity generating sources, coal and nuclear, produced more than 50% of world’s electricity in 2007 (World: 41.6% and 13.8%; OECD 37.2% and 21.4%; U.S. 45% and 20%, respectively), as shown inFig. 5 [3,9].

Using coal to generate electricity affects the environment in a number of ways, producing air and water pollution, and gener-ating solid waste residuals. The main drawback with the use of coal is the emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, which is difficult to control. Other emissions are more easily controlled by the use of the modernfiltering techniques but could be very costly. Since the majority of coal-fired power plants represent old and less efficient techniques, average emissions of greenhouse gases will remain high. Although natural gas is less polluting than coal, it has other important uses in chemical and petrochemical industry, and as non-renewable resource should not be used as the primary source for electricity production.

Wind power requires use of large amounts of land, which is not desirable in many cases. It requires installations of concrete foun-dation, roads, transformers, cables and communication equipment. Green house gas emissions are generated during the manufacturing and construction, as well as during the decommissioning. Some disadvantages included the use of a reserve power during the low-productive periods, and a short lifetime of about 25 years. However, wind power is essentially a clean energy source and will remain as a power generation option particularly if the electricity production cost is reduced.

The life-cycle greenhouse gas emission for a photovoltaic (PV) system is not zero, as some believe. It is shown[29]to be 39 tonnes CO2-equivalent per GWeh, which is higher than nuclear (15 tonnes CO2/GWeh) and wind (14 tonnes CO2/GWeh), but significantly lower than the emissions from natural gas plant (469 tonnes CO2/GWeh) or coal-burning plant (974 tonnes CO2/GWeh)[29].

The hydropower uses water and as such is a renewable source. It remains the cheapest electricity generation source. However, the hydropower has a list of environmental issues [30]. The dam construction and operation of hydropower plants directly influence the river systems, surrounding land use, resettlement of pop-ulation, and water andfish resources management. It may infl u-ence local climate, geological stability, groundwater conditions, and water quality. Under certain conditions, decomposition of organic matter in reservoirs will result in methane formation, while the CO2 emissions range between 4 and 410 g CO2per kWh[29]. In addi-tion, the collapse of dams has caused more immediate casualties worldwide than any other power generation options[30].

Nuclear power emissions of greenhouse gases are minimal, and nuclear power is the only baseload electricity source that could effectively replace fossil-burning pants and help in reduction of global warming threat. It is estimated that nuclear power currently reduces carbon dioxide emissions by about 2.5 billion tonnes per year.

Fig. 5.Electricity generation by source. (a) Worldwide and OECD (2007)[9,37](b) U.S. (2009)[3].

It is estimated that carbon dioxide emissions will more than double by 2050[9].Fig. 6shows the amount of CO2emissions from various power sources, both direct and indirect (from life-cycle).

Another important issue in any comparative analysis of various electricity generation plants is the amount of fuel consumed and waste generated per unit energy generated. Table 5 shows fuel consumption and waste generation comparison for energy that 1 GWe plants of various types will produce within one year (1 GWe year)[5]. There is huge difference in the amount and type of waste generated by a coal-burning pant (millions of tonnes) and nuclear power (less that 30 tonnes) per year.

In the following sections we will focus on the environmental impacts of two base-load electricity generations sources, coal and nuclear power plants, and analyze the current situation in the U.S.

4. Environmental impact of coal electricity generation in the U.S.

Important issue in electricity generation is emission of green-house gases and other pollutants. Fossil fuels (mainly coal, oil, and natural gas), biomass, municipal and industrial wastes that were used, for example, to generate 71% of electricity in the U.S. in 2009, emit: carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, heavy metals such as mercury, and radioactive nuclides such as uranium and thorium[14e16].

In the United States the coal power accounts for about 45% of the electricity production which is a drop from 53% in 1997[14]. In 2009, there were 1436 coal power plants with the total nominal capacity of 338.732 GW. In 2006, the U.S. consumed 1,026,636,000 short tonnes (931,349,000 metric tonnes) of coal, generating 227.1 GWh, which represented the highest electrical energy generated from coal in the world[14]

Carbon dioxide is considered to be the main contributor to global warming, while sulfur dioxide causes acid rain, and may cause respiratory illnesses and heart diseases, particularly in chil-dren and the elderly. Nitrogen oxides contribute to ground level ozone, which irritates and damages the lungs. Particular matter

(PM) results in hazy conditions in cities, contributes to asthma and chronic bronchitis. Very small, or «fine PM» could also cause emphysema and lung cancer. Heavy metals such as mercury can cause damage to brain, nervous system, kidneys and liver, as well as developmental birth defects[17e20].

Table 6[17]details health and environmental issues associated with hazardous air pollutants (HAPs): acid gases, benzene, toluene, dioxins and furans, mercury, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium and other heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds, and radioactive uranium and thorium, that are emitted by coal-burning plants. It is estimated[17]that coal-fired power plants in the U.S. emit 386,000 tonnes of 84 different HAPs, and are responsible for emission of over 50% of mercury, over 50% of acid gases, 60% of arsenic, 60% of SO2, 13% of NOx, 30% of nickel, 20% of chromium, etc.[19].

Coal contains naturally occurring radioisotopes such as radio-active potassium (40K), uranium (U), thorium (Th) and their numerous decay products, including radium (Ra) and radon (Rn). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains the largest database on chemical composition of U.S. coal [15]. Concentration of uranium and thorium in the U.S. coal is between 1 to 4 parts per million (ppm) [18], although there are coals with much larger concentrations.Fig. 7shows typical range of uranium concentra-tion in coal,fly ash, and rocks[18].

During coal combustion, 100% of the radon gas is released in the air. Uranium, thorium and most of their decay products are almost entirely retained in the solid waste. Having in mind that ash presents a 10% of the original coal, it means that the concentrations of radionuclides in ash will be larger 10 times. Average activity of radium (226Ra) infly ash is about 210 Bq/kg and upper limit for dissolved radium in drinking water is 0.2 Bq/l[19]. Thus, there are serious concerns of radioactive nuclides reaching the drinking water. There is also a possibility of uranium, in form of thefine-size particles, concentrating onfly ash surfaces as a condensate, and flying into the atmosphere together with about 1% offly ash that is accrualy released in the air.Table 6shows that inhalation offine particles of uranium or thorium might increase a probability of lung and bone cancer, and dissolution of uranium and thorium in drinking water might cause kidney disease.

Solid coal combustion products (fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, etc.) are suitable for different uses: 35% of it is used in agriculture, blasting grit, cement, mine backfill, road base, wallboards[16]. It is estimated[22]that an annual average radiation dose to an indi-vidual, who lives in a building that used above mentioned Table 5

Fuel consumption and waste generation from various generation plants for 1 GWe year[5].

Fuel consumption (t)

Waste generation (t)

Crude oil 1,400,000 CO2 5,000,000

SO2 40,000

NOx 25,000

Dust, particles, ashes

25,000

Coal 2,000,000 CO2 6,000,000

SO2 120,000

NOx 25,000

Dust, particles, ashes

300,000

Liquefied natural gas

1,000,000 CO2 3,000,000

SO2 20

NOx 13,000

Nuclear 30 Uranium

(not waste)

(28.8)

Plutonium (not waste)

(0.3)

Fission products 0.9

construction materials, would increase by 135

m

increase emissions of radon and thoron from the building walls. Overall, based on the data presented in[22], the radiation exposure levels to population living close to coal-burning plants are about 100 times larger than in the case of nuclear power plants.

4.1. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed regulations

Having all above in mind, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has been trying for decades to regulate hazardous emissions from coal-burning plants. It had difficulties in imposing stricter regulations, due to the opposition from the coal-burning industry, and various challenges in courts. The majority of electric utilities in the U.S. burn high-sulfur bituminous coal, which contributed to an acid rain problem. To address this, the U.S. Congress passed Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) (Public Law 101-549) with stringent restrictions on sulfur oxide emissions [16,23]. It caused electric utilities to start switching to alternative fuels, especially natural gas, and the share of coal used in the U.S. electric power plants decreased to less that 45% from almost 65%. More that 20 years after the CAAA was passed, still 44% of all coal-burning plants (1200 units) do not use advanced SO2 and NOx control technology. Thus, EPA in March of 2011 decided to propose more stringent regulations in order to reduce toxic pollution from coal-burning plants [19e21]. EPA estimates that due to toxic

emissions from fossil burning plants, there are: up to 17,000 of premature deaths; 11,000 heart attacks; 120,000 asthma attacks; 12,200 hospital admission and emergency room visits; 4500 cases of chronic bronchitis; 850,000 missed work or «sick» days; and 5,100,000 days when people must restrict their activities each year [19,20]. The total annual cost of compliance is estimated to be about $10.9 billion, but EPA also estimates that the health and environ-mental benefits would be more than $100 billion a year[24]. If the proposed rules are passed, the average household electric bill in the U.S. could increase by $3 to $4 per month[24].

Table 6

Health and environmental issues associated with hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted by electric generation stations fueled by coal[17].

Class of HAP Notable HAP Human health hazards Environmental hazards

Acid gases Hydrogen Chloride, HCl Irritation of skin, eyes, nose,

throat, breathing passages

Acid precipitation, damage to corps and forests. Hydrogen Fluoride, HF

Dioxins and furans 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodioxin (TCDD) Probable Carcinogen: Stomach and immune system. Affects reproductive endocrine and immune system.

Deposits into rivers, lakes and oceans and is taken up byfish and wildlife.

Accumulates in the food chain.

Mercury Methylmercury Damage to brain, nervous system,

kidneys and liver. Causes neurological and developmental birth defects.

Taken up byfish and wildlife. Accumulates in the food chain.

Non-mercury metals and metalloids (excluding radioisotopes)

Antimony, Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium Nickel, Selenium, Manganese

Carcinogens: lung, bladder, kidney, skin. May adversely affect nervous, cardiovascular, dermal, respiratory and immune systems

Accumulates in soil and sediments. Soluble forms may contaminate water systems.

Lead Damages developing nervous system. Harms plants and wildlife;

accumulates in soils and sediments. May adversely affect land and water ecosystems.

May adversely affect learning, memory and behavior. May cause cardiovascular and kidney effects, anemia, weakness of ankles, wrists andfingers. Polycyclic Aromatic

Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Benzo-a-anthracene, Benzo-a-pyrene, Fluoranthene, Chrysene,

Dibenzo-aanthracene

Probable carcinogens. May attach to small particulate matter and deposit in the lungs. May have adverse affects to the liver, kidney, and testes. May damage sperm cells and cause impairment of reproduction.

Exists in vapor or particulate phase. Accumulates in soil and sediments

Radioisotopes Radium Carcinogen: lung and bone. Deposits into rivers, lakes and oceans

and is taken up byfish and wildlife. Accumulates in soils and sediments and in the food chain.

Bronchopneumonia, anemia, brain abscess.

Uranium Carcinogen: lung and lymphatic system.

Kidney disease Volatile organic compounds Aromatic hydrocarbons including benzene,

xylene, ethylbenzene and toluene.

Irritation of the skin, eyes, nose, throat; difficulty in breathing; impaired function of the lungs; delayed response to visual stimulus; impaired memory; stomach discomfort; and effects to the liver and kidneys. May also cause adverse effects to the nervous system. Benzene is a carcinogen.

Accumulates in soil and sediments.

Aldehydes including formaldehyde Probable Carcinogen: lung and nasopharyngeal cancer. Eye, nose, throat irritation, respiratory symptoms

There is a large opposition to the new EPA’s rules from the utilities that own and operate coal-burning power plants. For example, the Texas Public Utility Commission recently expressed the concern that this new federal air quality rule will cause disruption in electricity service, will cause shut down of some coal-fired plants, and could lead to rolling blackouts in Texas[31]. While the various industry groups are warning that new EPA regulations will cost utilities up to $129 billion, and force them to retire one-fifth of coal plant capacity, the environmental groups praise the EPA work, and point out that the new rules will have large public health and environment benefits.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), which conducts non-partisan policy research for members of the U.S. Congress, issued its analysis in August 2011[32]in order to rebuff the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) report on negative impacts of EPA’s environmental regulations on the U.S. generationfleet[33]. In its report, EEI claims that new EPA regulations“would cause the unplanned retirement of 17e59 GW of coal-fired electric capacity (5.4% to 18.8% of the

total current coal-fired capacity of about 315 GW) by 2015, and would require incremental capital expenditures of $85 billion to $129 billion.”[32,33]EEI, which represents investor-owned electric utilities in the U.S., nicknamed the EPA’s rules as“EPA’s Regulatory Train Wreck”.

In its report, CRS points out that many of the coal-fired plants that might need to be shut down are the oldest, the least economic and/or are those that currently operate with minimal pollution control. As shown inFig. 8 [32], the prime target for retirement are the plants that began operating between 1940 and 1969, and that do not have scrubbers.

The U.S. EPA will not have an easy road ahead regarding the proposed environmental regulations. One example of how the politics and lobbying by special interest groups could undermine the EPA’s work is an announcement by President Obama in September 2011, that he overruled the Environmental Protection Agencyeand the unanimous opinion of its independent panel of

scientific advisers, regarding the draft Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards due to“the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover.” [34] This decision will be welcomed by industry but will most likely alienate the president’s environ-mental base as his administration backs away from key anti-pollution initiatives. It is to be seen if the other important envi-ronmental rules proposed by EPA will survive in the U.S. election year.

5. Environmental impact of nuclear electricity generation in the U.S

As of September 2011, 29 countries world wide are operating 439 nuclear power reactors for electricity generation (with a total net installed capacity of 374,042 MWe), 5 nuclear power reactors are in long term shutdown, and 66 new nuclear power reactors are under construction in 15 countries [8]. The largest number of reactors under construction is in China (27) and Russia (11). The percentage of electricity generation by nuclear power in the world is 13.8% and in the OECD countries is 21.4% [9].Tables 7 and 8 summarize the nuclear generation in the world by percentage and by total energy production in kWh.

The United States, with 104 currently operating nuclear power reactors in 31 states (with the total installed net capacity of about 101,000 MWe, and the capacity factor of 92%) that produce about 20% of the total electricity production in the U.S., is the country with the largest number of operating NPPs[4]. There is only one NPP under construction in the U.S. at this moment, and the last order for NPP was in 1979. Out of 104 operating nuclear reactors, 35 are Boiling Water Reactors (BWR), and 69 are Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR), manufactured by Westinghouse (48), General Electric (35), Combustion Engineering (14), and Babcock and Wil-cox (7).

Since the beginning in the early 1950s, nuclear power tech-nology has evolved through the following generations of system designs (Fig. 9): Generation Iemostly early prototypes andfi

rst-of-a-kind reactors built between 1950s and 1970s; Generation IIe

reactors built from 1970s to 1990s, most of which are still in operation today (such as PWR, BWR, CANDU); and Generation IIIe

evolutionary advanced reactors with active safety systems built by the turn of the 20thcentury (such as General Electric’s Advanced BWR and Framatom’s EPR). In the U.S., 2 reactors began commercial operation in the1960s, 50 in the 1970s, 46 in the 1980s and 5 in the 1990s[28].

The newest Westinghouse AP1000 and GE’s ESBWR designs that feature passive safety systems belong to the Generation IIIþ. These

reactors are yet to be built e thefirst four AP1000s are under

construction in China. For example, the AP1000 reactor design[25] has passive safety features, simplified plant design and modular construction, and short engineering and construction schedule. It was thefirst and only Generation IIIþreactor to receive Design Certification form the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Some of the features include: dramatically safer and simpler design, smaller footprint (needs less concrete and steel per MWe), no safety-grade pumps, less maintenance required, much less reliance on operator action to mitigate accidents, independence of off-site AC power to

Fig. 8.Coal-fired plants by age and emission controls[32]. FGDeFlue Gas Desulfur-ization; SCReSelective Catalytic Reduction. Source: Sue Tierney,“EPA Proposed Utility Air Toxics RuleeManaging Compliance in Reliable Ways”, Congressional Staff Briefing, May 9, 2011, p. 4.

Table 7

Nuclear generation (%).

Country Percent

France 74.1

Slovakia 51.8

Belgium 51.1

Ukraine 48.1

Hungary 42.0

Armenia 39.4

Sweden 38.1

Switzerland 38.0

Slovenia 37.4

Czech Rep. 33.2

Bulgaria 33.0

Korea Rep. 32.2

Japan 29.2

Finland 27.5

operate reactor safety systems, ultimate hear sink is ambient air. The most important improvement is that the reactor safety func-tions are achieved without using any safety-related AC power. Instead, the following processes are used: battery powered valve actuation, natural circulation, condensation, evaporation and compressed gases (nitrogen and air)[25].

Generation IV is the next generation of advanced nuclear reactor systems currently under the development, with the goal to improve the performance of current reactors and fuel cycles, in terms of better economical efficiency, enhanced safety, minimization of waste and resistance to proliferation[10,11].

Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) came into the focus over the last several years, primarily due to large initial capital investment requirements for large nuclear power plants. In the recently pub-lished paper on SMRs[35], it was pointed out that SMRs could offer simpler, standardized, and safer modular design by being factory built, requiring smaller initial capital investment, and having shorter construction times. The SMRs could be small enough to be transportable, could be used in isolated locations without advanced infrastructure and without power grid, or could be clustered in a single site to provide a multi-module large capacity power plant. There are technical and institutional challenges to be addressed regarding broader deployment of SMRs: testing and validation of technological innovations in components, systems and engineering (especially testing and fabrication of fuel), fear of _first-of-kind reactor designs, economy-of-scale, perceived risk factors for nuclear power plants, and regulatory and licensing issues. Other

issues to be addressed are the cost of reactor decommissioning and spent nuclear fuel (SNF) management.[35]

5.1. Spent nuclear fuel issues

The management and disposal of SNF is a very important issue in the current and future considerations of expansion of nuclear power and its environmental footprint. Most reactors in use today are light water reactors (LWRs), with uranium dioxide (UO2) fuel, enriched in 235U to few percent. Nuclear fuel consists of pellets encased in tubes of zirconium alloy, arranged in a lattice within a nuclear fuel assembly, as shown in Fig. 10 [6]. The fuel manufacturing process (or the“front end”of the fuel cycle) consists of uranium mining, production of uranium ore concentrate, conversion of uranium ore concentrate to uranium hexafluoride (UF6); enrichment of UF6, fabrication UO2 pellets from UF6, and fabrication of fuel assemblies. Each of these steps produces certain amount of waste. A fuel assembly spends three or four years in the reactor. A typical LWR spent fuel contains about 95.6%238U, 0.8% 235_{U, 3% waste products, and about 1% of plutonium, as shown in}

Fig. 10 [6]. A typical LWR generates about 27 tonnes of SNF per year or 3 m3of vitrified waste[12,13]. For the“open”or“once-through” fuel cycle SNF is waste, which needs to be stored for several decades to reduce radioactivity and radioactive decay heat, and eventually needs to be disposed of in a geological repository. Currently, there is no central permanent geological repository in the U.S.; high-level radioactive waste (HLW) is stored temporarily in spent fuel pools and in dry cask storage facilities at NPP sites.

However, only 3% of SNF can be considered as “real” waste, while uranium and plutonium are extracted and recycled in a“closed”fuel cycle. The“real”HLW is separated out for further treatment followed by interim storage, pending final disposal in a geological repository.

Table 9 summarizes primary waste resulting from “ once-through” and “closed” fuel cycles from a 1 GWe nuclear power plant [6]. It should be emphasized that over 99% of natural and depleted uranium consists of238U, which is a “fertile”isotope. It does notfission at thermal neutron energies, but“breeds”a new fuel e 239Pu. Thus, 238U cannot be considered as “real” waste,

particularly when advanced fuel cycles and fast reactors are con-cerned. In a fast reactor, depleted uranium can be placed around the core in a“blanket”, to breed new fuel. If we continue with a once-through thermal fuel cycle, there are enough uranium resources to last until the end of century, and switching to the thorium cycle

Fig. 9.Nuclear reactor generations[38].

Table 8

Nuclear generation (BkWh).

Country BkWh

U.S. 807.0

France 407.9

Japan 279.2

Russia 155.1

Korea Rep. 141.9

Germany 133.0

Canada 85.2

Ukraine 83.8

China 76.8

Spain 59.3

U.K. 56.4

Sweden 55.1

Belgium 45.7

Taiwan 40.0

could expand the fuel resources even further. The large-scale breeding could extend the lifetime of existing uranium resources for thousands of years.

Although capabilities to recycle and reprocess spent fuel already exist, the fast reactors are needed for effective closing of the fuel cycle. Generation IV reactors will be more capable of operating economically with recycled fuel and“closed”fuel cycle. In this case, the spent fuel inventories from thermal reactors will decrease and the waste stream destined for geological disposal will consists of fission products with residual actinides, which will effectively decay out in few hundred years. In this case, a single global repository could be sufficient for several centuries of expanded nuclear energy production in the U.S.

However, the decision in the late 1970s (during the Carter Administration) to have “once-through” fuel cycle without reprocessing of the SNF generated a lot of difficulties. Currently,

there are 120 locations with SNF and HLW in 39 U.S. states. Based on the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and its 1987 Amendments, 63,000 metric tonnes of spent fuel from U.S. commercial NPPs (7796 waste packages), along with 2333 metric tonnes of the Department of Energy and Naval high-level waste (417 naval waste packages) and 4667 metric tonnes (3416 waste packages) from past military and commercial reprocessing, were to be disposed of in the Yucca Mountain geologic repository in Nevada by 1998 (total of 70,000 metric tonnes of heavy metal)[26]. The Nuclear Waste Fund was set up with the purpose of providing funds for permanent repository: 1/10th of a cent per kWh of electricity generated at nuclear power plants has been set aside since 1983. The allocations from nuclear industry plus interest accumulated $35.8 billion in the Fund. Of the $35.8 billion, $10.8 billion has been spent since 1983. After the decision was made in 2009 not to continue with the permanent underground repository project, the Obama Adminis-tration eliminated all funding for the Yucca Mountain repository licensing process, regardless of about $7.7 billion spent on the Yucca Mountain project since its inception almost 30 years ago[27].

5.2. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations

The Obama Administration appointed the Blue Ribbon Commission in 2010 to devise a new strategy toward nuclear waste disposal, and to evaluate alternatives to the Yucca Mountain underground repository project. In July 2011, the Commission submitted a draft report to the Secretary of Energy[36]. The main recommendation is a formation of an independent, government-chartered organization, not the U.S. Department of Energy, which should manage the U.S. SNF program and HLWs. Other recom-mendations include: the development of a funding mechanism to

Table 9

Primary waste resulting from“once-through”operationa_{and“closed”fuel cycles from a 1 GWe nuclear power plant[6].}

Operation Type of waste

Open fuel cycle Closed fuel cycle

Uranium mining and milling Sandy tailingsesame composition

as uranium ore and not classified as radioactive waste.

Lesser quantity

Conversion and enrichment Depleted uranium (w175 tonnes)

stored either as UF6or U3O8. May be waste or useful product for making recycle fuel or further recovery of235_U.

Lesser in quantity. Requires dedicated lines for conversation and enrichment of reprocessed uranium. New types of depleted uranium tails containing 232_U.

Fuel fabrication Very small quantities of LLW. Contains long-lived isotopes

and requires geological disposal. Electricity generation

(LWR cooling pools, interim storage and geological disposal)

200e350 m3_{LLW and ILW} (small quantities ILW primarily during decommissioning). 20 m3_{(27 tonnes) of SNF equivalent}

to about 75 m3_{disposal volume.}

Spent recycled fuel whose composition differs from UOx derived from SNF. If full recycle all types of spent fuel are recycled.

Reprocessing facility None High level wastes (glass)

containingfission products and some actinides Recycle of plutonium Partial or full recycle of other

actinides depending upon goals Activated cladding and hardware

and entrained solids Off-gas (H3, I2, C, Kr and Xe) Secondary wastes (IX resins, zeolites,

organic solvents, etc.) depending upon the choice of technology

a_{World Nuclear Association, Radioactive Waste Management, June 2009,http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/info04.html.}

ensure that Nuclear Waste Fund fees (current balance in the fund is about $25 billion) are made available for the new organization, and the development of a“consent-based”process to identify locations that are both willing and geologically suitable to host nuclear waste management facilities. The Commission members did not take a position on whether Yucca Mountain repository should be permitted because that issue was outside their mandate,

The Commission report faulted the U.S. failure“to come to grips with the nuclear waste issue (that) has already proved damaging and costly and it will be more damaging and more costly the longer it continues.” The Commission also points out:“A new strategy is needed, not just to address these damages and costs but because this generation has a fundamental ethical obligation to avoid burdening future generations with the entire task offinding a safe permanent solution for managing hazardous nuclear materials they had no part in creating. At the same time, we owe it to future generations to avoid foreclosing options wherever possible so that they can make choicesdabout the use of nuclear energy as a low-carbon energy

resource and about the management of the nuclear fuel cycledbased

on emerging technologies and developments and their own best interests.”

The most recent study that analyzed the future of the nuclear fuel cycle in the U.S. [6] is in agreement with the Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations, and suggests a long term managed centralized storage of SNFefor about a century, while options for

advanced fuel cycles (both“open”and“closed”) are studied and a possible permanent geological repository constructed.

Thefinal report of the Blue Ribbon Commission was released in January 2012[39]. The Commission proposed 8 key elements for the future strategy regarding the back-end of nuclear fuel cycle: (1) A new, consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities. (2) A new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program and empowered with the authority and resources to succeed. (3) Access to the funds nuclear utility ratepayers are providing for the purpose of nuclear waste management. (4) Prompt efforts to develop one or more geologic disposal facilities. Prompt efforts to develop one or more consolidated storage facilities. (5) Prompt efforts to prepare for the eventual large-scale transport of SNF and high-level waste to consolidated storage and disposal facilities when such facilities become available. (6) Support for continued U.S. innovation in nuclear energy technology and for workforce development. (7) Active U.S. leadership in international efforts to address safety, waste management, non-proliferation, and security concerns.

The Commission believes that“this nation’s failure to come to grips with the nuclear waste issue has already proved damaging and costly. It will be even more damaging and more costly the longer it continues: damaging to prospects for maintaining a potentially important energy supply option for the future, damaging to stateefederal relations and public confidence in the federal

govern-ment’s competence, and damaging to America’s standing in the worlddnot only as a source of nuclear technology and policy expertise

but as a leader on global issues of nuclear safety, non-proliferation, and security.”

6. Conclusions

Both coal and nuclear power plants are likely to remain a crucial source of electricity in any conceivable future, representing the base-load electricity sources. It is predicted that coal use in the world will continue to increase having in mind that it is cheap and abundant. It is also predicted that nuclear power will continue to expend in Asia (China, India, Russia). In the U.S., both coal and nuclear industry is in a stand-by position, waiting for the new regulatory rules on hazardous emissions and safety to be decided upon.

Our analysis showed that nuclear power industry in the U.S. has been over-regulated (particularly after the Three Mille Island acci-dent in 1979), while the coal-burning power industry has been under-regulated. Since the start of civilian nuclear power program in the U.S. more than 60 years ago, no worker or an individual from public died due to radioactive emissions from NPPs, while hazardous emissions from coal-burning plants contribute per year, based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data to up to 17,000 of premature deaths; 11,000 heart attacks; 120,000 asthma attacks; 4,500 cases of chronic bronchitis and other illnesses. There is also a huge difference in the amount and volume of produced waste: million of tonnes per year for a coal-burning plant and less than 30 tonnes for a nuclear plant of the same size.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency isfinalizing a set of new rules that will considerably reduce hazardous emissions from coal-fired plants. While the various industry groups are warning that new regulations will cost utilities up to $129 billion, force them to retire one-fifth of coal capacity, increase cost of electricity production, cause rolling blackouts and reduce work-force, the environmental groups praise the EPA work, and point out that the new rules will have large public health and envi-ronment benefits, and that industry groups are exaggerating the cost. It is to be seen in the near future which of these two opposing views will prevail.

The U.S. Blue Ribbon Commission has also finalized recom-mendations regarding the long-term U.S. policy toward the SNF management, suggesting prompt efforts to develop one or more repositories, to dedicate sufficient funding for that effort, to solve the problem of spent fuel transportations, to have a single agency that will be incharge of spent fuel management, to develop good international collaboration and to continue to develop advanced nuclear technology. These are the necessary steps in assuring sustainability of nuclear energy in the U.S.

On the other hand, after the Fukushima accident, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved enhancement to emer-gency preparedness regulations governing commercial nuclear energy facilities, requiring reassessment of the seismic risks at the facilities, and added requirements for efficient plans to“manage the effects of aging”in nuclear facilities. Emphasis on risk assessment, safety and security of nuclear power plants, an increase in the cost of construction materials, concerns with the extension of life of the existing NPPs, caused the cost of the new power plant construction to considerably increase.

Regardless of the recent development, longer-term challenges remain for nuclear industry in the areas of spent fuel disposition, proliferation of nuclear technologies and materials, fuel resource management and fuel cycle economics. The coal-burning industry is also facing taxes for carbon capture and sequestrations as well as for the cost of hazardous pollutants reduction. If carbon-capture and sequestration tax is added, the levelized costs of coal and nuclear electricity production become comparable.

The degree to which both nuclear and coal power could sus-tainably meet long-term energy needs will depend on the sup-ported development of advanced technologies for hazardous emission reduction, for spent fuel management and fuel cycle options, together with sound national and international policy and regulation implementations.

References

[1] International energy outlook 2010. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/ EIA-0484; July 2010.

[3] Annual energy outlook 2011 with projections to 2035. U.S. Energy Informa-tion AdministraInforma-tion, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EIA-0383; April 2011.

[4] Resources and statistics: nuclear statistics. Available at:http://www.nei.org/ resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/[accessed August 2011].

[5] Ahn J. Toward environmentally friendly nuclear power: nuclear fuel cycle, radioactive wastes, and geological repositories. In: Presentation at the University of California at Berkeley; April 21, 2007.

[6] The future of nuclear fuel cycle: an interdisciplinary MIT study. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2011.

[7] The cost of new generation capacity in perspectiveewhite paper. Nuclear Energy Institute. Available at:http://www.nei.org/; May 2011.

[8] Power Reactor Information System Database. Nuclear power reactor in the world, 2010 edition. International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA-RDS-2/30 Available at: http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/index.html; July 2010 [accessed May 2011].

[9] Technology roadmapenuclear energy, Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and International Energy Agency (IEA). Available at: http://www.iea.org/ roadmaps/; 2010.

[10] A technology roadmap for generation IV nuclear energy systems. Generation IV International Forum (GIF). Available at: www.gen-4.org/Technology/ roadmap.htm; 2002.

[11] Nuclear Energy General Objectives, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series NG-0.http:// www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1523_web.pdf.

[12] Managing Radioactive Waste. Available at:http://www.iaea.org/Publications/ Factsheets/English/manradwa.html.

[13] Radioactive Waste Management. Available at:http://www.world-nuclear.org/ info/inf100.html[accessed May 2011].

[14] U.S. Energy Information Administration. Office of integrated analysis and forecasting. Available at:http://www.eia.doe.gov/.

[15] National Coal Resource Data System. U.S. coal quality interactive database prepared by the U.S. geological survey. Available at:http://energy.er.usgs.gov/ coalqual.htm.

[16] Kalyoncu RS. Coal combustion products. The U.S. geological survey report; 2001.

[17] Toxic air: the case for cleaning up coal-fired power plants. American Lung Association. Available at: http://www.lungusa.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/toxic-air-report.pdf; March 2011 (accessed May 2011).

[18] Radioactive elements in coal andfly ash: abundance, forms, and environ-mental significance. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-163-97, Available at:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.pdf; October 1997 http:// pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html; October 1997.

[19] The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposesfirst national standard for mercury pollution from power plants. Available at:http://www.epa.gov/ airquality/powerplanttoxics/actions.html; March 16, 2011.

[20] EPA fact sheet: proposed mercury and air toxic standards. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ powerplanttoxics/pdfs/proposalfactsheet.pdf; May 4, 2011 [accessed May 2011].

[21] Broder JM, Collins Rudolf J. E.P.A. proposes new emission standards for power plants. The New York Times; March 16, 2011.

[22] Ionizing radiation exposure of the population in the United States. Nuclear Council for Radiation Protection (NCRP) report no. 160; March 3, 2009.

[23] The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Available at:http://www.epa.gov/air/ caa/overview.txt[accessed May 2011].

[24] EPA proposes toxic emissions rules for power plants. The New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/03/16/16greenwire-epa-proposes-toxic-emissions-rules-for-power-p-96066.htmlMarch 16, 2011. [25] Cummins E. Intelligent design and implementation of nuclear power for

carbon free energy: the Westinghouse AP1000, presentation at CITRUS, The University of California at Berkeley; April 30, 2010.

[26] Conca JL, Wright J. A single global small-user nuclear repositorye9088. In: Waste Management 2009 symposium, Phoenix, AZ; March 1e5, 2009. [27] Hebert, HJ. Nuclear waste won’t be going to Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, Obama

official says, Chicago Tribune; March 6, 2009.

[28] Davis LW, Wolfram C, Deregulation. Consolidation, and efficiency: evidence from U.S. nuclear power. White Paper 217. Energy Institute at Haas, University of California at Berkeley; August 2011.

[29] Meier PJ. Life-cycle assessment of electricity generation systems and appli-cations for climate change policy analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin e Madison; 2002, http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/fdm1181.pdf [accessed August 2011].

[30] Environmental and Health Impacts of Electricity Generation. A comparison of the environmental impacts of hydro power with those of other gener-ation technologies, technical report ST3-020613b, The Interngener-ational Energy Agencye implementing agreement for the hydropower technologies and programmes,http://www.ieahydro.org/reports/ST3-020613b.pdf; June 2002 [accessed August 2011].

[31] New EPA rule could lead to rolling blackouts in Texas, PUC chairwomen says. Star-Telegram, http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/08/19/3301808/new-epa-rule-could-lead-to-rolling.html Friday, Aug 19, 2011 [accessed August 2011].

[32] McCarthy JE, Copeland C. EPA’s regulation of coal-fired power: is a“train wreck” coming? Congressional Research Service August 8, 2011;R41914,

http://www.lawandenvironment.com/uploads/file/CRS-EPA.pdf [accessed August 2011].

[33] Potential Impact of Environmental Regulations on the U.S. Generation Fleet. Final report by the Edison Electric Institute, http://www.pacificorp.com/ content/dam/pacificorp/doc/Energy_Sources/Integrated_Resource_Plan/ 2011IRP/EEIModelingReportFinal-28January2011.pdf; January 2011 [accessed August 2011].

[34] Banerjee N. Obama asks EPA to back off draft ozone standard. The Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-ozone-20110902,0, 6899709.story; September 2, 2011 [accessed September 2011]. [35] Vujic J, Bergmann R, Skoda R, Miletic M. Small modular reactors: simpler,

safer, cheaper? The 24th intl. conf. on efficiency, cost, optimization, simula-tions and environmental impact of energy systemseECOS2011, Novi Sad, Serbia; July 4e7, 2011.

[36] Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. Draft report to the Secretary of Energy, http://www.brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/brc_ draft_report_29jul2011_0.pdf; July 29, 2011 [accessed August 2011]. [37] Nuclear Energy and Addressing Climate Change. Nuclear Energy in

Perspec-tive, NEA/OECD, http://www.oecd-nea.org/press/in-perspective/addressing-climate-change.pdf; December 2009 [accessed August 2011].

[38] Climate Change 2007. Mitigation of Climate Change, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Cambridge University Press,http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_ and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg3_report_ mitigation_of_climate_change.htm; 2007 [accessed September 2011]. [39] Blue Ribbon Commission on the America’s Nuclear Future. Report to the

Secretary of Energy, http://bnrc.berkeley.edu/images/stories/News/brc_