ML19320D562
| ML19320D562 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1980 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Schwoerer D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007210530 | |
| Download: ML19320D562 (19) | |
Text
T 2 9tCh ps'*c i u
UNITED STATcs
., gg 4,
,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y'
.,-q g
'..E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%.....f JUN 6 1980 Mr. Dave Schwoerer 119 South McArthur Street Howards Grove, Wisconsin 53081
Dear Mr. Schwoerer:
~
In reply to your letter of April 21, 1980 enclosed are the folluwing documents that deal with the aspects of nuclear power you inquired about:
Statement of December 7,1979, by President Carter on the Kemeny Commission Report on Three Mile Island.
Chapter V on " Coal and Nuclear: The Transitional Energy Sources," from the Second National Energy Plan transmitted by President Carter to the Congress on May 7,1979.
I trust that this material will be of interest to you.
Sincerely, w
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated i
8 0 0 7 21_0-$3d
DECEMBER 7,1979 OR 3EiEDI ATE RE1, EASE OTTICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETAR THE WHITE HOUSE N
l STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE FE!ZNY a
REPORT ON THREE MILE ISLAND i
Roons 450, Old Executive Office Building i
I f
(AT 2:45 P.M. EST)
The purpose of this brief statment this 2.
blic, both in this country THE PRESIDENT:
afternoon is to outline to you and to the pu ssment of the,Kemeny and in other nations oi' the world," my own assed accident and I would Report recommendations on the Three Mile Islanlike t hts and actions of my own.
I have reviewed the report of the tommission, which I,,,
Mile Island nuclear h
est Oished to investigate the accid, ent at the T reeThe Com serious shortcomings in the way that both the powez plant.
industry regulate and manage nuclear power.
ht The steps that I am taking tcday 0111 help to assure t a Safety, as. it always has nuclear power plants are operated safely.
As I have said before, in and will remain, is my top priority.
f last resort. By this this country nuclear power is an energy source o been the direct use I meant that as we reach our goals on conservation, on h ic fuels, and of coal, on development of solar power and synt etl gas, as we reach those enhanced production of American oil and natura owe r.
goals, then we can minimize our reliance on nuclear p liance Many of our foreign allies must place much greater redo not hav than we do on nuclear power, because they We must get on with the resources that give us so many alternatives.
l o pass, job of developing alternative energy resources and we must a s the Congress, in order to do this, the legislation that I have proposed to erve energy.
To making an effort at every level of society to consin our country are the conserve energy and to develop energy resourcesBut we cannot shut the two basic answers for which we are seeking.
door on nuclear power for the United States.
t k The recent events in Iran have shown us the clear, s ar lds for our nation.
dangers that excessive dependence on imported oil ho rgy security.
We must make every effort to lead this country to eneincluding nuclear power l
Every domestic energy source,a country from our present over-dependence on I
are to be free as foreign oil.
unstable and uncertain sources of high priced we We do not have the lurury of abandoning nuclear power or A nuclear power Imposing a lengthy moratorium on its further use.
hly 13 ndllion plant can displace 35,000 barrels of oil per day, or rougWe must tak l
I agree fully with the letter barrels of oil per year, i
the safety of nuclear power production.
i ion recornendations, and the spirit and the intent of the Keneny Comm ss i
thers of which some of which are within my own power to implement, o h
tility rely on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the NRC, or t e u industry itself.
To get the Covernment's own house in order I will take gg
_ ~ - - ----- g -
i itn plan I will cand to th3 CCngress a reorganizatof the N
~,
i several steps. - First, f the Chairnan d provide this person with the power to itrengthen the role o of authority and responsibility ani f executive of ficer, with auth l
t better.
to act on a daily basis as a ch e ouirements in place and to imp emenmust be a d to put needed safety re during any emergency, procedures. The"Chairmanact on behalf of the Commission h i person of the Second, I intend to appoint a new c a rfrom outside that agency, In the meantime, I have Nuclear Regulatory Commission, someone enda' ion.
the NRC, to serve as the Chairman.
spirit of the Kemeny Commission reconn ompt implementation of the asked Commissioner Ahearne, now onMr. Ahearne w ndent advisor'y needed reforms.
d In addition, I will establish an in epe informed and the public of the United Statesindustr committee.to help keep. meof the progress of the NRC and the clear the recommendations usat nuc e ibility to the Federal Third, I am transferring respons a, to head up all off-site l te a thorough review of emergency Emergency Management Agency, the FEl reactors emergency activities, and to comp eof our country with operating nuclea states plans in all the Regulatory Commission and by June,19 80.
Fourth, I have directed the Nuclearnt to accelerate our program the other agencies of the Governmea resident Feder Government agencies to y reactor site.
Fif th, I am asking, ll relevant recommendations of the KemenyA d a
implement virtually all of the 'other all.
were 44 inextended briefing will be given I believe Obere being issued to the public and a more commission.
to the press this.af ternoon.
d organization, theble to With clear leadership and improve Government and the NRC will be better Executive Branch of Kemeny Commission recommendations.t p w s
act quickly on the crucial issuesafety procedures, an make nuclear power safer does not s o ibility In fact, the primary day by day responsage But responsibility to Federal Government.for safety rests with utility company man There is no substitute for technicaconstruc of nuclear equipment.
h and committed people working on t eof nuclear power plants.
$ome one person the inspection ssed.
Personal responsibility must be streboth at the corporate l must always be designated as' in charge,The industry owes it at the power plant site.
t to safety.
i people to strengthen its comm tmen the folipwing changest also utilities to implementthe industry must organize call on the for safe design, operation, and first, building on the steps already taken, I
nuclear industry must work togedier itself to develop enhanced standards construction of plantsr second, t eation a comprehensive trainin h
and for supervisors.
to develop and to maintain in oper examination, and evaluation programt r with the NRC t for operators This training program must pass mus e blished.
of the training prograr.s to be esta plants must be Third, control rooms in nuclear powerlified as much as po i
modernized, standardized, and s mp MORE
-.,_.. -, ~ ~ _ _ -
l 1
lcr cparcting hcurs and, of better informed -decision-::tking cmong ragu coursc, during emergencies.
ffort I challenge our utility companies to bend every e to improve the safety of nuclear power.
this Finally, I would like to discuss how we managehich t iting.
, transition period during ware.a number of new nuclear plants now awaUnder l There i
implemented.
operating licenses or construction pere ts.
Licensing decisions and as the Kemeny Commission cy.
Regulatory Commission is an independent ageni h Ifeensing t i
rest with the Nuclear Regulatory Commiss on, noted, it has the authority to proceed w tcase by cas i cumstances surrounding a plant or its application dictate.
ill pause 'in The NRC has l'ndicated, however, that it win order to devote issuing any new licenses and construction permitsin order and tighten its full attention to putting its own houseI endorse this approach which its work as qu c safety requirements.
adopted, but I urge the NRC to complete Once we have d
st resume the and in no event later than six months from to ay.
instituted the necessary reforms to assure safety, we mu d to reduce our licensing process promptly so that the new plants we nee d
dependence on foreign oil can be built and operate.
insure the safety The steps I am announcing today will. help toNu with the utilities I will join of nuclear plants.
Commission, the executive It is an option that we mut keep open.
and their suppliers, the Nuclear Regulatorydepartm and also the state and local governments to a, sure that the s
t ch will Now Dr. Frank Press, Stu Elzenstat, and John Deu s ii s and about be glad to answer your questions about these dec s on try. Frank?
nuclear power and the future of it in our coun
( AT 3:00 P.!!. EST)
END 6
9 e
e e
e
)
7
Ii 1
Ilouse Document NA 96-121'
!I i 96th Congrees. Ist Bession s
t
'..,i
[
i.
i I
SECOND NATIONAL ENERGY PLAN
,l
'[. - l
.t MESSAGE 5
i
..i FROM i
n iJ THE PRRSmENT OF THE UNITED STATES
{i n'
TRANSMITTING
,l e.
TIIE SECOND NATIONAL ENERGY PLAN. PUR8UANT TO BECTION 901 OF TIIE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ORGANIZATION ACT I
t "t
- i l
l hI i
i r
MAY 7.1979.-Message and accompanying papers referred to the 1
Committee of the Whole Ilouse on the State of the Union 1
i and ordered to be prtoted I
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 8:
4NO WA8111NOTON : 1979
{
L_
inn s
--,.2
n-
~
9 135 CHAPTER T COAL AND MUCLEAg: TNE TRANSITIONAL ENEgGY SOURCES Coal and nuclear power now supply 22 percent of the Nation's energy and must provide an increasing share se conventional oil and gas resources are depleted. Over three-fourths of domestic coal consump-tion and virtually all of the nuclear energy le now used to generate electric power, with oil and gae dominating trenoportation, space heating, and most industrial uses.
Although the Administration le encouraging the direct use of coal la industry, electric generation will continue to be the chief use of both coal (and nuclear energy) for at least the sent ' 40 years.
The growth la consumption of coal and nuclear depende in large measure on their environmental and public acceptability, and their competitiveness with oge another and with new technologies yet to come.
soth of these energy sources face two basic challengest o the need to resolve institutional and environmental problems that limit the use of esisting direct coal-fired and light water reactor plant technology 1 and o the timing and pace of development of more resource-efficient technologies, sultl as advanced coal-fired power cycles, alter-native nuclear fuel cycles, and advanced nuclear reactors.
The first challenge is one of technology survival rather thee econceice.
Unlese direct coal burning and light water reactor power plante ces achieve environmental and public acceptability, they will not be able to carry their projected share of new electric power generettoa. If either one falters, then the other will have to grow that mach f aster, further aggravaths its own difficulties.
And without competit!Oe f rom the other, the added pressure placed on the reesiaing source will drive its coste higher.
The second challenge-technology development-depende on the outcome of the first and on the growth in electricity consumption and develop-ment of other new energy ocurces. The role for technologies such as Magnetohydrodynamica (MHD), coal fuel celle, and the liquid metal feet breede r reactor will depend on how expensive they are compared to alternatives.
la the years since the embargo, perceptions of the role for these technologies have changed radically.
Electricity consumption, which has doubled every decade (7 percent per year) for more thee half a 1
-~~w e
136 137 century, is now espected to rise more slowly. The growth rate should gug33gg approach about half the historic avetage by the end of the century.
g Q
g g
This slower growth in demand, though welcome for many reasons, has O
seriously disrupted utility construction planning, particularly for C
O nuclear plants.
On the other hend, the slower demand growth will O
I l
g g
g g
- U postpone the potential depletien of uranium resources, avoids greater E
O 1 h environmental problems from more coal use, allows more time to develop technologies, and removes any urgent need to commercialise th e E
a
}uI new 3
e o
breeder reactor,
/ EL s
e C
C A.
Com!
O O
f o
o e
During the first half of this century, coal was the predominant fuel in the United States. In the late 1%0s, however, its dominance began to erode se consumers 'shif ted to cleaner, more convenient, and fre-quently cheaper energy forma -- primarily oil and gas.
Figure V-1 O
/
C s'
shows how the use of cost changed both as a fraction of total energy U
)
use and in physical terme.
/
~
E
,e Q
For many years, coal was a dominant fuel in all demand sectors.
including transportation, in which it supplied the railroads. As coal O
- ,/
3; b
declined in the 1950s, and even when it revived again in the late
,e 1960s and 1970s, it came to depend on one major market--utilities. In
,- O "y
1978, 18 perce9t of the coal used in the U.S. wee burned by the C
o g electric utilities.
>O
-(
g
>e n
Even today, however, U.S. coal reserves are 'still hundrede of timee fU greater than annual production levels. While domestic oil and natural 3
gas use le limited by supply, coal coneusption is limited primarily S n.
s by constrainta on demand.
Even when the fuel cost economics favor
& E coal, firms have been willing to pay sisable premiums for cleaner, g
more convenient fuels.
N o'
Many people remember the time when clouds of smoke hung over U.S.
g cities.
People also remember production disruptions, such as coat O
etrikes, i.hich threatened thc entire economy.
Coal mining has Q
~
cn historically t'sen a dangerous calling, and the health and safety of a
~
miners an urgent social concern. Even if past problema do not recur.
E the attitudes that were created by these probleme may persist.
3 In the past 15 years, coat's environmental probless have been curbed C
k o
O
(
g by Federal and State actione dealing with air and water pollution, underground mine health and safety, and, most recently, surface etning U
/
(
and reclamation.
However, utilities and industry often found it easier to meet new air emissio,a rules by switching to oil, gas, and lower sulfur coals, than by installing pollution control equipment.
gfy M
gg ag
- g. g s
o-2 JeeA Jed suoj, uonpW V-3
138 lations helped reduce fatalities and disabling injur-The progree for coal emphasises direct coal combustion, since about "I". " * *
- der round and surf ace eines. but worker productivity 90 percent of the coal coneused in this country in the sent 20 yeare I"
gell and labor costa rose (especially in underground will be burned direct a=.
Coat geettication. liquefaction, and other partly because of increased safety costo and oth-c econoste advanced technologies s/11 probably not, account n '
for a large share of
" " " ' there has been a shift f roe underground to eurf ace manang.
coat use before 2000.
As the new Surface Minin3 and Reclamation Act la implemented ove r th Mst, W ye
'h h
ste of surf ace mine production may Coal Conversion Keaulations I""
{
M anwhile c cern with another problem of fossil
[ ell coat use has been growing -- the accumulation of The Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974, (ESgCA)
- a dioside in the atmosphere from coal combustion, which might provided the authority to require coal use in boilers capable of rense temperatures and affect the earth's clisate.
burning coal.
The National Emersy Act entended and improved os the ESECA authority through the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act.
STRATEGY FOR COAL which au thoria n a variety of ngulatione for requiring esisting and boilere to use fuels other than oil or gas.
la particular.
new
" I 4 trillion tone of coal in place, and has econou-utility and large industriot boiler usere may be prohibited free IC*I I "*" "able re p rves that approach 200 to 300 billion tone.
burning oil or gae it. new unite unteen they show that they cannot use f coat hee risen to only 660 million tone per coat or another alterestive fuel.
Regulatione under the statute The Administ ation seeks to increase production and encourage will be promulgated shortly and will indicate how mach more costly g ester reliance on coal. To carry out this strategy the U.S. will.
coat use must be be fore an exemption to use oil or gas is greeted.
E and domestic,oal markete by vigorously implementing regu-The Department of Energy latends to use its statutory authority that rohibit the use of oil and gas in utility and vigorously, and thereby reduce oil importe by am estimated at industrial boilers. under the Powerplant and ladustrial 300.000 to 450.000 barrels per day by 1985. The Department is also worhing with Tuel Use Act of 1978.
" E"I*I **** P* NCI" '
- d progresa do not needlessly hamper utilities and industry free con-Encourage the development of better estasion control technol les verting to coal.
o that both esisting and new utility and industria n burn coal directly and still co* ply with current and antici-One provision of the Fuel Use Act deserves special seation. Before cipated environmental et mdards.
certai,a exemptaone can be grcnte*, at must be shows that use of coel-ott maatures le not feasible.
These slurry-like mistures contain Demonstrate the capability to produce synthetic liquida and gas pulverised coal and oil. They can be burned as liquida la as oil-fired o
from coal by the mid 1980s so that significant capacaty can be furnace - etther la esisting oil burning f acilities when it built in. the 1990s--if increasing world oil prices make them le not feasable to conve rt escluetvely to cool. or in new facilities when cospetittve.
exclusive use of coal is forec,losed for environmental reasons.
hnologies that will allow a more etficient and The. technical feasibility of such sixtures has been demonstrated envaro en ally acceptable use of coat in the 1990s and beyond.
only for short periode.
More information is needed on toeg-ters per-formance, the range of. applications, and especially on the ability to I
ve the competitive economics of coal by correcting ott and transport and store the elurries. If the mistures could be produced rice distortions; develop cheaper ways to mine coal an an at a central' plant and shipped to a variety of users, they could be Ee all acce tible manner; and discourage a,ncreases in used more widely then at they had to be produced on site.
Current co 1 prices that du not reflect rest increases in the cost of testing prograno should answer many of,these questione.
producing and delivering coal.
V-5 V-4
140 m
l Environmental Problems of Coal Combustion Nitrogen oxide rulesione depend on the amount of nitrogea la the coal and the combuetton conditions that can convert nitrogen la the air into r
nitrogen ontdee.
Compliance with environmental standards poses the greatest potentiat Coat contains more nitrogen than other fuels a
re-constraint on increased direct use of coal. Unless these standarde can vottr t the general fossil fuel problem. Special combustion techa ques be met at competitive coste, many fires that anght use coal will turn can teduce nitrogen oxide emiteione elightly. But major new technolo-to other fuels instead. The Department of Energy has accelerated its stes. such as
' post-combustion" controle, will be necessary if reduca in nitrogen oxide emissions from stationary sources are needeJ.
efterte to develop new technologies for improved emissione control.
ttons The Department is working with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies to develop appropriate control strategies for Parti:ulate emissione can be ef fectively reduced with current technolo-complying with environmental regulations. The future of coat conver-stes Much as electrostatic precipitators.
But current technologies alon depende in large measure on the success of these ef forte.
are no" as effective for the very small, respitable particulates most c osely associated with hestth and visibility effects.
These small Although coal utilisation is af fected by many environmental standards.
Particulates act se carriers for trace elemente and hydrocarbone, man which may air pollution is the major problem.
Some of the water pollution and a
as houses,_be tosic or carcinogenic. Alternative controla, such a solid wastes problems affecting coal use arise from the techniques may be needed to reduce respirable particulate esiasions, used to reduce air emissione f rom coal combustions.
controle have not yet been used widely by utilities.
The air pollution control standards that individual utility and Water pollution and solid w
"** I" indu'etrial coal-burning plante must meet depend largely on the age and many years. More stringent et darde H by the Federal Water Polle-location of the facility. Most plante that asisted in 1975 must meet tion Control Act Amendments of 1977 he Enource Conservation and n
the emisolon standards in the Clean Air Act's State Implementation Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 m f Problems for the Plane (Stra). New f acilities met meet New Source Performance Sten-technologies used to control sulfur diosi e emiseloos.
derde (NSPS), which are currently being revised. Those new facilities for which construction was started before September,1978, met meet This brief review shove that th c
c tion en the esisting MSP* standarde. Facilities for which construction began various and formidable. Severst
" hP tech uloglu being introduced td'alti et later will have to meet the forthcoming MSPS erandards and the still are will f acilitate the continued d{ " publeme, gg successful they undefined new requimente for visibility maintenance.
By 1985 less
- E' "I ***'
than 15 percent of coal burned in the U.S. will be affected by the of electricity until impreved 4 i
"* rgy sources are revised NSPS, but by 1990 more than one third will be subject to the available.
Also, synthetic fuel c acy technolo-new standarde. In addition to these minimum standards, special gies, discussed later in this Ch permitting procedures are required by the Clean Air act that will, lead the emissione problems of direct to us' tion tec niquu.
to tighter controle in prietine areas and in areas not attaantag health standarde.
Sulfur Ouide Controle 3 gf net coal combustion can be controlled in hMe> general ways:
Air Pollutant Riehe -- Coal combustics emite a variety of air pollu.
tants that may damage the environment and public health -- including i
sulfur dioside, nit roge n oxides, particulates, hydrocarbons, and o at the front end (bel I"
carbon monomide.
Compliance with esisting sulfur dioside emission sulfur coat or elsaning of h Eher 8ulfur coat; standarde la the most costly. Closely related and possibly even more difficult to regulate and control are the sulfates forced from sulfur o at the back-end (aft
- l
- f dioside and particulate matter. Sulfates may have significant effects sulfur cuides f rne the flue gesi end on human health and ecology. They can be transported several hundred miles in the atmosphere and then "weehed out" in the form of " acid o during _specialited combustioe'
"~
reine," which adversely affect both plante, animal life, and humana.
idised bed combustion) th
'"II"'
Together, sulfur oxides and sulfates are likely to constitute the oxides se as part of the co ust(on process.
single moet important near-tere constraint on direct cost use.
l V-7 1
V.-6 T
i
A v~n W 143
~
142 Fluidised bed combustion (FSC) is another way to meet eir pollution r cleaning of higher sulfur coal are two common standards with high sulfur coals. The coal burne la a fluidised bed Use of low sulfur coa IFe. u recially for older plante. They of coal and lleestone. Sulfur dioside is captured chemically by the ways to meet current for u v plante required by the Clean Air lleestone and discarded with the seh.
Seall industrial-scale FDC may not entisfy N o sulfur coal. obtained with or units are avellable now and the Department of snergy is encouraging Act Amendments of Ig Use of lower without physical clean ng. is an attractive method to meet cu rrent demonstratione. Larger-scale utility systees require more technical leu than back-end (post-combus-development and initial commercial demonstratione. la the meer ters.
emission standards beca t c to og 3D&D for pre-combustion coal cleantag industrial FBC systeme should provide energy at about the ease cost as II*"I **"I' at $10 ettlton in 1979 and $14 million in FY 1980.,.-
conventional coal coobustion with FCD. Aside from their environeratal advantages. F8C systems could also beccee more econceital and ef fi-removal of a substantial Part of cient once they have been fully demonstrated and are being built However., revised N5PS will require content. *Without ase of another contro in commercial quantitles.
Development of fluidleed bed combustion the coal e original ouIf se aas desulfurization), most front-end clean 'P erstees le funded at $41 million la FY 1979 and $48 million la FY technology (such as method that will, however. 18 1980.
will not meet the new stande o.
an u h-free, hydrogenated solid solid solvent refin'd
*I g -1)My standards for new plante Secause of the critical importance of environmental controle for direct coal product that any are without Post-combustion control On the other hand. some of the coal use and the uncertain relative coste of all these approaches in nologies have been found to contain the face of current and projected standarde, the Govermeent's otrategy te
, intermediate producte 9 e d tonic substances. Although there to "*
is to develop several major technology optiosa os se accelerated basis.
potentially carcinogentC sently it is clear that worker and Total funding for these efforte jumped from $17 million la FY 1979 to regulation of these y pr In recent years'
$57 million in FY 1980.
public health smet be prote ted f rom o ch etfluente.procuou f or solvent refined the Government has support' liquid. Funding for Synthetic Liquide and Cases coal ** one that produces a solid and the other a one cceaercial demonstration ant a linked to an upcostag Funding ad FgC liquid processes.
Tne Coverseest lateads tg pemonstrate the capability to produce synthe-competition butween t tration plant would now be provided f rom tic liquide and see froe cost by the mid 1980s so that siggificant f or a second commerc capacity can be built when oil prices rise enough to eeke synthetice the goergy Security Fun.
competitive.
Technologies for asking premium synthetic liioids and Back-end control systema, yerticularly flue gas desulfurination (FGD).
p peline quality gas free coal can be modified to aske lower cost
- However, industrial fuels.
Industrial use of synthetic fuelt will depend on fur oxide emission standarde.
are nou betag used to see their econounce an re I ty have not be en demonstrated f uy?'
the economic conditione in the industry and whether health and eavt-standards are betag ronmental problems associated with production and use of synthetico stringent even more New FCD systems to seet F D technologies, particularly regenerable ces be resolved.
In fact, eatisfactory developer e t of all of these developed. These teprove antes collected and thus reduce many of technologies depende on solving environmental and wirker safety issues f
este dispoest problems which f ace the " throw-la parallel with economic and technical issues.
te ater u
and away" processes.
th*
different research, pilot, and demonstration projects as well se par-The gnergy Department's synthetic fuel progree imeludes a musher of a
are espected to be available an The new "regenerable efftema for existing and improved ticipation in international 360 programe.
The following activities sulfur en,tsen a control coats f rom aW g.40 to $.70 per eillion stus (compared are underways
~
1980s.
The systems will range with coal costs of $1.00 t $i 50 per million Stue). FGD is a critt-cal control techno'.ogY Lhat requires high prioritF ig coal to to o
Demonstrations of the manufacture of boiler fuele from coal to realise its full market '
tial. The gnergy Department's budget displace residual fuel oils and other products. Demonstration to hu been increased from $3.illion in FY 19 of a Solvent Refined Coal (SgC) process on a commercial-scale leprove FGD techno 037 to $15 million la FY 980.
has high priority, and related processes are being pursued in the pilot plant phase.
l V-8 V-9 1
1
y w--
- .; n 1
'44 145 o Limited investmente in altetaative ways to produce coal substi-tutes for lighter oil products-such as gasoline. distillate N E V*1 fuelo, and methanol.
FITMDINC FOR COAL STNTMETIC3 o commercial-scale use of a conventional seeification process to (Million Dollare) convert nonceking hestern coat to pipeline gee.
o Support of *n advanced geof fication process to demonstrate the
-%f III9
_FY 1930 ability to uom a broader range of coals and to lower costs.
4.lquefaction 3Ipeline (ul-ar ) Caelfication 122.3 u
o Espanded BD&D to stimulate industrial uses of medium Stu gas.
Low and Hedlue stu Cae
.0 35.0 low Btu gas and synthesis gee from coal.
Advanced Research
.0 40.7 and Support M
M o Development of methods to reduce synthetic fuel costs by work on highly advanced (" third generation") processes.
Total 366.0 291.7 o Research and development to define the environmental and esfety effects associated with the production and use of coal-derived The Fund cou'd also make avellable I liquide and gases. These efforts will also develop appropriate synthetic projects which need Feder guarantu e for selected ccal-control technologies and the operational environmental date on barriers. Although current Federal et
- 'I'"
which to base future standards and regulatione.
tee authority to the Department of E
- 8"*'*"
requirements that inhibit th {
a number of Ce These activities span a wide range of processes and fuel products. But Administration will propose modifications f e isting statutes to certain elements are common to many of the processes and specific streamline procedures for makina 1can guarantus.
applicatione. Virtually all of them involve gasification. either to
_ Improved Coal Use Effici conve rt raw coal into gas for further procre s ing or to convert a residual char into hydrogen for subsequent use.
For this reason, it should not be necessary to build separate pilot or demonstration Many advanced coal technologies g plante for every possible combination of processes to make liquida or the promise for auch higher effic en
- N Md gases.
Judicious selection of R&D projects, pilot plante, and coe.
electricity. These technologies al ee 8
fue coal to mercial demonstrations can develop useful inforwation on a wide spec-part of the process rather than in back-
- L * ** ** i"I*8I true of coal synthetic optione.
are several major technology optioner
- Mere As Table V-1 shous, the Administration continues to support a robust o
Magnetohydrodynamica (sego) ein of programa for synthetic fuels. Due to stringent budget require" and very high te
- 8d'8ated generatioe techniques mente the Administration had to be more selective when funding demon-
-electricity at h efficiency for base load applications.
- PMcess to generate stration projects in FY 1980. However, creation of the Enerry Security Fund will help support more projects to develop major technology o
_ Advanced fuel celle options.
For esemple, the Fund will make it unnecessary to choose city in electro 1Mc hetic gas from coal to electri-s between the SRC-1 (solids) and the SRC-II (liquide); the Federal share mediate load generati P on for base or inter-for a second SRC plant would come out of the Fund.
1/ Fuel celle that fuel are becoming commercial now;use naturet gas or petrolever-based nephth V-10 a
but fuel celle that use coal-based fuele still require esteceive development.
-m ae V-11
_..__..m.
l 146 147 o Pressurised fluidised bed (FFs) combustion links fluidised bed o yg,g 8 *
'8Ise of combustion with advanced turbines and other heet recovery rese e in the v Federally-oveed coag eystems to achieve high efficiencies la the generation of the ladustry.
This 1 8P 8F88 le latended not only to
" " 888 Competitles withis electricity. This technology may be more effective in reducing permit greater coal at lande, but also to emissions than atmopheric fluidised bed combustion.
88eure that auch pr o ti e
a e
!and use management principles.
c M nhessive o leproved turbinee 'cas attain higher operating temperatures and a Federal R&D will higher efficiencies, as well as handle heavier and dirtier mining technology. The 360 I
de ground and surface 88* "Or8 officient fuels within environmental limitatione.
coal minias le funded at $66
- 18 I
and $46 million in FY 1980 The 3
""4 " II 88Prort the acceler-Most of the advanced ePectric generating systems that emphaeine fuel sted developme nt of 8 8 ee that will increase both efficiency will play a longer term role in the Nation's energy worker safety and labo strategy. One esception le a technology that combinea coal gasifice-land reclamation regulat 8e e I as aset water and ne.
tion with a gas turbine and a steam cycle. With advanced high-temper-ature turbines, this " combined cycle" system can raise efficiencys o
The Dtpartment of gner ill i '"'
- 8 8 accessary before the lower generating costo, and reduce emissions in the long ters. With Interstate Commerce C i
esaventional turbines; the system still has significant environmental properly reflect the aargisal cost of transportlag coal.
Hu that reitroad rette advantages; sad it may permit coal-fueled electric generation, though et higher cost, even la areas with severe environmental constrainte.
o Coal slurry pipeline i
Accordingly, one California utility system and a consortium of Midwest coal, and to deliver t 8 e ity to use utilities latend to demonstrate auch a coal-fired combined cycle mined to plants where it e a as where it le
' i'*
systes.
supporte legislation to ensure that * *I *I"FrF pipelines can secure necessary rights of **F*
The Administration will fund programa for the advanced converoi coal slurry pipelines E80** 8ppropriate condigia,
technologies at $184 million la FY 1979 and $143 million to FY 1980.p petition and offer a cheaper way to apy. coo l.
gach 878 ** 8pprovat requires a careful assessment of i e eter avellability, loc g Coal Supply and Production ecology, and competing no e og stration will work with th e Adelai.
" 8" "
"'I*P
- 'IIICI8't Coal use will not increses if supplies are too costly.
Movement review procedure to minimi e he time required for.these toward replacement-cos t. pricing for oil and gas will make coal use assessmente end to a888Ee prompt decisions.
och more attractive.
sut coal prices are not regulated, and some oit-import savings may not occur if those prices needlessly increase.
The President has also directed th having the major responalbiliti Me edMal agencies 8
n gulation--the Department The Adelaistration intende to discourage higher coal prices that do not of the Interior. the De ' '
reflect real increases in the cost of producing and delivering coal
. Fro..ction Agency--to report t
h,
, nerg. and the gavironmental increase coal production, de,8Iopeent and use. days concernies ways to supplies.
It will also support development of more cost-effective methods to mine and transport coal in an environmentally acceptable manner. Specific actions include the folicwing:
V-13
~1/ This accounting does not include funding for fluidised bed combus-tion.
V-12 l
{
t l
l t
6
e 148 I49 3.
puelear pon e rical demand until new sources such as solar were developed. This would cause serious envirormental, occupational safety, and social Although nuclear power has its origine to nuclear weapon reasarch problems as well as the yeastb11ty of a significaat rise in coal conducted during World War 11, nuclear-generated electricity was not prices.
leportant in the civilian economy until the early 1960s. At that time, af ter government and industry had jointly funded and operated several STRATEGY FOR arUCLEAR POWE1L demonstration plante, electric utt11 ties began to place orders for large numbers of commercial nuclear reactore. The first of these began
- First, operation la the early 1970s. Ordere for new nuclear plante exceeded the Administration seeks to re-establish the light water reactor orders for coal-fired plante through the late 1960s and early 1970s.
(LWR) with the once-through fuel cycle se a viable supply option and thereby ensure that nuclear power will be a elselficant source of From 1911 through 1978. utilittee placed orders f or 105 aclear plants.
energy for the rest of this century.
Second, it will continue the gy 1978. 38 of these orders had been cancelled. In al. of 1978, only development of nuclear power se a poteettal backup technology for the two new plants were ordered.
aest century. To implement this strategy, the Administration to pursuing two courses In part. this eherp decline reflects the downward rew' stone of elect-ricity growth f orecsets. Equally important, however, public concerne have increased over a series of unresolved questione about nuclear To establish the oefety of nuclear power sad resolve other o
power--epecifically, the management o' nuclear wastes, the safety of technical and institutional isonme now tapedtog auclear growth!
and reactor operations, health and envirowntal risks, and proliferation of senclear weapone. termitting delays saising from the public contro-we re 19.s over these critical tesues cof acided with a substantial To develop new technologies that permit expanded use of emclear o
resources.
dec11r.e in labor productivity. Some nuclea*; projecto espertenced large cost overruns and of ten required what some utility executives viewed as Liaht Water Reactors-The Technical And lastitutional leones escesolve management attention.
the recent accident at the Three M11' !aland plant to Fen =sylvania has To reestablish the light water reactor se a viable supply optios, three s
reinforced estety and other pubite concerne. But as the U.S. regarda teeues suet be resolved-rMeter safety, nuclear weste management, and secteer etting sad liceostag. Until reacter safety and weste manage-See energy options after Three Mile Isl and, the role of nuclear power rest issues are resolved, ettlittee w111 heettete to commit to new amis t receive a cwaaidered and objectsve assessmeet.
The future of euclear plants.
nuclear power will change-for the better, if esfety and other 1seues Improved siting and licensing procedures are needed to ease the treesition through this period of ascertainty by changing the are successfully resolved.
requiremente for planetes additional plante.
Other Federal programs are designed to leprove urastum ut111sation so that esisting uremium the U.S. now obtains 13 percent of ite electricity f rom suclear power.
resources can fuel a larger ember of light water reactore, seing a Any precipitate actice to close a large number of reactore in operettoo once-thtough fuel cycle. This will est. sew; the time available before now could settously aggravate U.S. oil tagert dependence. In the long breeder reactore seed to be commercialised.
term. nuclear energy can help ensure a balspeed energy supply cyttem-6 In the obsence of a nuclear power, siternative domestic energy supp1T
_ Reactor Saf etv-la response to the three Mile f aland accident, the sources (especially coal) would be harder pressed, and their costa Freefdent has established a f ully taiependent Presidential Commiestes, pushed higher.
lacluding nuclear suporte..The Commiselon will investigates
- In the past. coal, oil, gee, uranium, and hydropower have competed with o the circumetences that led to the accid' set and the e*este that each other for shares of the electricity market, gegional factore folleeed!
determined the air, and the price of electricity hse been etable. In the future. however, cost to expected to replace large quantittee of o
9 the technical questione that the accident ratees about the oil and gre in electricity a nd many industrial uses.
Coal use is erpected to double or triple by the end of the century and continue to operation of safety and back-up systems for this plant and pleet destgol and grow at 3 percent a year thereafter. If nucieer power were not evel -
able, coal would have to sapply most of the mid and long term elect-15 V-14 L
150 151 1sesle of government.the nattr3 cnd toequacy of the respones to the accident b e
y all A number of poteettal attee la a e
The Frasident has asked mente should be identified,g,,,g the Nuclear Segulatory Commiselon (W3C),
independent regulatory vartetI
- r.o.1ve. wheaer to se o 7 ate a~u be taken t.
body, to accelerate its schedule for putting M W
- '1 Me-an permanent resident NRC inspectors national repoettery for w etes shoul at e progres started in 1978, the NRC now has permanentevery reactor ette.
Under tepositories la operationstrategy should seek to hav
'** ' '8
- reactor attee cosering 26 individual reactor unOs.
inspectore at 20 also ina*ructed the Department of Energy The Frealdent has technical and other with1e thi* C'*tury8 to deteralr.e abst additional s af ety
- }
to work closely with the NEC should be coseid issofer se la differmet precautione may be characteristiceregional approach, the geolog "F**I"'I'*
to necessa ry, Nucic1Vaste Manaaement-asdioactive wastes hyde such a var 1%y of of the ett constitute the primary beets osic, and other techolcal ate activit tee-resea rch, medicine.
generated in a wide Over the last decade, the public has become incrematoglyoperations, and in the operation of comm defense-related nuclear election.
or a
Construction end operati actors.
whether these westes can be safely managed.
steps.
f concerned over Initial emplaces to the question of whether nuclear power generatioThis concera has been tied repoeltory, should be pisaned at of west to espand.
n should be allowed baale.
The westes
- II'*I should be rett semble f of time.
The memoer and circumetences la secognising the urgent
- 8'*
retrieved and the technical
- 1977 Nationalneed to find en effective solution to the p robles, the April wh
- at a d h.adling
.t be,.,ti e t e; W
- a 1 waste would be snergy Plan pled to develop a national nuclear weste management policy and progree.ged
.1 + costal.-
A second major waste management visve Fresident established an lateragency geview Croup (IRG) andof pertinent Federal agencies and State and To acquire the and future uranium mill trailingsconcera to th*
e,the design a strategy F888
- Ecoselve health riske. the De
- I'*I"8 la th F*
f or dealtag.with the waste management problem.
asked it to progrene loceLone.to stabilise "I
- I"**
O* C The primary objective of weste management planning and i In additiontailings at t e a t*
- 1s to escure that mplementation arrau bet.g d.vele,ed to meet t,nologies y =tailise "I
e new tech remove r
civilian activittee (including spent"ezisting and future nuclear weste f rom military and them to other Away-fro reactor fe e,,e,,
(AFg agent criteria.telltes. are biosphere and pose no significant (nel) should be isolated from the temporary) bridge igg developed the threat needed as a TI.e storage of to public health and safety."
concept of an beste" to use during the interim.
" interim strategic plaantog reetter ette and permanent betwo ato I*
Carolinal Morris,modificettom of an e 1 sting stor studies had not eince the required environmental sad asfety repoettort not be reached.
been cosylated and final dec1 stone could yet O'
1111aogog,, age fac11gt7 Mn *h
" MM8 of a new facility withi g,,g,,gl The IRC found the most a rmte off. shore arme.n the U.g.I o
" I8TU8 pavell, south need was for a esfe, permanent e net h etton of a new facility lacometraction urgent Itory for high-level allitary The Administrettoa takes the respos.
and civilten wastes (including opent fuel).
Such an effort will require detailed studies of repoettery of some maleting storage (ac111needed by 1983 for dom
- 8m AM etonge capacity is ettee in a catti using a systemswide variety of geologic environmaats and diverse approach.
- media, under the National Environmental Policy Act,Pending completion of the dectaton process wtahes
'C**se of this deadline, see limited amounts of foreign opentto moeure foreign
- usere th 18 the folloutng actions from the interim planningthe IRG has recommended e.
Furthermore, the U.g.
proliferation obje'ettves.
t
- ** '*ceive go,g, utent this
,t,t impact espes non-V-16 statemente on AFs 1/
These.gzisting storage facilittee of commercial reprocesatos plentwere built by industry as pe rmit t ed, these industrist ownere.facilittee are e.
stace reprocessing to not not being fully utilised by their V-17
- ew w.
-e
, I
152 153 domestic fuel storage, foreisn fuel storage and fee charges for such It le essential that questione aboat eefety and environmental protec.
storage should be coup g ia ar.
In addition, en environmental tion and the timeliness with which the procase is carried out be teatial ARF ettes te now being prepared.
reviewed thoroughly and necessary changes made.
The Adataistration The eae ion has sub tted legislation to Congress to toplesmat espects to work with the Congrees to find the appropriate next stepe to this AFR program.
improve the siting and licensing process to aneure both greater saf ety and efficiency. The Secretary of Energy will submit smclear sittag and The anergy Department has funded weste managew nt programa in the licensing legislation to Congrese, amounto shown on Table T-2.
Uranium Resources and Their Use TAgLE b 2 Concern over whether the U.S. uranium resource base le odoquete has led to pressures to accelerate the breeder program and to commit to FUNDING FOR NUCLEAR ESTE MANN.yy reprocessing. Because of the large uncertainties la present knowledge.
(Million of Dollare) a systematic appraisal of domestit uranium resources le being conducted through the National Urantu Resource Evaluatlos Program (NUgE).
It O
fT 1980 1s designed to lay an adequate foundation for future f uel cycle decintone end domestic and f oreign utility pleoning.'
Comercial Defense 12 To recover the se minum energy from the domestic resource base, the Spent Fuel Disposal gg 21 Department of Energy has developed programs to:
Avey from Reactor I
Storage 0
Scientate private industry g&D to isprove light water reactor operating efficiency.
Total D9 o Construct se energy efficient gas cent'rifuge serichment plant destaned to produce 343 million " separative work unite" (SW).
Nuclear $1 tina and Licenaten Le11 elation-Last year the Administration The first 2 2 million SW are now pleened to be is operettoo proposed legislation to reduce the uncertainties in the nuclear pouer around 1968.
Additional 1 1 million SW modules ces be added up plant siting and licensing process and to shorten the 10 to 11 **st to design capacity as demand grows. The added capacity permite period it now tekee to plan, design and build a plant.
The 1-operation of the enrichneet enterprise la a way that conser ree intration will coettaue to work with Congress to reduce unnecesb 4
uranium resources by recovering a greater portion of the fise11e duplicative stepa la the sittag and licensing process without cg.,
urentum tootope, mising eefety.
o Develop adva nced f ootope, separat1oe technology (AEST).
This The key provisions of the bill included early site sele-ction. envit -
technology, if successfully devefoyed, would permit econceic 1
mental and saf ety review. and " banking" of a site before cone.ruction production of nuclear. f uel f rom depleted scantes "taile."
permite are filed for. It ateo provided for early approval _ etandar-thereby increasing by about 20 percent the enriched uranium dined plant designs independent of the site selection procces and recoverable from known r,eserves.
combining the application f or a construction permit and an operating license. The bill transf erred much of the responsibility to the states Enemine advanced con,verter reactor concepte in cooperation o
and called for more pualic involvement in the decisionmaking prccess.
with foreign developero as an alternative way to Secrease uranium conversion efficiency.
The Department's funding for these activittee to summarised la Table V-3.
1/ Special authorisation request accompany ing proposed legislation
- for away f rom reactor storage f acilittee.
ggg V-18 e
L e
r 154 155
~.
TAgLE V-3 Thie Administration, however, believes that rapid steps toward breeder commercle11:stion are not needed now.
The tintag of the breeder g IMPROVED URAN 1UM UTILIIA progras depends on the economic need f or the technology and on soapro-literation issues.
It is also linked to 'resoluttom of the reactor (Million Dollare) safety and waste management probleme effecting the whole nuclear U.)I I g
option. The leading breeder candidate (liquid metal f ast breeder),11 commercialized, would necessarily lead to reprocessing and to wide-apread use of plutonium.
The President, la the contest of his non-National Uranium tesource
,9 84 Proliferation policy, directed deferral of such activities and cancel-Evaluation (NURE) 24 15 1ation of the C11ach River Breeder Reac to r project while alterne-Light Water ReactGr tive f uel cycles are esamined.
.fficiency 409 White preliminary results of the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle 241 Cao Centrifuge Operations Evaluation (INFCE) do not suggest the likelihood of risk-proof breeder a Support (including alternatives, imp rovements over cu rrent and p ropos ed practices are cenetruction) being developed. The INFCE is conaldering various technical approaches 4
to tap roving the proliferation resistance of breeder and converter
, Advanced lootope Separation reactor fuel cycles.
It le ateo studytag the appropriate timing for their development and commercial use.
Advanced Converses m ar (Gas Cooled Th****g g ggage)
Over the past decade, economic argumente have been used to justify the 339.
g pace of the breeder program.
Such justifications hinge on a few key Total tactore-the overall demand for electricity, the urastum resource base.
-262 493 reactor efficiency, and the relative capital coats of laght water Revenues f rom Enrichment dome s tic urastus resources are *'etted, and if breedere cost little reactors and breeders.
If the demand for electricity grows rapidly, if operations Excluding Centrifuge ytant but more than light water reactore a rapid ceamarcialisetton would be including Sales of economically attractive. Such,
.eptione prevailed to the late 1960s garichment Servi es.
and early 1970s when electricity generation, particularly nuclear electricity, was growing rapidly.
sd New Technotoales Since the 1973-74 oil embargo, several circumetsoces have changed.
in the lost cars' the U.S. Wigg gely increas ly en renewable Projections of electricity growth rates have dropped f rom 7 percent a or er ructor is year to around 3 to 4 percent for the long ters. Light water reactor essentially 1**"heuettble sources of
- I7
- option because it has EM capability to produce gr uth.has slowed because, of the problema noted earlier, indicattag he breeder reactor that uranium resources will last longer.
Finally, early optimistic one long-term e
,=y guel than it consumes
.g 1 for light estimates of breeder reactor capital costs ranging from 0.9 to 13 more f1881 0817
- g,g, igself, but would a times those of light water,.reactore have been replaced by settmates of would not 3.25 to 1.75.
~
water reactore f or an option that laterest in Lhe breeder reactor grew out og a dee rdisappear with the inevitable enhausgioa of natural f *selle These changed f actors hm been reflected to a recent analyets of the stes promised eget pace of breeder de ve lopmen t.
Typical of this analysis le the case would not inconaified when early
- utentua.
The rut lower coat
- gy gros the breedes than f r ia the light water summarised la Figure V-2.
Nuclear electri:ity densad is ' described by talisation.
the amount of installed nuclear capacity 1a 2000 and in 20201 uranius reactore, and rssuited in programs for estly coman resources are described in terne of price; and breeder capital costs
-~
are described in relation to LWR capital costs. Figure V-2 shove that V-20 with reasonably attainable improvemente la current LWR fuel ef ficiency.
breeders would not be needed until after 2020 in most cases.
The exceptions are when uranium costs are high, nuclear demand is high, and V-21
I 156 157 i
o O"
breeier capital costs are law.
the breeder be economically justified la theDaly under the most estreme cases wo 2000-2010 period bo ful development of advanced teotope separettoe technologies would eas Succese-C the pressure for an early breeder even further.
O" 4 e
breeder capital costs of 1.25 times those light water r aGO
, for mith r n1== reic -
. and for I
In light of this economic analycle, the four poselble 3D&D program 8
k stratestes will be considered below
^
^
m 6
8 e
y
{
This strategy soeunes that b
o late Breeder.
.b adequate for a long period of once-through light water reactorthe r e
O
~
t operatione, that the nuclear growth rate will be low, or "g
a o 8
that breeder economics will be unf avorable.
breeder development would be pur=ued at e low level and comme g
O'S 8
8 cielisettoo of the
._ g N
e A dectaton on a demometration plantbreeder would be sible.
g gy
.5 poe-g untti so would be would be deferred the 1990s, o,,
,o reprocessing developoset. Light e
32:
z water reactor improvemente, advanced conve 8
y k
j
- sent, sod
=e
.a centrifuge facility deployeest and
- ' g 3O d
develoyeest would be 7 haelsed.
en WF E~
8$
, eda.d.,eede,. n,1.
.trat.g,.e.u o
ll> E t,.t t,....ou,c.
.e.
muelear growth, g
gg and breeder economico do not require rapid 6-commercialisation of g El
.,C teint7, the strategy would maintata sufficleatSowever, because of uncer-the breeder.
O WTg
.! g%
30 OPtione sa that
,7**
J flexibility and
.h ever 1.fomation.r evoet. program shif ts could be ande ese1*y g
i V j
tiv.1, gk for light water reactore, advenced ci,averter reactore dictet..
oo,rog,.
S ed tootope separation, uranium reeource evaluation, and cost
, advanced 8
8g facilittee would be rifuge 2 =g s
E
.f 7,
,3
.9
.G E
- late breeder.
emp haels ed, but less strongly thee to the e
85 e
Q.
1
.C 5
]
3
- - 8 Breeder development would continue et a moderate level with emphante on engingering and couponent developoset.
O e
E a
y y
,a f
.9 E
g on a d==oastration plaat could be takes la 1981. but also could w
r g
I, f
A dettatoe o
be deferred until 1986-1990.
Plane O
5 I
1 E
M-year cosmercialtestion f or both a 20-year and a C
progree could be developed.
gopro-E cessing technology would be developed, but commercialisettoe deferred.
E B
"53 This program attempts to minimise risk 'at a moderate coat.
-h gn cs q
{y o Early Breeder.
y This strategy assumes that the ureatum ore base to is limited, that breeder economics will be verythe nuclear growth rate will be
'S a s that la fororable. It toplies "O
% $.cQ 250
-g m
V-23 V-22 i
^ ^ ^ ^
158 159 an early commitment to the breeder, with complettom of a con-C.
M W N w and Nuclear Power ceptual de sign study by 1981, commitment to a demonstratlos f acility by 1982 and init8al comme rcial deployment 20 years the Wetton*e mid-term ener 1
- I*IIF
- I'*
thereafter. Reprocessing =levelopment would be given high talains and expanding the se of D*** ***
priority through commercialiaation. Progreen for light water sources are commercially evallable 8
ad tan be omlarged if the teactor taprovement, advanced converter reactor development, markets grow and their critical enviroatental and social problems are advanced tootope separation. and uranium resource evaluation
- overcome, wwld be de-emphae ls ed.
This strategy would require a rela-t1wiv high cos t. high risk progree.
The markets for coal and "1
ec eely tied to the growth to demand for electricit le be used is large o Exoanded Mwelear. This otrategy assumes that nuclear power v111 industrial facilitica.
he Fu 1 Partment of play a predominant role in our emergy future, with installed Energy the regulatory tools to stimulate the use of co g,,g,,,g,,,
capacittee at least equal to the highest values saoused in the energy resources, analysis.
Aggressive prograne would be indicated for light water reactors, advanced converters. and breeders--with comett The palmary constrainto on thi 11 and gas arise mente to comme rcialis e them at the earliest possible dates
- from the regulatory and technical d C081 and nuclear For the breeder, this would call f or a demonstration plant power.
Development of me t*
"e* cool w e efficiently, coevert dectaton in 1981 and planning f or both a 20-year and a 30-year coal into cles, go.g,,,,thode g
e deployment schedule.
Reprocessing. through the commercial-for the long tore se coal and es tore will be saportant 8 are enhausted.
1:sttoe stage, would be accelerated. The program would be very It will be different to make this H
costly but would provide the greatest soeurance of maintaining without increased use of direct cesl b t rane ttion, however.
a 89 1 sht water reactore, and deploying the nuclear option.
Ef forts to develop long-term ti ne meet be balanced with programe to aneure that direct see og c,,
,,g
- P er ill be available im The Administration favore the hedaed strategy.
The breeder program the mid tere. consistent with Public eafety and mentase environesotal itself includes the liquid metal f eet breeder (IEF8R) as the primary protection.
option, but would also support two othere -the light water breeder reactor (LVBR) and the gas cooled feet reactor (CCTR). Each hee V-25 ps particular attengths and v..'.sesses and provides a hedge age.aoc
~ '~~
f ailure of one particular s'pprsach.
The Administration *e dschton not to build the Clinch River Breeder R1 actor, a large LMFBR demonstration plant, osede to be viewed la light of the analysts tcat has taken place over the past decade.
Furthermore, for a variety of technical and economic reasons, the Clinch River Plant le no lo @ unaidered to be adequate la else or design for a commercial demonstration. Those elemente of the Clinch The River project which can be used intelligently will be completed.
5 eystem deaten will be completed together with certain components which have value fit test purposes.
In ptsee of the Clinch River plant, the Administration proposes sub-stitution of a conceptual design study as the central f ocus of the The results of this study together with recommendations LMFSR program.
rtgarding the f uture course of this program will be presented to the Congrees in March 1981.
V-2 4
1 April 21~,1900 Dave Schwoerer bel ar r
e Mr. Harbid R. Denton
?
Director Office of Nuclear Peactor Regulation
.U.S.
Nuclear Pegulatory Commissoin Washington D.C. 20555 Gentlemen I am writng this letter to you as part of an assignment in health. class.
I would like to have you send me information on various aspects of nuclear power.
These aspects include;
~
danger of;* problems'with; current use of; and.how much will our nation depend on nuclear power in the next twenty to thirty years.-
Hope.to be hearing from'you soon.
Sincerely yours SW $
Dave Schwoerer s
. c d; a-
\\-
sl
.l 0 gg,43go390 t
LK. _
_