Table of Contents

I.
II.

Introduction
Energy Security

III.

The NRC and Operating Licenses

IV.

Transition to Thorium
a. Uranium Design Phase-out
b. Licensing New Reactors
c. Domestic Mining
d. Carbon Tax

V.
VI.

Conclusion
Sources

I.

Introduction:

A majority of the Worlds leading consumers of energy still rely on nonrenewable fuels like oil
and coal. As countries such as China and India expect to experience rapid development in the
middle class, their energy consumption levels will increase exponentially as well. Given that
todays cheapest source of energy is coal, it will be no surprise that these countries, as well as
many others across the globe, will use coal and oil to meet the energy demand of the future. If
we continue down this path, we should not be surprised to see the environmental deterioration of
the world happen within the next few generations.

As seen above, the United States is one of the leading producers of carbon dioxide emissions and
it has become widely accepted that our use of non-renewable fuels have had a negative impact on
the global climate and ecosystems. We are one of the major super powers in the world and have
the ability to set a good example for others to follow, yet we are clearly not doing so.

We are starting to use more renewables to supply our electricity, but fossil fuels, primarily coal,
still make up close to 80% of our energy consumption. Developing countries that use coal will
not sacrifice their financial stability for the environmental cause unless the world leaders show
them how.

In light of the recent nuclear meltdown incident at Fukushima, the United States and the world
have put a halt on the development of nuclear energy, with the fear that a nuclear catastrophe
may happen within our borders. The fear of this energy has stopped its growth just when it was
recovering from previous disasters such as Chernobyl. There are many problems that arise from
this course of action. In order to make nuclear energy safer, we must do more research on it.
However, this is not possible if funding and other opportunities get cut every time a disaster
happens. This instability and volatility leads to a situation in which this energy source is left
stagnant between two different stages. It will be neither fully safe, nor will it be financially
competitive enough to be a practical option. We have to implement long term growth policies

and stick to them when times get tough so that the long term outcome will be beneficial.

This graph above shows that nuclear energy is going through a flat line in terms of capacity [1].
In the past, nuclear energy was seen the savior of our energy problems. It was supposed to
prevent any future energy crises from occurring. This is evident in the graph because the capacity
of plants rose steadily along with the generation amount. In recent decades however, capacity has
seemed to max out. New nuclear plants are not being built even though our energy demand as a
country is increasing. Generation is increasing only because the current plants are getting better
and more efficient at running. They are decreasing their down time and using a different fueling
cycle to ensure that the uranium gets used more thoroughly. This will become a problem because
efficiency can only go so far. If we do not increase capacity, then the generation amount will
reach a flat line as well. After some time, the licenses for old nuclear plants from the 70s will
begin to expire and they will begin the decommissioning process. Since no new nuclear plants
are being built, we will eventually reach a point where nuclear energy is no longer a source of

clean energy in the United States. This will only further our dependence on fossil fuels and
compromise our energy security.

This proposal will focus on two general aspects that need to be addressed to secure the future of
clean and safe nuclear energy. Firstly, we must adjust some of the current rules that are in place
for the licensing of nuclear plants. Solidifying these rules will preserve the integrity of this
energy source and will boost investor confidence, something which historically has been an
issue. Secondly, we must transition to a much better nuclear fuel, Thorium. This will decrease
the operating costs of the plant and the production cost of electricity, among other benefits. This
alternate nuclear fuel will also solve the problem of nuclear proliferation, one which has plagued
this industry since the 1950s.
II.

Energy Security

Before explaining the changes in policy that need to be made, it is important to define what is
referred to as energy security and why it is an important factor to consider. The International
Energy Agency defines Energy security as the uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an
affordable price [2]. Although this is the official definition, it is not nearly adequate enough.
Aside from the uninterrupted availability of energy, we must also take into account the principle
of foreign dependence. This small caveat is arguably the most important factor in the current era
of fossil fuels. Our dependence on countries in the Middle East for oil has been the cause of
many domestic problems over the past few years, most of which will not be discussed here. If we
have to rely elsewhere to satisfy our needs, then that makes us extremely vulnerable. Our
economy is in the hands of these countries because without electricity and a way to supply our
energy needs, we cannot function. This is where alternate fuels such as nuclear come into play.
The more we use nuclear, the less we have to rely on fossil fuels. This applies to renewables as
well, but they do not have the same generating capacity and potential that nuclear does.

Taking account these external factors, a new definition of energy security will be used which
implies all the following key points:

The uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price without the

inherent danger of threats (such as nuclear bombs)

The decreased dependence on foreign energy to supply domestic demands

An increase in self-sufficiency and consumption of energy that are produced within

domestic borders

The independence of our economic situation from the volatility of energy sources

These points will help explicitly show what this document refers to as energy security and clear
up any potential confusion.

III.

The NRC and Operating Licenses

The current rules for obtaining a nuclear license are set by the United States Nuclear Regulatory
Agency (NRC). The fact that there is an agency to oversee this industry is a great advantage that
not many other fuels such as renewables can take advantage of. As with any regulation however,
there are a few problems. The current process for obtaining a license is extremely long and
complex. It takes a company about two or more years just to draft a combined construction and
operating license [3]. After submitting this application, the NRC reviews it and works with the
company to iron out any issues. This process is said to take three years, but it often takes much
longer. Thus it takes a company a minimum of 5 years, realistically 7-10 however, simply to get
the approval to begin construction. It is not of any benefit to recommend that the NRC take less
time. A thorough investigation must occur to make sure that there will not be a nuclear disaster
in the future. It can be said however, that the NRC often changes its decision in between the
different licensing stages. This inconsistency is where the issue lies. There are numerous nuclear
plants across the country that have been designed and constructed only to have their license
revoked before production. The result of this is a waste of billions of dollars with absolutely no
benefit. No plant should reach the final stage and then not be allowed to produce electricity. If
the license was revoked due to a serious flaw in the plant, then the NRC should work with the
company responsible to correct the problem. This inconsistency is also evident in some other of
the NRCs actions. They shut down some nuclear plants citing safety concerns. However, it is
observed that other plants with the same reported safety concerns are still allowed to operate.
This begs the question as to whether or not the NRC is effective at its job of regulating nuclear
energy [4].

Another aspect which the NRC oversees is the renewal of licenses held by current operating
plants. This is extremely important as the longest operating license issued for any plant is 40
years. If a license is approved after the renewal process, it can operate for an additional 20 years
[5]. Renewals are bought in this 20 year increment. If the license is not renewed in time, then the
plant must stop operating and enter the decommissioning phase.
In order to fix some of these issues mentioned above, the following measures should be enacted
by the NRC:

A standard licensing review procedure which removes the possibility of the plant being
abandoned after construction and before production. This would require the NRC to
become more involved with the companies who apply for the permit. To ensure that the
construction quality is up to par with the requirements, the NRC should have the power to
decide what contractors the companies can hire for construction. Currently, the plan is
approved and then the company hires their own contractors to build the plant [5]. This
wastes time because the NRC has to then work with those specific contractors to make
sure that they do not cut any corners to save money. If the NRC had their own list of
contractors that the companies had to choose from, then the whole process would be
much more efficient. The NRC would repeatedly be working with the same contractors,
thus providing for a much better and safer construction. Since they would familiar with
the construction companies, there would be a decreased chance that the plant be
abandoned due to construction problems midway.

The NRC should strongly consider issuing 60 year licenses to the new plants that are
proposed. The 40 year period was fine back in the 80s when technology had not been
sufficiently developed to ensure a safe long term nuclear plant. Now however, there are
some designs such as our proposed Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor that have many
construction advantages that would allow for a much longer life span. Materials and other
technological advancements have fixed some of the problems that the old plants are now
facing. The NRC should adapt with this new technology so that companies are will be
keener on investing. If they can secure a long life of 60 years, then investors will be more
confident in the long term gain. This is needed by the nuclear industry in order to make
funding of such large projects commercially viable. Although safety does play an

important part in the licensing, technological improvements over a long period of time
should not be overlooked.

The NRC should aim to improve its consistency when it comes to safety regulation.
There are many ways to go about this, the most common one being more stringent
standards. Any plant that does not meet the criteria during the regular safety inspections
should not be allowed to continue, regardless of the age of the plant. We cannot decrease
the standards simply because the plant was built in the 80s. A nuclear accident causes the
same damage regardless of the age of the plant. This will also help phase out, or upgrade,
some of the old plants and improve them using current designs. This consistency will
help make the NRC more predictable and less volatile, which is good if we want to see
long term improvements in the industry.

IV.

Transition to Thorium
The main prospect of this proposal is to introduce an alternate nuclear fuel that can solve
some of the problems faced currently by Uranium. There are many known benefits of
Thorium over Uranium. A detailed list of the pros and cons are listed on our website. For
the purposes of this policy, one of the key advantages is energy security. Thorium cycles
do not produce plutonium as a byproduct during the reaction [6]. This is arguably one of
greatest advantages over uranium because this element is what is primarily used to make
nuclear weapons. If we can use this fuel for electricity while decreasing the threat of
proliferation, we will satisfy all 4 of the criteria mentioned previously with regards to
energy security. The historical connection between nuclear fuels used for energy
generation and for weapons has plagued the industry for decades. If we can separate these
two concepts, we can improve public opinion on nuclear energy while at the same time
working to stop the construction of nuclear weapons. The following are some of the
primary procedures and processes that need to occur to help this transition occur at a
substantial pace:
a. Uranium Design Phase-out
All current nuclear plants run on Uranium as their nuclear fuel of choice. In order
to transition to Thorium, the NRC must approve or research designs similar to our

proposed LFTR. All of the current licensed designs are variations that run on the
Uranium cycle. As these new designs are approved, the old ones should be cycled
out. Their approvals would not be revoked, but simply labeled as not
recommended designs. After a few LFTR based plants have been constructed
and operational for some time, the NRC can go back and review again to see
whether or not this change was beneficial. They can then pursue a different course
of action is necessary.
b. Licensing New Reactors
If after research it is determined that Thorium based reactors are better than
Uranium, the NRC should require that all new reactors run on Thorium based
fuels. The existing nuclear plants at that time can continue operation as usual
without being affected. Only companies that are trying to construct new plants
would need to take this into account. Designs that are not based on this new fuel
will not be approved. In the beginning, the NRC will face opposition, as with any
change in the world. If they stick to their policy however, they will see nuclear
energy flourish within the next 50-60 years.
c. Domestic Mining
Once Thorium plants begin to take hold, it is important for other sectors to
contribute their expertise to this advancement. Currently, most of the Thorium in
the United States is imported from international powers, as stated in the
economics section of the website. If we continue importing to provide the fuel for
our plants, we sacrifice the same energy security mentioned before. If we have to
rely on other countries for Thorium, then we still face the same issue that we
currently have with oil. Any changes that those countries demand in price will
make the industry extremely volatile, which is detrimental to the operating plants.
The United States also has the fourth largest Thorium reserves in the world [7].
There is no need for us to import from other countries. Mining for Thorium is also
not as cost intensive as oil. A lot of Thorium is found and simply tossed aside
during coal mining. If we processed and collected the fuel, we would have more
than enough fuel to power the country.

d. Carbon Tax
A tax on carbon emissions will be required by the government in order to make
nuclear energy more competitive. One of the primary selling points for nuclear is
that there are virtually no emissions once the plant is up and running. This cannot
be said for coal and fossil fuels. If a price on carbon emissions was placed, that
would increase the cost of coal fired electricity plants and make nuclear energy
able to compete financially. Although the coal industry will complain, the long
term benefits of this are obvious. We will eventually have to pay the
environmental price of our emissions in one way or another. Making coal pay for
it now is a good way to ensure that the environmental costs of the future will be
minimal.

V.

Conclusion

The transition to nuclear energy with a focus on Thorium will be a tough one. Nuclear energy as
it is suffers from an extremely high upfront cost along with a strong public disapproval. It is in
times like these that the government and agencies such as the NRC must focus on doing what
will be the most beneficial in the long run. As mentioned above, the NRC will have to make
some adjustments to their licensing policies first and foremost in order to encourage the growth
of Thorium based plants. This along with the phase-out of Uranium designs, increase in domestic
Thorium mining, new reactor licenses, and a strong carbon tax, nuclear energy will have a
stronger outlook and will live up to its expectations as being the fuel of the future.

VI.

Sources
1) Parker, Larry, and Mark Holt. "Nuclear Power: Outlook for New U.S. Reactors." CRS
Report for Congress (2007): n. page. Web.
<https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33442.pdf>.
2) "Energy Security." IEA. International Energy Agency, n.d. Web. 3 May 2015.
<http://www.iea.org/topics/energysecurity/>.

3) "Fact Sheets." Licensing New Nuclear Power Plants. NEI, n.d. Web. 5 May 2015.
<http://www.nei.org/Master-Document-Folder/Backgrounders/Fact-Sheets/LicensingNew-Nuclear-Power-Plants>.
4) "The NRC and Nuclear Power Plant Safety in 2013." Union of Concerned Scientists.
UCS, n.d. Web. 5 May 2015. <http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/making-nuclearpower-safer/who-is-responsible/nrc-nuclear-power-safety-2013.html#.VVP0tflViko>.
5) Frequently Asked Questions about License Applications for New Nuclear Power
Reactors. Washington, DC: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New
Reactors, 2009. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2009. Web. 5 May 2015.
<http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/brochures/br0468/br0468.pdf>.
6) Mujid Kazimi; "Thorium Fuel for Nuclear Energy: An Unconventional Tactic might
one day ease concerns that spent fuel could be used to make a bomb," American
Scientist: Magazine of Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, 2004, Volume 91,
pages 408-415.
7) "Uranium 2014: Resources, Production and Demand." A Joint Report by the OECD
Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency (n.d.): n. page.
OECD. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. Web. 5 May 2015. <https://www.oecdnea.org/ndd/pubs/2014/7209-uranium-2014.pdf>.