2019 – A Wish List in Nuclear Energy

by Will Davis

Welcome to 2019!  I hope everyone who took a break enjoyed it. For those who didn’t, why didn’t you?  Initially, I had thoughts of trying to separate from social media and news to a significant extent during the holidays but, after conversations with Linda Zec (our wonderful ANS staff liaison for the Social Media Team, among many other things) decided that it was impractical to do so for a variety of reasons.  So, as the holiday furor ebbed and flowed and I continued, still connected, to read news and year-end summations, I found myself wishing that there wouldn’t be so much frustrating news in 2019.  That’s why I decided to open my eighth calendar year writing for the ANS Nuclear Cafe with a wish list, or “listicle” in the inside jargon, if you prefer.  Here, in ascending order of importance (or, I suppose, increasing order of unlikelihood) are my five wishes for this new year in nuclear energy.  (All on one screen; no annoying “next” buttons.  You’re welcome.)

#5:  ZEC.  Zero Emission Credits seem right now to be the hot ticket in keeping operating plants going, and we see what looks like a trend in the use of these in at least two states right now.  I’d like to see this sort of policy become standard nationwide.  This isn’t to take away state’s rights, instead, it’s the notion that ALL the states would begin to understand that there must be reliable, dispatchable power and that keeping existing nuclear running wherever possible is essential.  So, I’d like to see a majority of states devise, debate, consider and adopt ZEC each of their own design with the purpose (either primary or inclusive in nature) of preserving these nuclear plants this year.

#4:  K-K 6 and 7.  TEPCO in Japan desperately needs to restart the two ABWR units at its western Kashiwazaki-Kariwa site in order to attempt to get off the public dole, much less return to profit.  While the struggling company has made some progress to that end, it continues to bog with issues both at Fukushima and in the arena of public opinion. This year, I’d like to see TEPCO form and launch a concrete plan to upgrade these units as required by the new regulations and set a firm-as-possible restart date for these units to actually pull rods within the next two years.

#3:  Anyone, anywhere?  I’d like to see, in 2019, at least one major U.S. utility announce that it is still considering, which is to say “keeping the option open,” to construct a gigawatt-class commercial nuclear power plant. The collapse of the V. C. Summer expansion and resultant flailing coupled with the overruns at Vogtle have caused many to write off anything that isn’t SMR or Gen-IV.  I think (as my readers know all too well) that this is a mistake. My first hope would be DTE and Fermi Unit 3, but frankly I’m not picky. Even a couple Japanese utilities are moving to complete yet-unfinished plants and have at least discussed launching construction of plants announced but not built. It’s worth some hope, at least. (It’s a pretty thin hope when all you want is one announcement of ‘still considering,’ but that’s the nuclear energy environment we’re actually in now, not the one we would wish for.)

#2:  Second SMR.  It’s wonderful that NuScale is dedicated now to build a prototype plant at NRTS – whoops, INL – to demonstrate its truly innovative concept for small nuclear reactor AND POWER PLANT construction.  (Emphasis included because this is an extremely important point.)  What I’d like to see this year is a second firm commitment from a commercial user, not connected to Federal support with the possible exception of loan guarantees, to launch the EIS and begin the licensing process for a second NuScale SMR power plant- in the United States.

#1:  South Korea comes around.  The continued drive by Moon Jae-In to shut down South Korea’s nuclear plants and kill future construction of any more has not only pushed national electricity generator-and-supplier KEPCO into the red but also seriously damaged the nation’s ability to export nuclear plants.  For decades, South Korea sought to become what Japan was – namely, a world renowned producer and exporter of quality products.  In that model, the selection of vast amounts of inexpensively generated nuclear power was key, exactly as was the case with Japan.  The knee-jerk, unwarranted overreaction to the Fukushima accident led to the election of Moon Jae-In in part on a pro-renewables, anti-nuclear platform.  (Aside: Note that while many nuclear proponents here in the U.S. exhort the community not to bash renewables but instead to try to make nuclear and renewables get along, Moon Jae-In was elected in part on exactly the opposite premise: Renewables should come and nuclear should go. Think about that.)  What’s happened now of course is that South Korea’s overall commitment to nuclear energy is seriously in question enough that export of its gigawatt-scale commercial nuclear plants is increasingly unlikely. This terrible reversal of fortune for the Korean nuclear enterprise isn’t isolated; the government’s policies are damaging many areas of Korean business and society.  As my primary wish I’d like to see Moon come around and admit that this anti-nuclear policy is a clear mistake and reverse it.  It couldn’t be more clear that the public in Korea wants the nuclear plants and low-energy price. Heck, there are even communities where nuclear plants were to be built which are now in an uproar because they were cancelled. How often has THAT happened, historically? Moon Jae-In and his party need to reverse course on the nuclear energy policy for the good of the nation’s industry, economy, and people.

Well, there they are, the five things I would like to see happen, which I probably will not hold my breath for but will continue to watch.  If you have any wishes for 2019, or a constructive comment, please leave that for me in the comments below.  Next week, I’ll be returning to my usual article format with more technical-historical content.


Will DavisWill Davis is a member of the Board of Directors for the N/S Savannah Association, Inc. He has been a contributing author for Fuel Cycle Week, and he used to write his own popular blog Atomic Power Review. Davis is also a consultant and writer for the American Nuclear Society, and serves on the ANS Communications Committee and the Book Publishing Committee. He is a former U.S. Navy reactor operator and served on SSBN-641, USS Simon Bolivar.  His popular Twitter account, @atomicnews is mostly devoted to nuclear energy.  He has an Instagram at @williamdavis5500, but that’s mostly dog photos.

7 thoughts on “2019 – A Wish List in Nuclear Energy

  1. gradescout.com

    Nothing should be taken with delight while there is no room to create corrections.
    Whether you’re among the foreign currency students or part of the host family the ability can be one of the most enriching and rewarding items
    you will ever do. If you would rather stay with secular schooling, state-supported
    schools in many cases are your very best financial deal.

  2. Emory Collins


    Another law the nuclear industry should be pushing for is to get rid of the law that says the government has the responsibility to accept SNF for disposal and to keep the money that the utilities paid for this purpose. This was recommended by the Blue Ribbon Commission in 2012, but nothing has been done about it. Government policies change more often than it takes to build a SNF treatment facility and waste repository, which take two or more decades. This has resulted into the sad state that the utilities sue the government for, collectively, almost $1B/year, and then use this money to buy dry storage casks. However, if a utility builds a new reactor, they cannot sue the government for not taking the SNF and must pay the cost of new dry casks themselves. This is not a trivial financial burden that is factoring into the decision to build a new reactor. It can be changed only by a new law and payback of the money taken by all nuclear utilities. Even then, the utilities would have to form a consortium to manage the SNF. Furthermore, this situation adds to the negative public opinion about nuclear energy.

  3. Tom LaGuardia

    I wholeheartedly agree with your wish list. However, the regulated utilities that own both nuclear, fossil-fuel fired, and renewable power plants are constrained for business reasons to support nuclear power alone are reluctant to endorse nuclear power as the base source of power. ZEC is a step in the right direction. The non-regulated portion of their energy supply will soon learn that reliance on natural gas will go south as the price of natural gas is sure to rise as we become more reliant on it for energy supply. Natural gas supplies while in great demand now will become non-sustaining as the cost for delivery rises such that nuclear power will ultimately become competitive (when the cost of natural gas gets to $6 per thousand cubic feet, nuclear becomes competitive). Foreign natural gas prices are at about $10 per cubic foot, making LNG exports a viable business venture. Why should gas companies continue to sell gas at $3 per cubic foot when they can get $10 overseas. Our export market for LNG s growing rapidly as new LNG export facilities in the Gulf of Mexico are coming into operation and the expanded Panama Canal is shortening the time and cost to reach the far-Eastern markets. Utilities need to be a little patient to allow the free market pricing to help prove nuclear power is the safer, cleaner and more profitable alternative.

  4. Jeffrey Mahn

    Dear Will,

    The socialists, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere, do not want abundant, affordable energy of any kind – especially if it is as reliable as nuclear energy. In fact, their immediate objectives of energy rationing, healthcare rationing, and food rationing are the means to their ultimate objective of world population reduction and control. I don’t see any future for nuclear power in the West as long as socialism is on the rise.

    My primary wish for 2019 is the elimination of all energy subsidies by governments everywhere so that the various energy options can all compete on a level playing field. My second wish, which undoubtedly has a higher probability of occurrence, is for pigs to fly.

    I hope you have a happy and prosperous 2019.

  5. Richard Barrett

    Thank you for your informative posts. Regarding a 2019 wish list, I would suggest steady progress toward justification and approval of the second 20 years of license renewal. That means a continued commitment to operational safety, coupled with vigilant monitoring for any signs of aging effects at the plants.

  6. Brian Woolweber

    To quote that movie I’ve never seen, “show me the money”. Items 2, 3, and 5 (and some recent rumourings of constructing nuclear powered commercial / merchant ships, a la NS Savannah) it’s not a question of technology or capability – but a willingness of those with the money to invest it.

    Consumers, in general, look for the hot items. And merchants tend to sway consumerism with commercials, promotions, enticements, etc. Right now the enticements are to go solar; use wind; eliminate coal; rely on natural gas to make up the gaps. And nuclear continues to be decried as unsafe; uneconomical.

    As nuclear advocates we like to go to the schools to show what nuclear can do; but we are not swaying the consumer; we are not swaying the policy makers; and we are losing the support of those who control the purse strings (stock holders) because there are less expensive ways to generate electricity.

    Maybe Wish 5 is the answer. I hope we can find an answer as civilian nuclear power continues to face economic challenges.

  7. Bobbi Merryman

    Hi Will,

    This is a great list. I think the ZEC would be really important to get nationwide. What other specific laws or regulations do you think the nuclear industry should be pushing for?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>