15.79. In this chapter we have looked forward to the rebirth of nuclear power and described some of the new technology that is being made avail­able to create a favorable climate for new plant construction. However, we cannot predict the future. Therefore, it is well to summarize here some of the nontechnical challenges that matter [10].

15.80. In the United States, a decision to build a new plant is made by an individual utility at the local level to meet the energy needs of its customers. National electricity usage growth forecasts do not necessarily apply at the local level. Nonnuclear options, including the upgrading of older units, are also available. Another consideration is the role of non­utility energy providers in developing generating facilities (§10.108).

15.81. Four topics are interrelated: investment risk, licensing stability, rate regulation, and public opinion. A utility can recover its investment only if initial cost projections are not changed by new licensing require­ments during construction and operation. Also, unreasonable limitations on rates charged customers must be prevented. In each of these areas, public opinion can play a role through political pressure on regulators. Thus, acceptance by local government and the local populance is very desirable as part of risk management strategy as well as good citizenship.

15.82. To conclude on a positive note, we should look ahead some years into the next century. Likely global population and economic growth will lead to a substantial increase in the demand for electricity. Solar power and other alternative energy sources may contribute to meet this demand, but only to a minor extent, leaving the burden to be shared by fossil and nuclear fuels. Assuming that unfounded public sensitivity to the risks as­sociated with high-level radioactive waste can finally be resolved and the environmental damage caused by fossil plants is generally realized, a gen­eral preference for nuclear power plants is likely to result [13].

REFERENCES

1. U. S. Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works Hearing (101­861), “Role of Nuclear Energy in Meeting Future Energy Demands,” U. S. Gov’t Printing Office, 1990; “U. S. Electricity Needs and DOE’s Civilian Reactor Development Program,” U. S. General Accounting Office, 1990.

2. E. J. Bruschi and R. P. Vijuk, NucL Techno!., 91, 95 (1990); B. A. McIntyre and R. K. Beck, NucL Safety, 33, 36 (1992).

3. R. L. Huang et al., Trans. Am. NucL Soc., 63, 314 (1991).

4. G. Melese and R. Katz, “Thermal and Flow Design of Helium-Cooled

Reactors,” American Nuclear Society, 1984, Chap. 1.

5. F. A. Silady and A. C. Millunzi, NucL Safety, 31, 215 (1990).

6. P. R. Pluta et al., “PRISM,” Adv. NucL Sci. Technol., 19, 109 (1987).

7. С. E. Till and Y. I. Chang, “The Integral Fast Reactor,” Adv. NucL Sci.

Technol., 20, 127 (1988).

8. D. R. Pedersen and B. R. Seidel, NucL Safety, 31, 443 (1990).

9. K. Hanners et al., “The PIUS Principle and the SECURE Reactor Concepts,” Adv. NucL Sci. Technol., 19, 41 (1987).

10. L. R. Codey, “Proc. Topical Meeting on the Next Generation of Nuclear Power Plants,” American Nuclear Society, 1991.

11. H. A. Upton et al., Trans. Am. NucL Soc., 68, 355 (1993).

12. T. Matsuoka et al., NucL Safety, 33, 197 (1992).

13. C. Starr, Trans. Am. NucL Soc., 67, 46 (1992).