ENERGY

NUCLEAR ENE&GY

REPORT TO CONGRESS

Api il 20 10

Table of Contents

L i st of A cronyms

BTU British Th er m al Units

CO 2 Carbon dioxide

DOE Departm e nt of Energy

EE DOE–Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy EIA Energy Inform ation Agency

EPRI Electric Po wer Research Institute FE DOE–Office of Fossil Energy

GDP Gross dom e s tic product

GHG Greenhouse gas

GW e Gigawatt (electric) GW e-yr Gigawatt-y e ar (electric)

HTGR High-tem p erature g as-co oled reacto r HTR High-tem p erature reactor

IAEA Intern ational Atom ic Energy Agency II&C Instrum e ntation, inform a tion and control IPSR Integral p r im ary system reactor

ITAAC Inspections, test, analys es and accep tance crite ria kW -hr Kilowatt-ho u r

LW R Light-water reactor

MPACT Materials Protection, Accounti ng and Control for Transm utation MT Metr ic ton

MW e Megawatt (electric)

M W h Megawatt-hour

NDE Nondestructive evaluation

NE DOE–Office of Nuclear Energy

NEA Nuclear Energy Agency NGNP Next Generation Nuclear Plant

NGSI Next Generation Safeguards Initiative NNS A National Nuclear Security Ad m i nistration NRC Nuclear Reg u lato ry Comm ission

OECD Organization for Econom ic Cooper a tion and Developm ent R&D Research and development

RISMC Risk-informed safety m a rgin cha r ac teriz ation SC DOE–Office of Science

SMR Sm all, m odular r eac tor

UNF Used nuclear fuel

E xecutive S ummary

To achieve energy security and greenhouse gas (GHG) e m ission reduction objectives, the United States m ust develop and deploy clean, affordab le, dom e stic energy sources as quickly as possible. N u clear power will contin ue to be a ke y com ponent of a portfolio of technologies th at m eets our energy goals. This document provides a roadm a p for the Departm e nt of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Nucle a r Energy (NE) researc h, development, and demons tration activ ities th a t will ensu re nuclea r ener gy rem ains viable energ y option f o r the United S t ate s.

Today, the key challenges to the increased us e of nuclear energy, both dom e stically and internationally, include:

 The capital cost of new large p l ants is high a nd can challenge the abilit y o f electric utilities to deploy new nuclear power plants.

 The exem pl ary safety perform a nce of the U.S. nuclear industry over th e past thirty years must be m a i ntained by an expanding reactor fleet.

 There is currently no integrated and p erm an ent solution to high-level nuclear waste m a nage m e nt .

 International expansion of the use of nuclear energy raises co ncerns about the proliferation of nuclear w eapons stem m i ng from potentia l access to sp ecial nuclear m a terials and technologies.

In som e cases, there is a necessary and appropria te federal role in overcom ing these challenges, consistent w ith the prim ary m i ssion of NE to advance nuclear power as a resource cap able of m a king m a j or contributions to m eeting the nati on’s energy supply, environm ental, and energy security needs. This is accom plished by re solving technical, cost, safety, security and proliferation resistance barriers, through re search, developm ent, and demonstration, as appropriate. NE’s resea r ch and developm ent (R &D) activ ities will he lp ad dress cha l le nges and thereby enable the d e ploym e nt of new reacto r t echnologies that will sup port th e current fleet of reac tors and f acilitate th e construction of new ones.

Research and D ev el o pm e n t Obj e ctiv e s

NE organize s its R&D a c tiv ities along four m a in R&D objectives that address challenges to expanding the use of nuclear power: (1) devel op technologies and othe r solutions that can im prove the reliability, sustain the safety, and ex tend the life of current reactors; (2) develop im provem ents in th e affordability of new reacto r s to enable n u clea r energ y to help m eet the Adm i nistration' s energy security and clim ate chan ge goals; (3) develop sustainable nuclear fuel cycles; and (4) understanding and m i nim i zation of risks of nuclear proliferation and terrorism .

R&D O B J E CTIVE 1 : Dev e lo p technolo gies a nd ot her sol u ti ons t h at can impr ove the relia bility, su stain the safety, and extend the life of curr ent reactors

The existing U.S. nuclear fleet has a rem a rkable safety and perform a nce record, and today these reactors account for 70 percent of the low greenhouse gas (GHG)-e m itting dom estic electricity production. Extending the operating lifetim es of current plants beyond si xty years and, where possible, m aking further im prove m ents in th eir productiv ity w ill g enerate near-term benefits.

Industry has a significant financial incentive to extend the life of existi ng plants, and as such, activities will be cost sh ared. Federal R&D investm e nts are appropriate to answer fundam e ntal scientific questions and, where private investm e nt is insuffici ent, to help make progress on broadly applicable technology issues that can ge nerate public benefits. The DOE role in this R&D objective is to work in conjunction with ind u stry and w h ere app r opriate the Nuclear Regulatory Comm ission (NRC) to support and conduct the long-term research needed to inform m ajor com p onent refurbishm ent and replacem ent strategies, perform a nce enhancem ents, plant licen se exte nsions, and age-r e la ted r e gulato r y ov ersigh t dec i s i ons. DOE will f o cus o n aging phenom ena and issues th at requ ire lo ng-term re search and are generic to reacto r type.

R&D OB JECTIVE 2: Develop imp r ovemen ts in the affordability of new reactor s t o ena b le nuclear ener gy to help m e et the Administrat i on's ener gy se cur ity a nd cli mat e change goal s

If nuclear energy is to be a st rong component of the nation’s futu re energy portfo lio, barriers to the deploym ent of new nuclear plants m ust be ove rcom e. I m pedim e nts to new plant deploym ent, even for those designs based on fam i liar light -water reactor (LW R ) technology, include the substantial capital cost of new plants and the unc erta inties in the tim e required to license and construct those plants. Although subject to thei r own barriers for deploym e nt, m ore advanced plant designs, such as sm all m odular reactors (S MRs) and high-tem p er ature reactors (HTRs), have characteristics that could m ake them m o re desirable than today’s technology. SMRs, for exam ple, have the poten tial to ach ie ve lower pro lif era tion r i s k s and m o re sim p lified construction than other designs. The developm ent of next-g eneration reactors could p r esent lower capital costs and improved efficiencies. These reacto rs m a y be based upon ne w designs that take advantage of the advances in high perform a nce com puting while leveraging capabilities afforded by im proved structural materials. Industry plays a substantia l r o le in ove rc om ing the b arriers in this area. D O E provides support through R&D ra nging from fundam e ntal nuclear phenom ena to the developm ent of advanced fuels that could improve the econom i c and safety perform a nce of these advanced reactors. Nuclear power can reduce GHG e m issions from electricity production and possibly in co-generation by displacing fossil f u els in the genera ti on of process heat for application s includ ing refining and th e production of fertilizers and other chem ical products.

R&D O B J E CTIVE 3: Develo p Susta i na ble Nuclea r Fuel C y cles

Sustainable fuel cycle options are those that im prove uranium resource utilization, m axi m i ze energy generation, m i nim i ze waste generation, improve safety, and lim it proliferation risk. The key challeng e is to d e velop a suite of options th at will enab le f u ture d ecision m a kers to m a ke inform ed choices abou t how best to m anage the us ed fuel from reactors. The Adm i nistration has established the Blue Ribbon Co mm i ssion on America’s Nuclear Future to inform this waste- m a nage m e nt decis i on-making proces s. DOE will conduct R&D in this area to investig ate technical ch alleng es inv o lved with three poten tial strategies for used fuel m a nagem e nt:

 Once-Through – Develop fuels for use in reactors that would increase the efficient use of uranium resources and reduce the amount of us ed fuel requiring direct disposal for each m e ga watt-hour (MW h) of electricity produced. Additionally, evaluate th e inclu sion o f

non-uranium m a terials ( e.g ., thoriu m ) as reacto r fuel option s that m ay reduce the lo ng-liv ed radiotoxic elem ents in the used fuel that would go into a repository.

 Modified Op en Cycle – Investig ate f u el form s and reactors th at would inc r ease fuel resource utilization and reduce the quantity of long-lived radiotoxic elements in the used fuel to be disposed (per M W h), with lim ite d separations steps usi ng technologies that substantially lower proliferation risk.

 Full Recycling – Develop techniqu es that will en able th e lon g -liv ed actin ide elem ents to be repea t edly r ecycled rath er than d i sp osed. The ultim ate goal is to dev elop a cost- ef f ective and low proliferation risk approach that woul d dram atically decrease the long-term danger posed by the waste, reducing uncertainties asso ciated with its disposal.

DOE will work to deve lop the bes t a pproaches w ithin each of these track s to inform waste m a nage m e nt strategies and decision m a king.

R&D O B J E CTIVE 4 : Underst a nd a n d minimi ze the ri sk s of nuclear proliferat i on and te rrorism

It is im portant to assu re that th e benefits of nuclear power can be obtained in a m a nner that lim its nuclear proliferation and security risks. These ris k s includ e th e related but distinctly separate possibilities that nations m a y atte m pt to use nuclear technologies in pursuit of a nuclear weapon and that terrorists m i ght seek to s t ea l m ateria l th a t c ould be used in a nucle ar explosive device.

Addressing these concerns requires an integrated approach th at inco r porates the sim ultaneous developm ent of nuclear technologies, includi ng safeguards and security technologies and system s, and the m a intenance and strengthening of non-proliferation fram e w orks and protocols. Technological advances can only provide part of an effective response to proliferation risks, as institutional m easures such as export controls and safeguards ar e also essential to addressing proliferation concerns. These activities m ust be inform ed by robust assessm e nts developed for understand ing, lim iting, and m a naging the risks of nation-s t ate pro liferation and physical security f o r nuclea r tech nologies. N E will f o cus on assessm ents requ ired to inf o rm dom estic f u el

cycle technology and system option developm ent. These analyses would com p le m e nt those assessm ents perf orm ed by the Nation al Nuclea r S ecurity Administration (NNSA) to evaluate nation s t ate prolif er ation and the in te rnational no nprolif er atio n regim e. NE will work with othe r organizations including the NNSA, t he Departm e nt of State, the NRC, and others in further defining, implem enting and executing this integrated approach.

R&D Areas

The Departm e nt expects to undertake R&D in a va riety of areas to support its role in the objectives o u tlin ed abov e. Exam ples includ e: Figure 1. Major Elements of a

 Structu r al m aterials

 Nuclear fuels

 Reactor sys t em s

 Instrum e ntation and controls

 Power conversion system s

 Process heat transpo r t sy stem s

 Dry heat rejection

 Separations processes

 Wast e for m s

 Risk assessm ent m ethods

 Com putational m odeling and sim u lation

Science-Based Approach

R&D A p proach

A goal-driven, science-based approach is essential to

achieving the stated objectives while exploring new technologie s and seeking transform a tional advances. T his science-based approach, depicted in Figure 1, com b ines theory, experim e ntation, and high-perfor m ance modeling and sim ulation to develop the funda m e ntal understanding that will lead to new technologies. Advanced m odeling and sim u lation tools will be us ed in conjunction with sm aller-scale, phenom e non-specific experim e nts inform ed by theory to reduce the need for large, expen sive in tegrated experi m e nts. Insights gained by advanced m o deling and sim ulation can lead to new theoretical understa nding and, in turn, can im prove m odels and experim e ntal design. This R&D m us t be inform ed by the basic research capabilities in the DOE Office of Science (SC).

NE m aintain s access to a broad rang e of facilities to suppor t its research activities. Hot cells and test reactors are at the top of the hierarchy, followed by s m alle r-scale radiological facilities, specia lty en gineer ing f acilities, and sm all non -ra diological la borator ies. NE em ploys a m u lti- pronged approach to having these capabilities ava ilable when needed. The core capabilities rely on DOE-owned irradiation, exam ination, chem ical processing and waste for m developm ent facilities. T h ese are sup p lem ented by univers ity capabilities ranging fro m research reacto r s to m a terials science laboratories. In the c ourse of conducting this science-based R&D,

infrastructure needs will be evaluated and considered thr ough the established planning and budget developm ent processes.

There is potential to leverage and amplify effec tive U.S. R&D through collaboration with other nations v i a multila ter al and bila ter al agreem ents, includ ing th e Generatio n IV Intern a tiona l Forum . DOE is also a participant in Organization of Econom i c Cooper a tion and Developm ent/Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD/NEA) and International A t om ic Energy Agency (IAEA) initiatives that b ear directly on the deve lopm ent and deploym ent of new reactor system s. In addition to these R&D activ ities, international interact ion supported by NE and other governm e nt agencies will be essential in esta blishm ent of international norm s and control regim es to a ddress and m itigate pro lif era tion co ncerns.

1. I ntroduction

Access to af fordable, abundant energy – chiefly from fossil fuel sources – has been a key enabler of econom i c growth since the Industrial Revoluti on. However, as the first decade of the 21 st century draws to a close, the United States find s itself confronted with econom ic, environm ental, and national security challenges related in part to the m a nner in which our society produces, distributes, and uses energy. Continu e d access to plentiful, secure, and en vironm entally benign energy is fundam e ntal to overcom ing these challenges.

Nuclear en ergy is an importan t elem ent of the diverse energy portfolio required to accom plish our n a tional objectives. NE conducts research and developm ent, and dem onstrations, as appr opriate, that will help enable the b e nefits of clean, safe, secure and affordable nuclear energy to continue and expand.

This document identifies opportuniti es and challenges associated with continued and increased use of fission energy to enhance our nation’s prosperity, securit y, and environm ental quality; outlin es the NE role and m i ssion in enabling the be nef its of nuclea r energ y f o r our nation; and presents a strategy and roadm a p to guide the NE scien tif ic an d techni cal agenda. The report presents a high-level vision and framework for R& D activ itie s needed to keep the nuc lear energy option viable in the near term and to expand its use in the decades ahead.

Section 2 describes the current en ergy production and utilization landscape in the United States. Section 3 articulates NE’s funda m e ntal m i ssion a nd role in enabling nucle ar energy solutions and presents the four R&D objectives for nuclear energy develop m ent that are the focus o f NE activ ities. T h e deta ils of the roadm ap are pr es ented in Section 4. The R&D approach presented in Section 5 em bodies a goal-oriented, scie nce-based R&D portfolio that includes both evolutionary and transform a tiona l, high-risk–high-payoff R& D, in cluding those research areas that en com p ass m u ltiple objectives. Finally, Se ction 6 provid e s a summ ary of the obje c ts presented in this report.

This repor t is not an im plem entation plan, but rather provid es a basis that will guid e NE’s inte rnal p r o g ramm atic and stra tegi c planning for research going forward.

The report focuses on R&D activities sponsored by NE. The U.S. nuclear industry plays a central role in overcom ing barriers and is ul tim a tely responsible for the comm er cial deploym e nt of the resulting technologies. NE intends to proceed in a m a nner that supports a strong and viable nuclear industry in the United States and preserves the ability of that industry to par tic ipate in nuclear projects here and abroad.

Finally, it should be noted th at in so m e lim ited cases,

NE’s m i ssion extends beyond terrestrial deployment of nuclear energy into other arenas, such as space app lications of both fission and radio i sotop e power system s. Some technology developm ent needs identified in th is docum ent also benefit sp ace applications, but thes e m i ssion arenas are n o t addres sed in this road m ap. E duca tional program s, while v ita l, are inter w oven through the technical program s and are not discussed as se parate entities.

2. B ackground

All governm e nts of the world shar e a common challeng e to ensure their p e ople have access to affordable, abundant, and environm entally friendly energy. S ecretary of Energy Steven Chu has reiterated th e Adm i nistration ’ s pos ition that nuclear is an im portant part of the energy m i x. He has recognized the im portance of nuclear energy in m eeting th is challenge and supports R&D that can help increase th e benefits of nuclear energy. A key objective th at will shap e the energy landscape of the United States is the transition to clean energy sources with reductions in GHG em issions (with a quantitative goal of 83% reduction below 2005 em issions levels by 2050, shown in Figure 2).

Figure 2. U.S. Greenhouse Gas E m issions 1

2.1 The Energy Landscape

The Hum an Developm ent Index 2 is a commonly used m easure of quality o f lif e. Figur e 3 illus t rates th at a nation’s standard of living d e pen d s in part on energy cons um ption. Access to adequate en ergy is now and will con tinue to be r equired to a chieve a h i g h quality of lif e.

Econom ic developm ent, com b ined with efforts to lim it carb on em issions, will likely lead to a

1 2 0 0 7 G H G em i ssi ons re po rt e d i n EP A, In ven to r y o f U . S . Greenh o u s e Ga s Em issi o n s and S in k s: 19 90 – 2 007 EPA 4 30- R-0 9- 004 , Ap r il 1 5 , 2 009. A d m i n i str a tio n em issio n goals tak e n fr o m th e “Testim o n y o f Peter R . Or szag, Director of the Office of Ma nagem e nt and Budget, Be fore t h e C o mmitt ee on t h e B u dget , U.S . Ho use o f Rep r esen tativ es” on Mar c h 3 , 20 09 .

2 The i n dex was de vel o ped by t h e Uni t e d Nat i ons t o ena b l e c r oss - nat i onal c o m p ari s on s of devel opm ent a n d i s up dat e d i n a n a n n u al rep o rt . The deri vat i o n of t h e i nde x w a s i n t r od uce d i n Uni t e d Nat i o ns Dev e l o pm ent Pr ogr amme, Human Developmen t Report 1990 , Ox ford Un iv ersity Press, 19 90 .

significant expansion of nuclear power. The U.S ., in conce r t with the inte rnational co mmunity, must develo p the te chno logies and s y stem s to accom p lish such expansio n while lim iting prolif er ation risks.

Figure 3. 2005 Hu man Development Index vs. Energy Consumption (Per Capita Kilograms Oil Equivalent)

As we m ove forward, efficien cy and conserva tion will becom e ever-inc reasing com ponents of energy policy. However, conservation and energy efficiency alone will n ot be sufficient to m aintain a desirab l e qua lity of lif e.

The United States currently consum es roughly 1 00 quadrillion British Therm a l Units (BTU), or 100 quads, of prim ary energy. 3 This represents 25% of world’s energy consum ption in a country that produces 30% of the globa l gross dom e stic product (GDP). Figure 4 shows energy consum ption in the United States as a function of sectors and energy sources. At present, 40% of the total energy consumed is in th e form of electricity, of which about 20 percent is generated by nuclear power. W ith 6 billion m e tric tons (MT) o f e m itted carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) as a result of fossil fuel usage (see Figure 5), the United Stat es contributes 25 percen t of global GHGs e m itted.

3 The dat a i n Fi gu res 5 a n d 6 a r e re p o rt e d by t h e U.S . DOE E n er gy I n fo rm ati on A g ency “ A n Up dat e d A n n u al En erg y O u tlook 2 009 Ref e r e n ce Case,” 2009 .

NU CL EAR E NER GY RESE AR CH AN D DE VEL O P MENT R O A D M A P

Figure 4. U.S. Primary Energy Use in 2008

NU CL EAR E N ER GY RESE AR CH AN D DE VEL O P M ENT R O A D M A P

Figure 5. U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions in 2007

The Adm i nistration ’ s clean energy and clim ate cha nge objectives are am biti ous and achievable. Successf ul a chievem ent of these obje ctive s will r e quire so lutions to te chnical cha lleng es associated w ith various energy sectors, including:

 Electricity Sector GHG Production – As seen in Figures 4 and 5, the U.S. electricity production sector annually consum es 40 qua drillion BTU of prim ary energy, producing 4,150 m illio n MW h of e l ectricity, an d em itting 2,400 m illion MT of CO 2 . The averag e carbon intensity of the U .S. electri c-generating sector is 0.58 MT–CO 2 /MWh of electricity produced. While far from the world’s highe st carbon intensity (China produces 0.87 MT- CO 2 /MW h of electricity), U.S. electric-generati ng-sector carbon intensity is far higher than som e industrialized countries. For instance, France em its only 0.09 MT–CO 2 /MW h of electricity produced. There is clearly both the need for, and the real potential for, significant improvem e nt in U.S. electric-g enerating-sector carbon intensity and GHG em issions.

 Transportation Sector Energy Use and GHG Emissions – The transportation sector is currently responsible for 33% of GHG e m issions (Figure 5). In addition to m ore energy-efficient internal com bustion engines, electrification of the transportation sector using new low-carbon electricity-g e neration tec hnologies will ass i st in reducing these em issions. Successful elec trif ic atio n of the tran sporta tion s e ctor is also dependent on im prove ments in battery technology to enable high-density energy storage to m eet vehicle serv ice range req u irem ents.

 Industrial Sector Energy Use and GHG Emissions – Industrial use of energy is responsible for 16 percent of the country’s GHG e m issions (Figure

5). About half of these em issions com e from chem ical facilities and oil refineries. The developm ent of GHG- free technologies that can generate and deliver significant therm al and chem ical energy to industry is needed.

2.2 The Value and Need for an “Energy Portfolio ” Approach

Given the issues noted in Section 2.1, an effect ive energy p o licy will a lmost certain ly re ly on th e developm ent and use of a portfolio of dom e stic clean energy sources. This is true not only because of resource lim its at v ariou s points in the energy supp ly chain bu t also because all

energy sources face eco nom i c, tech nical, and so ci etal risks to their successful deploy m e nt. 4

R. Socolow and S. Pacala, in “A Plan To Keep Carbon In Check,” 5 have dem onstrated the potential for energy portfolio approaches to enha nce U.S. energy security and reduce the threat of global warm ing. The following section discusses the role of nuclear energy as an elem ent of the U.S. energy portfolio.

2.3 Nuclear Energy as an Element of the Fu tu re U. S. E n ergy Portfol i o

In 2007, the 104 light-water

reac tors (LW R s) curre ntly Figure 6. U.S. Nuclear Energy History, 1980 – 2008

operating in the United States generated 806 billion kilowatt-hours (kW - hrs), equivalent to 92 gigawatt- years (GW e -yrs). As sh own in Figure 6, even though the generating capacity of the nuclear fleet has been essentially flat for alm ost twenty years, the production

of nuclear electricity

continued to grow largely as

(EI A, Ann ual Energy Review 2008 )

a result of increased capacity factors. The fl eet’s average capacity fa ctor improved from 56.3% in 1980 to 91.9% in 2008. 6 This im provem e nt was driven by reactor operators and the efforts of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPR I), spurred by NE-sponsored R&D into high-burnup f u els that allowed utilitie s to shif t f r o m 12-m onth operating cycles to 18- or 24-m onth operating cycles that reduced downtim e. A dditionally, som e growth c a n be at tributed to power uprates that increased capacity at ex isting plants.

While in operation, nuclear power plants do not em it GHGs. Every MW h of electricity produced with nuclear energy avoids the em i ssion of approxim a tely 1.0 MT of CO 2 if the sam e amount of energy had been generated with conventional co al-fired technologies or approxim a tely 0.6 MT of CO 2 i f the energy had been produced with natura l gas. S i nce the pe r capita electricity consum ption in the United States is approxim a te ly 14 MW h of electricity per year per person, nuclear energy offers the prospect of avoidi ng what could otherwise be an annual personal carbon footprint from electricity production of up to 14 MT of CO 2 . In addition, nuclear power

4 R. Soc o low a n d S. Pacala, "Stabiliza tion W e dge s: Solving t h e Clim a t e Problem for the Next 50 Yea r s with Curre n t Tech nol ogi es ." Sci e nce , A ugust 13 , 20 04 : 9 6 8 - 97 2.

5 S c ien tific America n , Sep t em b e r 2 006

6 EI A, A n nual Ener gy Review 20 08 , Tab le 9.2 .

is dependable. It is available day or night, when the wind is blowing and when it is not. After more than three decades of outstanding safety perform a nce, the public acceptance of nuclear energy has turned in favor of its deploym e nt. 7 However, continued and increased use of nuclear energy faces several key challenges:

 Capital Cost – The current fleet of nuclear power plan ts produces electricity at a very low cost (approxim a tely 2–3 cents/kilowatt-hour) beca use these plants have already repaid the initial construction investm e nts. However, the capital cost of a large new plant is high and can challeng e the ab ility of el ectric utilities to deploy new nuc lear reactors. Thus, it is im portant to reduce the capital cost by i nnovative designs. The introduction of s m aller reactors m i ght reduce capital co sts by taking advantage of series fabrication in centralized plants and may reduce financial risk by re quiring a sm aller up-front investm e nt.

 Waste Management – At present, no perm anent solu tion to high-level nuclear waste m a nage m e nt has been deployed in th e United St ates. Innovative solu tions will be requ ired to assure that nuclear waste is properly m a naged. The Adm i nistration has initiated the Blue Ribbon Comm ission on Am eri ca’s Nuclear Future to conduc t a review of policies for m a naging the back end of the nuclear fuel cycl e, including a ll alte rnatives for the storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defens e used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The results will infor m the Governm e nt’s process to establish a policy for used fuel and waste m anagem ent. Ultim ately , while the n eed f o r permanent waste disposal can never be elim inated, transition to nuclear energy t echnologies that significantly reduce the production of long-lived radioactiv e waste – rather than deal w ith it after it is produced – is a desirable g o al.

 Proliferatio n Risk – The r e is con side r able inte res t in the global expansion of nuclear energy. However, such expansion raises conc erns about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, in cluding nuclear exp l osiv e devices, stemm i ng from access to enrichm e nt and reproc essing activ ities th at m i ght produce weapons-usable materials. Developm ent of innovative technologies and international pol icies are essential to prevent nuclear proliferation by nation-states as well as nuclear terrorism by r ogue entities. Furtherm ore, a more robust capability to evaluate an d com p are pr oliferation and terroris m risks is needed. In addition, it is in the U.S. interest to enga ge nations contemplating civil nuclear power for the first tim e in order to help them develop an indigenous inf r astruc ture designed to deploy the technology in a safe and secure m a nner.

 Safety and R e liability – As existing plants continue to operate and new plants and new types of plants are constructed, it is vita l tha t the excellent s a fety and reliability record of nuclea r ener gy in the Un ited States b e m a intaine d. It is also important th a t the U.S. sh are its experience with other countries and work with them to ensure safe operation of their plants.

7 Ref. h ttp ://www.g allu p.co m /p o ll/11 702 5 /Su ppo rt-Nu c lear-En e rg y-In ch es-New-High . asp x.

3. M ission and G oals of the

O ffice of Nuclear Energy

The analysis presented in Sec tion 2 supports the conclusion th at increased greenhouse gas-free electricity production is necessary to achieve the transition to a clean -energy econom y.

3.1 The Office of Nuclear Energy Mission

The prim ary m i ssion of NE is to advance nuclear power as a resource cap able of m eeting the nation’s energy, environm ental, and national secur ity needs by resolving technical, cost, safety, security, and proliferation resistance, thr ough R&D and de m o nstrations, as appropriate. Progress in these areas should promote the deploym ent of fission power system s in a socially acceptable, environm entally sustainable, a nd econom i cally attractive m a nner.