Resources Archive

In the United States, commercial light water reactors generate electricity using low‐enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. On average, fuel costs comprise approximately 20% of nuclear power plants’ total generating costs. Few other individual cost components have such a large impact on the economics of the nuclear fleet. A site’s fuel costs depend on two factors, the price of the fuel components (uranium feed, conversion, enrichment, and fabrication) and the efficiency of the core design. Fuel component costs are driven by supply and demand and are largely outside the control of a utility. The efficiency of a core design determines the quantity of nuclear material needed to meet a plant’s energy objectives. While a utility can improve the efficiency of the core design, this efficiency is ultimately limited by the specific design constraints of the core design. Two of several constraints that have been shown to directly impact the core design efficiency are the uranium enrichment level and discharge burnup achieved by the core and/or fuel design. A review of the current fuel management practices, based on equilibrium cycle designs, has shown that 99% of the variation in fuel cycle efficiency is attributable to variations in enrichment and burnup. Many sites are currently constrained by the existing regulatory limits on one or both of these parameters. With the increased interest in higher burnup cores, it is likely that within the next decade, both operating and advanced reactors will see a demand for fuel enriched greater than 5 weight percent (wt%) U‐235. This white paper provides a study—including assumptions, economic projections, inflation and financial methodologies—that evaluates the technical, financial and regulatory issues associated with increasing the limits on uranium enrichment and on fuel burnup for current uranium dioxide (UO2) fuel types. Revising these limits impacts a large portion of the nuclear fuel cycle as well as the licensing bases for both plant operators and fuel suppliers. While there are economic advantages to making these changes, they also require long‐term capital investment and regulatory changes. Revising these limits will provide savings through additional cycle length flexibility, reduced high level waste storage and disposal requirements, and a positive benefit on the environmental impact of the fuel cycle. The final decision to pursue new limits must consider not only the expected benefits but the business risks associated with such an undertaking.

If implemented, the Draft RFP would delay any compensation for providing clean electricity until an “At Risk Time Period” begins, which DEEP proposes would begin no sooner than June 2023. This approach is both unfounded and risks the loss of the large amount of clean energy Millstone provides.

Connecticut's PURA in Its Comments on the Connecticut's State Energy Agency's Draft RFP on the State's Clean Energy Program, notes the negative effects Millstone nuclear plant's premature closure would have.

List of all nuclear reactors in operation across the world, including country of origin, name, type of reactor, capacity, date connected to the grid.

Amount of used fuel stored at nuclear plant sites in each state and how much each state has contributed to the Nuclear Waste Fund.

In this letter, NRC staff said that its earlier letter had incorrectly implied that SFCP changes were a regulatory commitment.

FAQ on Part 810 Authorizations

U.S. nuclear generating statistics from 1977-2019, including megawatt-hours generated by nuclear energy, capacity factor, nuclear fuel share and total electricity generation.

NEI letter to the House Ways and Means Committee, dated Dec. 13, 2019, encouraging the inclusion of nuclear energy in the GREEN Act.

U.S. capacity factors by fuel type.

U.S. Nuclear Capacity Factors, 1980-2016.

U.S. nuclear industry annual uprates, cumulative power uprates, and cumulative capacity additions.