1 / 28

Sustainable Nuclear Energy - Reasons for Optimism

This presentation highlights the reasons for optimism in sustainable nuclear energy, including historical milestones, improvements in fuel use, cost factors, regulations, and public opinion. It also proposes a market-driven approach to combat global climate change.

marcellaj
Download Presentation

Sustainable Nuclear Energy - Reasons for Optimism

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sustainable Nuclear Energy - Some Reasons for Optimism.Richard WilsonPresented at:Energy Permanent Monitoring Panel,Erice August 19th 2004

  2. 1939Nuclear fission discovered (Hahn and Strassman)Neutron chain reactionpossibility shown! (Joliot, Halban and Kowarski) there was Euphoria!The "nuclear age" had come!

  3. 1950s successful prototypesIndian Point 1 (PWR Combustion Engineering)Yankee Rowe (Westinghouse)Dresden (GE) Before 1970 50 new plants ordered!Public Hearings were not contestedMaine Yankee - construction permit 1968 6 hoursMaine Yankee operating license 1973 2 daysBUT About 1972 OPPOSITION BEGANSeabrook Construction permit 12 years.Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986) hardened an already worsening situation

  4. 1972 CONSTRUCTION COSTMaine Yankee $180 million$200 per MWeInflation Corrected to 2004 $600 per MWe1990 - $2000 per Mwe2004 - $1000-$1400 per Mwe1972 OPERATING COSTConnecticut Yankee: <0.4 cents/kWhe Yankee Rowe: <0.9 cents/kWheBenedict estimate: 0.3 cents/kWhInflation corrected to 2004: 1 cent/kWhe1992 greater than 2.5 cents/kwh2003 : 1.6 cents/kwh

  5. Why has the construction cost gone up?-demands by the public? Will public perception change?- Heat exchanger failures?(Auto radiators a few% of cost per KW)- increased real safety?(yet analysis is cheap)-increased regulation?

  6. UNDERSTANDING HISTORY“He who does not understand history is condemned to repeat it”Why did the construction costs go up faster than inflation?Can improvements bring costs back down?What is the role of public opinion?

  7. Construction Costs generally rose faster than inflationLicensing delays (cause by public opposition)increase interest during constructionPrescriptive license requirements

  8. LWRFUEL USE IMPROVEMENTS(1973) 20,000 MW days/ ton(1999) 40,000 MW days/ ton(New Designs) 100,000 MW days /tonThis SHOULD bring cost down lower fuel costs (per Kwh) fewer fuel outagesdelayed need for breeder reactorALSO fewer leaks mean less radioactivity in cooling water

  9. 1972 we foresaw an increase of fuel cost as low costs reserves used up and felt a breeder reactor was urgent2004 interpretation has changedBusbar cost is now 5 c/kwh 0.5 c/kwh difference in cost is negligibleAlso: 2002 better fuel utilizationprobably more uranium out thereBREEDER REACTOR IS NOT URGENT

  10. Over-regulation(Towers and Perrin 1995)Prescriptive not PerformanceDresden-II staff 250 (1975) -> 1,300+ (1997)unnecessary safety-grade equipment

  11. Is excessive regulation inevitable?1992 Chairman of NRC Shirley Jackson established authority by shutting down 4 plants of NE utilities for rule infractions which had little calculated effect on accident probability.Industry got the message and shut down several plants2004 Chairman Richard Meserve insisted on: “risk informed” regulation“Stick in the mud” engineers who rejected PRA have either died or changed.But can it change back? Yes“ The Power to Regulate is the Power to Destroy”There is no proof that people are sensible

  12. 1998 operating cost1.4 cents/kWhe (S.Texas)1.5 cents/kWhe (Seabrook)1.7 cents/kWhe (Palo Verde)1.9 cents/kWhe (Av.USA) (McKoy) 2003 operating cost (av USA)1.6 cents/kWhe and coming down

  13. Waste disposal remains a problem in public acceptanceSucess of WIPP in Carlsbad NMYucca mountain:National Academy commitee OKLicensing criterion risk (dose) basedCourt challenges rejectedNRC must do its job

  14. I see three basic thrusts to combat global climate changeNuclear fissionrenewables (wind)carbon sequestrationOnly for nuclear fission have all steps been shown to work

  15. I propose (as have others) that all incentives to reduce CO2 be the same for all three.Then let the market decide(extend subsidy for renewables tonuclear and sequestration)I hope the 2004 Erice meeting will endorse this

  16. Do you thaink the majority of people in your community support or oppose nuclear energy?

  17. “Based on what you hear and read, do you think that public opinion about using nuclear energy has become more favorable in recent years, less favorable in recent years, or stayed about the same?” (Split sample)

  18. “Please tell me if you personally strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements. How about [READ LIST. ROTATE]…”

  19. “If a new power plant were needed to supply electricity, would it be acceptable to you or not acceptable to you to add a nuclear power plant next to the nearest nuclear power plant that is already operating?”

  20. Trend by Region: Percent Saying Acceptable to Add a New Nuclear Power Plant Next to Nearest Operating Nuclear Power Plant

  21. Percent Saying Nuclear Energy Will Play Important Role/Not Important Role - Annual Averages

More Related