calstate university sacramento. april 11th 2002 the future for nuclear power richard wilson...

CALState University Sacramento. April 11th 2002

The Future for Nuclear Power

Richard Wilson

Mallinckrodt Research Professor of Physics

Harvard University


1939Nuclear fission discovered

(Hahn and Strassman)

Neutron chain reactionpossibility shown!

(Joliot, Halban and Kowarski)

Euphoria!The "nuclear age" had come!


Only uranium 235 fissionable by slow neutrons

Only 3 suppliers Joachimstal, Czechoslovakia

Union Minière, CongoEldorado mining Co, Canada

The "nuclear age" was to be short lived!


Fissionable elements: A = 4N - 1 (Bohr and Wheeler)

Plutonium 239 discovered(Seaborg, McMillan, Ramannod and Wahl)

Uranium 233 and others discoveredMcMillan and Seaborg - Nobel prize

"Fermi's dream!"


"Fermi's dream!”

Breeder reactor U 238 -> Pu 239 (100 times as much energy per gram)

High efficiency in fuel use Transuranic elements consumed

Waste fission productsT1/2 < 30 years


Uranium Supplies Benedict 1971

Price Resource Cost Increase Total Electricity

$/lb tons LWR Breeder generated

U3O8 mills/kWh e Gwe x yr LWR Breeder

8 (base) 594,000 0.0 0.0 3,470 460,00010 940,000 0.1 0.0 5,500 720,000 15 1,450,000 0.4 0.0 8,480 1,120,00030 2,240,000 1.3 0.0 13,100 1,720,00050 10,000,000 2.5 0.0 58,300 7,700,000100 25,000,000 5.5 0.0 146,000 19,200,000


7Busbar Cost of Nuclear Energy 1971 and 2002

(Benedict 1971 from Virginia Power & Light)

Description 2002 1971

Unit investment cost of plant, dollars/kw. $1700 $255Annual capital charge rate per year 0.13 0.13kilowatt-hours generated per year per kw. capacity 7,446 5,256

Cost of electricity, mills/kwh.:Plant investment 29.7 6.31Operation and Maintenance 15.0 0.38Fuel 2.05 1.87

TOTAL 46.75 8.56


Why has the construction cost gone up?

-demands by the public? Will public perception change?

- Heat exchanger failures?(Auto radiatiors a few% of cost per KW)

- increased real safety?(yet analysis is cheap)

-increased regulation?


Problemsincrease in construction cost

(general)

Public perception:proliferation problems

Safety


The Ford Nightmare

Keeny et al. 1975 (Rossin 1998)

Theft or "Diversion"of enough to make a

BOMB!


Improved Fuel AvailabilityFuel for 30 years

No incentive for explorationMore exploration -> more uranium

Improved “burnup” (1973) 20,000 MW days/ ton(1999) 40,000 MW days/ ton

(fewer fuel outages)

This brings cost down


1972 CONSTRUCTION COST

Maine Yankee $180 million$200 per MWe

Inflation Corr. $600 per MWh

OPERATING COST

Connecticut Yankee <0.4 cents/kWhe Yankee Rowe <0.9 cents/kWhe

Benedict estimate 0.3 cents/kWhInflation corrected: 1 cent/kWhe


1998 operating cost

1.4 cents/kWhe (S.Texas)1.5 cents/kWhe (Seabrook)

1.7 cents/kWhe (Palo Verde)1.9 cents/kWhe (Av.USA) (McKoy)


1998 construction cost

$1,690 per MWe(GE reactor in Taiwan)

four cents per kWhe

MUCH higher than $600/MWe


DEMAND FOR ENERGY1970

Demand increasing(particularly electricity)

electricity use X 2 every 9 yrs.President Kennedy advocated

cheap energy oil and gas prices were dropping

politically and morally acceptable to "spend" energy


PUBLIC PERCEPTION CHANGES

1973 Arab oil embargo

1979 Iraq- Iran war

Politically correct to

"conserve energy"


INCREASING FOSSIL FUEL1850 coal will run out in 30 years!1912 UK control of Anglo-Iranian

1947 UK electricity rationing 1962 (King Hubbert) - 90% of oil discovered

(in the USA)

1978 (Vienna) UK Cabinet MinisterN. Sea oil < 1 million bbl/day

(all gone in 20 years - today)

1999 N. Sea 4 million bbl/day


GAS

(1973) comes only with oil(1999) gas more plentiful

EFFICIENCY(1999) Combined cycle X 2

Less greenhouse gases Few particulates


UNDERSTANDING HISTORY

“He who does not understand history is condemned to repeat it”

Why did we dismantle FERMI I?WHY did Rickover choose LWR not LMR?

Why were other reactor types rejected?(HTGR, Pebble bed, etc.)


LWRFUEL USE IMPROVEMENTS

(1973) 20,000 MW days/ ton(1999) 40,000 MW days/ ton

(fewer fuel outages)

This SHOULD bring cost down


1984NAS

(Energy Engineering Board)

proposed acost study

OPPOSED by EPRIWHY?


????????????The early plants were TURNKEY.

Construction costs generally have risen since 1970

We had good management and personnel in 1972 - now we don’t

Mandated retrofits after TMI?????????


Over-regulation (Towers and Perrin 1995)

Prescriptive not Performance

Dresden-II staff 250 (1975) -> 1,300+ (1997)

unnecessary safety-grade equipment


Is excessive regulation inevitable?

YES: unless the utility industry fights in the courts

as much as the antinukes.

Is there hope?

Chairman Jackson emphasized that this area is vital

Am I optimistic?NO!

There is no proof that people are sensible


ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

forair pollution

global warming(Meeting Kyoto commitments)

we do not need the breeder reactor.


The LONGER TERMIf promises are met for:

safetyproliferation resistance

costa fast neutron reactor

will be usefulfor waste disposal

efficiencyYEAR 2100 +


EARLY OPTIMISM about

LIQUID SODIUM REACTORS

Seawolf Submarine worked(sometimes)

Sodium not corrosive (except to human skin!)

Higher temperature and efficiency


"Fermi's dream!”

Benedict’s conclusion (1991)The expensive uranium would increase cost 50%

Build a Breeder as soon as Possible!


FAST NEUTRON REACTOR IMPROVEMENTS

Fuel burn up (metal fuel) was 1%NOW > 20%

SAFER Cheaper

Pyroprocessing possible(proliferation resistance)

WHY DIDN’T THE COSTS COME DOWN?


THE THORIUM CYCLE1959

Indian Point designed to allow thorium

Thorium reserves = 6 x Uranium reserves


The interpretation of theBenedict/OECD numbers has

changed

Busbar cost is now 5 c/kwh

The difference in costis negligible

calstate university sacramento. april 11th 2002 the future for nuclear power richard wilson...

Documents