The Energy Return of Nuclear Power (EROI on the Web-Part 4)
Posted by Nate Hagens on April 22, 2008 - 10:00am
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: Charles Hall, eroei, eroi, nuclear [list all tags]
This is 4th in a continuing series of articles by Professor Charles Hall of the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry and his students, describing the energy statistic, "EROI" for various fuels.
The concept of an energy theory of value has been around since (at least) the 1930s and net energy actually became part of law after Mark Hatfield petitioned Congress in 1970 regarding the importance of EROI. His efforts resulted in the passing of (now defunct) Public Law 93.577 which stipulated that all prospective energy supply technologies considered for commercial application must be assessed and evaluated in terms of their ‘potential for production of net energy”. However, insurmountable theoretical and practical difficulties arose when using the energy unit to understand, a) the conversion among disparate fuel types (energy quality), b) the contribution of the environment, and c) the boundaries of analysis. Despite these problems, energy analysis is grounded (largely) in physical principles, which gives it an important long term edge over financial analysis which may proximately be related to real things, but ultimately is related to the political will to print money.
Nuclear power is the logical step up in energy density from dung, wood, coal, oil..., but its scaling has been controversial and uncertain. Below is an overview of both the nuclear fuel cycle and its energy return. Please add your comments, links and expertise in a manner that Prof Goose is fond of saying, 'that would improve the silence'...;-)
Previous articles/commentary from this series:
At $100 Oil, What Can the Scientist Say to the Investor?
Why EROI Matters (Part 1 of 5)
EROI Post -A Response from Charlie Hall
EROI Part 2 of 5 - Provisional Results, Conventional Oil, Natural Gas
Unconventional Oil: Tar Sands and Shale Oil - EROI on the Web, Part 3 of 5
APPENDIX F. Nuclear
Nuclear Electricity: Potential, EROI and Social and Environmental Impacts
Robert Powers - SUNY-ESF, Syracuse NY
INTRODUCTION
Definition: Nuclear power refers to the controlled use of nuclear fission reactions to release energy captured for use in electricity generation.
Figure 1 – Basic nuclear fuel cycle (Leeuwen 2005).
Click to Enlarge.
Table 1 – Timeline of Major Events Related to Nuclear Power
Click to Enlarge.
TECHNOLOGY
Light Water Reactors (LWRs):
Figure 2 – Nuclear Fuel Chain (Leeuwen 2005).
Click to Enlarge.
All commercial reactors in the US are variants of light water reactors, either Pressurized Water Reactors, or Boiling Water Reactors, and are known as Generation II reactors (EIA 2007). Thus plants constructed in the short and medium term can only be incrementally different from current designs. Generation III and III+ reactors (which any new reactors built in the US will be) incorporate new safety features and standardized designs. It takes years to get regulatory approval for new reactor designs. Standardization, such as has been done in France, lowers costs substantially. Passive safety features activate through physical means, with little or no electricity and no human operators are necessary, increasing reliability in extreme traumas.
Breeders
Breeders are plants that use excess radiation to generate new fuels, with the combination of new LWR reactors could increase the amount of energy extracted from fissionable resources by 100 times (Martinez-Val 2007).
Figure 3 – General breeder cycle (Leeuwen 2005).
Click to Enlarge.
RESOURCE BASE
As noted in Proops (2001) and elsewhere, and shown in Figure 2, the nuclear fuel cycle is simple, and basically similar to the fossil fuel cycle. As can be the case with coal, the EROI and energy and economic balances in general seem to be highly dependent on ore-quality.
Uranium
Uranium can come in several types of deposits, with different energy requirements for extraction from each.
Figure 4 – Available uranium in the world (WISE 2007).
Click to Enlarge.
At current use rates, the known resources are enough to last for 70 years, although changes in price and technology can affect the economically recoverable resources available (Hore-Lacy 2006). As with other mineral resources the average grade of uranium has declined substantially over time as the best reserves have been depleted. The average grade mined also is very sensitive to the mining rate, and the mean grade declines substantially when the rate of extraction increases for society (Hall et al. 1986). Not much research, with the exception of Leeuwen (2005), has been done on the effect of net energy with regards to these decreasing quality deposits, which will be used when uranium increases in price.
Figure 5 – Available uranium as a function of resource/ore type (Leeuwen 2005).
Click to Enlarge.
As extraction and depletion have operated over time, the average ore grade has decreased and the uranium has become more and more dispersed within the background substrate, plus the total amount of uranium we can extract can decrease as well. Leuwen (2005) argues that the empirical extraction yield declines much more sharply than the hypothetical one, which could come into play if there is a large increase in nuclear capacity in the coming decades.
Figure 6 – % of Uranium Extracted from Ore as a Function of Ore Grade (Leeuwen 2005).
Click to Enlarge.
An increasing portion of the world’s uranium comes from in-situ leaching (ISL) (Hore-Lacy 2007).
Figure 7 – In Situ Leaching (WISE 2007).
Click to Enlarge.
With ISL oxygenated groundwater is circulated through a porous ore-body to dissolve the Uranium and bring it to the surface. This should help the energy balance, as much less materials are being moved around, although it is unclear how concentrated (what grade) the ore must be.
Seawater
Uranium salts exist in seawater at low concentrations, as is the case for essentially every other element, and hence can be extracted from the massive total supplies in seawater. Some scientists in Japan are considering this, although according to at least one source, extraction of uranium from seawater would cost much more energy than contained in the uranium itself (Leeuwen 2006).
EROI
We have found the information about the EROI of nuclear power to be mostly as disparate, widespread, idiosyncratic, prejudiced and poorly documented as information about the nuclear power industry itself. Much, perhaps most, of the information that is available seems to have been prepared by someone who has made up his or her mind one-way or another (i.e. a large or trivial supplier of net energy) before the analysis is given. As is usually the case, the largest issue is often what the appropriate boundaries of analysis should be. The following diagram, which should be considered conceptually if not necessarily quantitatively appropriate, illustrates the main issues. The diagram indicates from left to right the timeline of a power plant, with the initial negative values (“phase 1”) indicating the initial energy costs of plant construction, the large positive value generated over the reactor’s lifetime (with a correction for the energy to get/refine the fuel) and phase 3 indicating the energy required for dismantling the plant and sequestering the dangerous by products.
Figure 8 – Lifecycle view of energy costs and production (Leeuwen 2005). The above figure is a general outline of the energy costs and gains lifecycle, but does not accurately reflect the operational lifetime (which is more likely to be around 50 years) or the EROI (which depends on the study looked at).
Click to Enlarge.
The seemingly most reliable information on EROI is quite old and is summarized in chapter 12 of Hall et al. (1986). Newer information tends to fall into the wildly optimistic camp (high EROI, e.g. 10:1 or more, sometimes wildly more) or the extremely pessimistic (low or even negative EROI) camp (Tyner et al. 1998, Tyner 2002, Fleay 2006 and Caldicamp 2006). One recent PhD analysis from Sweden undertook an emergy analysis (a kind of comprehensive energy analysis including all environmental inputs and quality corrections as per Howard Odum) and found an emergy return on emergy invested of 11:1 (with a high quality factor for electricity) but it was not possible to undertake an energy analysis from the data presented (Kindburg, 2007). Nevertheless that final number is similar to many of the older analyses when a quality correction is included.
Figure 9. EROI for nuclear power plotted vs. year of analysis. (Source Robert Powers).
Click to Enlarge.
Tyner was the author (or co-author) on the 1988 and 1997 reports which are examples of the lower EROI numbers -- less than 5:1. Tyner’s 1997 paper reported an “optimistic value” of 3.84 and a “less-optimistic” value of 1.86 and may be based on “pessimistic” cost estimates. For example capital monetary costs were 2.5 times higher than those reported for Generation III and III+ plants (Bruce Power 2007, see below). Fleay’s 2006 on line paper at least gives very detailed numerical analyses of costs and gains and hence probably can be checked explicitly. Different boundaries are used for these “low EROI” studies than most other recent studies that effect the results. For example Tyner takes interest (with a 4-5x larger energy cost magnitude than capital energy costs) into account in EROI (Tyner 1997). The two large EROI values reported here were for nuclear lifecycles which used centrifuge fuel enrichment as opposed to diffusion-based enrichment. Centrifuge enrichment uses much less electricity than other methods (Global Security 2007). We do not know how to interpret these analyses because centrifugal separation is an old technology. Newer rotor materials allow more rapid rotor spin which might influence results. At present much of the enriched uranium used for nuclear power is coming from dismantled nuclear warheads from the US-Russian agreement to decrease nuclear warheads but, apparently, that program will soon come to an end and we will have to contemplate again generating nuclear power from mined uranium. Much of the arguments about the great or small potential of future nuclear power comes from those who argue about the importance of technology vs. those who focus on depletion. As usual, however, technology is in a race with depletion and the winner can be determined only from empirical analysis, of which there seems to be far too little.
Charles Hall inserts:
As an example of the disparity in information “out there” I quote the following from the responses to our earlier posting of the balloon graph on the web:
(From mkwin): ……..A recent study I read from Melbourne University quantified the EROEI from the Forsmark Plant in France as 93:1. Source: http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheBenefitsOfNuclearPower
How can there be such a discrepancy (with the balloon graph)? This discrepancy on the EROEI figure for nuclear has to be clarified as one of the most urgent energy issue.
(a reply was posted by Chris): There is a large discrepancy because the report you read is intentionally deceptive. Their goal is to hide carbon emissions associated with nuclear power so when they calculate the EROEI they hide the energy needed to enrich the uranium. This is currently the largest energy input. France devotes the entire output of three reactors to enrichment so the EROEI of their program should be around 7 or less….. (Charles Hall stupidly gave the critics ammunition by extrapolating from that number to all reactors in France).
Charles Barton added later:
If I were researching EROEI, I would identify who in India might be helpful in identifying information that would lead to an understanding of the EROEI of the Indian fuel cycle. If I were looking for information you might start with the Indian Department of Atomic Energy. http://www.dae.gov.in/ I would also suggest contacting the AECL of Canada, to get a picture of the EROEI of the CANDU reactor. http://www.aecl.ca/site3.aspx
I understand your frustration but your assumption that you can get a good picture of the EROEI of the nuclear Industry by a literature review and a meta-analysis will lead to a distorted and inaccurate picture. As I told you my interest in establishing a basis of comparison between competing or potentially competing nuclear power systems. If you only analyze the EROEI of one system, and ignore the existence of other systems in Canada, and India, you will leave yourself open to criticism, and not just to me.
So, dear reader, take your pick. I am not technically qualified to judge from all these differing perspectives. Please send any hard analyses you may have. We need a really good review by a committee of qualified people with few axes to grind. I leave you with one thought my mother told me long ago: caveat emptor.
ECONOMICS
There has been a general upward trend in the cost (in inflation-corrected dollars) of constructing a new nuclear power plant in the U.S., although there has not been a new plant completed for decades.
Plant Costs
Figure 10 – Historical Capital Costs per KW of Nuclear Capacity Installed Over Time In the US
Click to Enlarge.
Bruce Power (2007) gives cost estimates for new plant construction (no subsidies included) as --- $1,000-1,100/KW for a Westinghouse AP1000 and $1,160-1,250/KW for a GE ESBWR. These costs are significantly lower than historical trends, and no plants with these designs have been completed yet in the US, so it remains to be seen if these cost projections are accurate. In general as the price of oil has increased so has the cost of just about everything.
Another unresolved issue is that of government subsidies. Proops (2001) lays out three main types: subsidies from the military nuclear industry, non-military government subsidies, and artificially low insurance. In the US the initial expenditure on uranium enrichment plants was exclusively from military budgets, so for these commercial plants the capital costs were written off. The figures for direct government subsidies are hard to come by, however billions have been spent by the government directly and through grants on nuclear power R&D (Proops 2001). In addition, the US government has pledged to cover up to $500 million in cost overruns due to regulatory delays for the first 2 new nuclear plants built, and half that for the next 4 (Energy Policy Act of 2005). There are also funds to cover the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, “a joint government/industry cost-shared effort to identify sites for new nuclear power plants, develop and bring to market advanced nuclear plant technologies, evaluate the business case for building new nuclear power plants, and demonstrate untested regulatory processes” (DOE 2007).
The longest standing, and perhaps most important, direct subsidy for nuclear power in the US is the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act. This act artificially maintains low insurance costs with “no-fault” insurance for operators. The first ten-billion dollars of damage from a major disaster would be covered by the nuclear industry (not solely the operator), and above that the government up the tab. Thus the nuclear industry in the USA has had to bear only a small proportion of the risk, the rest is assumed by the state or imposed as an uncovered risk on the public (Proops 2001). If commercial plants had to cover the full risks, such as the human, environmental and property damages from a major accident or terrorist attack, nuclear power would be extremely uneconomic (Proops 2001). In unsubsidized markets there are many natural-gas plants being built but not a single new nuclear plant, suggesting unsubsidized returns are not competitive with similar sized fossil-fuel plants (Proops 2001)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
As in any large heavy industry there are substantial environmental impacts of operating the nuclear fuel cycle. Although the accidental release of radiation has received the largest attention, (even there have been no such deaths in the U.S. from more than 50 years of nuclear power), there are far more actual fatalities from the routine mining and processing of the material that will eventually enter a plant. The same perhaps could be said about environmental impact although no such overview exists to our knowledge. We next look at the impacts at each stage:
Mining
Open pit uranium mining has similar environmental impacts to other forms of open-pit mining, such as ecosystem removal or physical disruption, dust. leachates entering into water supplies and so on. In all uranium mining (except, perhaps, in situ leaching tailings are a major issue. While the leachates themselves are relatively low in radioactivity, the sheer amount of tailings (usually 100-1000x the amount of uranium extracted) make them a major issue (Anawa 2007). Radiation-emitting particles can leech into groundwater, or dried tailings from soft ores can be carried by wind and deposited on plants. The most serious (human) issue is lung cancer from inhaling uranium decay products (Anawa 2007).
Plant Operation
Accidents causing small to large releases of radiation can occur impacting either the local environment (in the case of a small loss of primary coolant) or much larger geographic areas (as was the case with the plume of radioactive fallout from Chernobyl). Large accidents also have the possibility of making huge areas of land uninhabitable, as was also the case for the area surrounding Chernobyl were over 300 thousand people were moved and resettled. There is production of radioactive waste from routine plant operation. These include: Low-level waste (such as tools used in the reactor, containment suits, used piping, etc) which are often dealt with on site, typically by burying for several years until it is not significantly radioactive anymore (Fentiman 2007). High-level waste includes materials such as spent fuel, and is much more radioactive and difficult to deal with. It must be stored on site for several years to cool down before the possibility of moving it to a geological repository is considered.
Waste Storage
Waste from nuclear reactors can contain lethal doses of radiation for thousands of years. The best known way to deal with waste is to store it in a geological repository, deep underground. Currently Yucca Mountain, Nevada is the only site being developed or investigated as a repository in the US, and is scheduled to begin accepting waste in 2017. More repositories will be needed especially if the use of nuclear power is expanded in the US. Even then, over tens of thousands of years waste could possibly leak into the water table. Again the issue is controversial even after extremely expensive and extensive analyses by the U.S. Department of Energy.
SOCIAL IMPACTS
People around the plant
While no one living near a nuclear power plant in the US has been killed accidents are an ever present fear and risk for those living near current power plants. Plants are also targets for terrorist attacks. New designs greatly reduce the probability of serious events associated with plants, but not necessarily the perception of high risk around plants.
Nuclear proliferation
Main fear in the US is that spent fuel will be stolen for use in a ‘dirty bomb.’
Yucca Mountain
The area surrounding Yucca Mountain has traditionally been holy lands of the Western Shoshone, Southern Paiute, and Owens Valley Paiute and Shoshone peoples who arenaturally not enthusiastic about the construction or operation of the facility.
CONCLUSION
There are great potential gains and great potential costs with nuclear power. Existing reactors seems to work well and mostly safely although waste disposal problems remain. If the uranium resource limitation people are correct then we cannot go much further without a new technology, perhaps based on thorium. Various issues related to terrorism are more important than they used to be. Earlier “new technologies” such as Breeders (Clinch River, Super Phoenix) have been abandoned as too expensive. Plumbing issues have plagued the Candu style reactors, although they appear intrinsically cheaper and safer and do not require energy-intensive enrichment. Fusion is still many decades away. So there is no free lunch with nuclear. Nevertheless it is possible that nuclear fission should be considered as a transition fuel on our way to solar or something else simply because the cycle emits far less CO2 than does any fossil fuel. In our opinion we need a very high level series of analyses to review all of these issues. Even if this is done it seems extremely likely that very strong opinions, both positive and negative, shall remain. There may be no resolution to the nuclear question that will be politically viable.
REFERENCES
Anawa http://www.anawa.org.au/mining/tailings.html
Bruce Power (Canadian) “New build Project Environmental Assessment” - Round One Open House BrucePower (2006). Retrieved on April 23, 2007.
Caldicott, H. 2006. Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer To Global Warming Or
Anything Else. Melbourne Press, Australia
Cleveland, Cutler J. (Topic Editor). 2007. "Nuclear fuel cycle." In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). [First published October 8, 2006; Last revised January 28, 2007; Retrieved June 12, 2007].
DOE http://www.ne.doe.gov/np2010/neNP2010a.html
EIA http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactsum.html
Fentimann http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~rer/rerhtml/rer_10.html
Brian J Fleay. 2006. Nuclear power: energy inputs and life cycle net energy yields.
(Version 3, 23 October 2006. http://blog.greenparty.ca/files/Nuclear_In_Out_3.pdf)
Global Security http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/u-centrifuge.htm
Hall, C.A.S., C.J. Cleveland and R. Kaufmann. 1986. Energy and Resource Quality: The ecology of the economic process. Wiley Interscience, NY. 577 pp. (Second Edition. University Press of Colorado).
Hore-Lacy, Ian (Lead Author); U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Content source);
Lindburg, A. 2007. Emergy evaluation of a Swedish Nuclear Power Plant. Uppsula University Neutron Physics Laboratory Report ISNN 1401 – 6269.
Mills, David. (2006) Comparison of solar, nuclear and wind options for large scale implementation. Presidential Address Australian/New Zealand Solar energy society 2006.
Storm van Leeuwen, Jan Willem and Phillip Smith (2004), “Can Nuclear Power Provide Energy for the Future; Would it
Solve the CO2 Problem?”, www.stormsmith.nl.
Proops, J.L. et al (1996). The Lifetime Pollution Implications of Various Types of Electricity Generation – An Input-Output Analysis. Energy Policy 24(3) pp 229-237
Proops J., 2001 "The (non-) economics of the nuclear fuel cycle: an historical and discourse analysis, Ecological Economics,39: 13-19.
Tyner, Gene. 2002. Net Energy from Nuclear Power. Minnesotans for sustainability (web site).
Tyner, Gene, R. Costanza and R. G. Fowler. 1988. The Net-energy yield of nuclear power. Energy Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 73-81,
WISE Uranium Project http://www.wise-uranium.org
Additional theoildrum.com articles related to net energy analysis and EROI:
An EROEI Review
North American Natural Gas Production and EROI Decline
The Energy Return on Time
Peak Oil - Why Smart Folks Disagree - Part II
Ten Fundamental Truths about Net Energy
The North American Red Queen - Our Natural Gas Treadmill
Energy From Wind - A Discussion of the EROI Research
A Net Energy Parable - Why is EROI Important?
A massive global expansion of commercial nuclear power may mean depletion of uranium resources in a few decades, perhaps within the useful operating life of some of the plants now in the planning stages. Breeder reactors are apparently the only viable solution for sustainable nuclear power over the long term, with all the dangers they entail.
By definition, Breeder reactors are reactors configured so as to produce more fissile material than they consume. The reprocessing of fissile material adds to the costs, and is vulnerable to proliferations.
The plan is to build proven, improved Gen-III+ pressurized water reactors over the next decade, then begin to use spent fuel to power Gen-IV fast reactors. Fast reactors segregate and consume fissile material at the same rate that it is created.
http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/genIvFastReactorRptToCongressDec2006.pdf
So yes, older technology like the Super Phenix has been abandoned due to high cost of operation and low uranium prices. However, rising uranium prices and Gen-IV improvements will soon make fast reactors viable.
I agree with Deuterium.
Rather than claiming that breeder technology was too expensive, it really is a case of uranium and enrichment being too cheap. A once-through fuel cycle has been the economical way to make nuclear electricity with recycled spent fuel and a full breeder cycle being more expensive.
Cooling a nuclear reactor with molten sodium sounds pretty scary to the average citizen, I'll agree, but for a nuclear engineer the charms of liquid metal cooling are manifold and very appealing. That said, there may arise competing technologies for breeding such as molten salt.
Breeder reactors appear to offer a solution. The issues I see are that of the circa four breeder reactors built, only Russia’s BN-600 is still operational. The others were shut down either for safety or economic issues. They aren’t proving to be a solution for the generation of nuclear fuel.
The 2nd issue is that Gen IV plants, as I understand, are theoretical. I don’t know of any being built. These may be needed sooner than later but they aren’t here yet. Will we find a working solution soon enough?
Since I assume this is the US version of the Oil Drum, the 3rd issue is that of the Gen-III reactors, or for that matter any reactors, non-are being built in the US. Of the 34 reactors currently under construction, almost all are in Asia. It's good that there is a technology solution that might help meet my energy needs, but how is Nuclear going to help the US and me when none are being built here?
Not related to Breeders or Gen-III reactors, but since Nate Hagen points out that the US hasn’t built a reactor since 1971 and that the (per his “Figure 8”) vast amount of expense of a reactor is at the end of life of the reactor, aren’t our 104 US reactors ready to be dismantled? Is that what his Figure 8 means by "storm?" Who’s going to pay the expense of the dismantling of these reactors? Where do we get the electricity to offset their loss? Do we have to pay to dismantle these while paying to build new ones?
Lastly, doesn’t the reduction of 104 reactors in the US put a lot of fuel on the market for other countries that are building reactors?
Peak-a-boo
Two breeder reactors besides the BN-600 are currently in operation
They are the French Phénix (not Super-Phénix} which has been in operation since the laye 1960's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phénix
And the Indian Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) which has been in operation since October 1985. A second Indian fast breeder, the Indian Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) is expected to go into operation in 2010. The Indians expect to build 4 more by 2020.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2005/09/07/stories/2005090704781300.html
A second Indian commercial fast breeder design, the Fast Thorium Breeder Reactor (FTBR) being developed at the Bhabha Atomic Research Center.
http://www.india-defence.com/reports/3390
Why did you chose to ignore India's very advanced breeder reactor program?
China has been developing fast breeder technology since the 1960's. The Chinese are panning to build a commercial size fast breeder, scheduled to come on line in 2015.
http://www.indianexpress.com/india-news/full_story.php?content_id=87775
Charles Burton,
I did not overlook the French Phénix.
It was shutdown in 1996 as the wikipedia webpage your reference accurately states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phénix
I am aware of the nuclear developments in India. Everything I read about the Indian reactors is "test", "planned" or "developed." Once India passes the test and planning phase and has an operational plant, as Russia does, they can be counted as having a working reactor. India may not succeed, just as the US, French, UK and others have failed with their FBRs. Russia’s BN-600 is only one of four FBRs built by Russia still operational. We may look back at India as we do the others.
The "hinduonnet.com" link you reference no longer works.
The "India Defense" link talks about the theory of India's FBRs using Thorium. Perhaps one day this will be great. I can only hope.
The "indianexpress.com" link points to China’s and India's attempts to build FBRs.
Many countries are very interested in FBRs. Japan was also not mentioned, but they are working hard in this area as well. The Germans are also quite active in the field, albeit not in Germany.
For now, Fast Breeder Reactors, creating more fuel than they consume, is still my hope. They have yet to be proven safe and economical and reside, from one I can see, in the realm of test, planned and developed.
Peak-a-boo
You have mistaken the Super-Phénix which was shut down in 1996 with the Phénix which is expected to be shut down in 2014. The Indians have bred thorium in their their test fast breeder, and the plan to breed thorium in the prototype fast breeders as well as in their "thorium" commercial breeder design. Since the Indians have operated their test breeder for over 20 years, and are building a prototype commercial reactor, I would say they passed the test. Why are you so skeptical about the capacity of the Indians to develop an advanced technology? If the Russians can succeed in developing the BN-600 why not the Indians?
I am not a particular fan of the liquid sodium fast breeder, which I think has proven a difficult to master in practice. Better, far safer, and technologically less arduous approaches are to be found in fluid fueled reactors, Like the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor or the Liquid Chloride Breeder Reactor. But I do not doubt, that a Liquid Sodium fast breeder can be made to work.
Charles
The Phénix is a prototype. It is used to develop scaleable projects like the Super-Phenix and others. Under the title of "Successful Breeder Reactors" I would not give France the gold medal. My sense is the Russia's B-600 is also a prototype that is kept functional for themselves and other countries to study. The holly grail of nuclear energy is the FBR, humankind just doesn’t have a viable FBR solution yet. This is my perception.
India is attempting to make great strides forward. It is only natural for each of us to protect our own interests. In the case of India, the US, Germany, Russia and France were the first to take the lead in nuclear power. India is working hard to find an independent nuclear power system, free from the west. Since they haven't achieved the ultimate Thorium reactor or FBR, they are reliant on the west, the US, Russia, France, and Germany for their fuel. These countries have their interests to protect. This is my perception.
Peak-a-boo, My point is that the EROEI of various nuclear fuel/reactor combinations should be assessed. Evan if you count the BN-600 and the Phénix as prototypes, we are in effect in the stage of commercial development for the LMFBR. And that is exactly what the Indians are doing. At this point in the reactor development cycle there is little doubt that commercial LMFBRs can be made to work. My point here is not to say I like the LMFBR, because I don't, but to argue when questions - which I regard as poorly informed - are raised about the future availability of uranium. My point is this. At least 99% of the potential energy of uranium is unextracted by the current uranium/LWR system. Even if we were running out of uranium, and we are not. We possess the technology to produce nuclear power for a long time, and in addition, even if we are running out of uranium, which is not the case, we can still extract nuclear energy from thorium. Our thorium reserve will last for a very long time.
So far, the problem about breeders has been high capital costs. This is the Achilles' heel of nuclear power, and any new technology that exagerbates it is a non-starter.
Slashing capital costs is one of the most important issues for new breeder designs.
Fluid fuel reactors such as liquid fluoride reactors offer advantages in capital costs over LWRs. They're low pressure and so massive steel pressure vessels aren't required, they're more scalable for very high or low powers than LWRs. That they eliminate the fuel fabrication and complex reprocessing steps are nice also.
LFTR does appear to be one of the most promising concepts, if not the most promising.
Do you have any news on the commercialization of such reactors? The only one I know of is the Fuji project, which isn't proceeding very rapidly, and IIRC won't use continuous reprocessing to maximise the potential of the design.
Cyril R, at the moment theoretical and materials research is being conducted in several countries, but only the Fuji project is directed at developing an actual reactor. This is tragic considering the potential of the LFTR. Development of the LFTR will require an act of political will. The manufacture of LFTR would destroy the current business model of LWR manufacturers, who make their money selling fuel rather than reactors. Efficient use of nuclear fuel in LFTRs would mean that the manufacturers would have to make their money selling reactors, and the current manufactures don't know how to do that.
Here is a list of benefits from the development and adoption of the LFTR/liquid core reactor design.
. The LFTR is an extremely safe reactor design. It is self regulating. Core meltdown is absolutely not a problem. Continuous removal of radioactive gases insure that only small amounts of radioactive gases would be released in a worst case accident. Coolant leaks do not lead to fires or explosions. There would be little or no solid fission product release/radiation problem in the event of a leak. Because of the chemical properties of the liquid salt coolant/fuel attacks by terrorists using explosives or aircraft, would not create a wide dispersal of radioactive materials. The use of liquid salts eliminating a threat to public safety from terrorists attack on LFTRs.
2. The thorium fuel cycle is efficient. Up to 98% of thorium used in a LFTR can be burned. In contrast only about 0.6% of uranium involved in the LWR/uranium fuel cycle is burned.
3. Virtual elimination f the problem of nuclear waste. The LFTR produces 0.1% of the waste that light water reactors produce, per unit of power produced. Instead, the spent fuel of LFTRs contains many useful and some rare and very valuable metals and minerals. LFTR "spent fuel" represents a potential means of providing industry with rare materials in an increasingly resource starved world.
4. Lowest fuel cycle costs coupled with very high fuel safety. A LFTR is more than a reactor. It is a fuel processing/reprocessing system. The liquid salts approach enables fuel and breeding materials to be processed on a continuous basis while the reactor is producing power. This includes continuous removal of gases produced in the nuclear reaction, the processing of newly breed reactor fuel, the removal of fission products. Nuclear fuel (U-233, U-235, and plutonium) can be continuously added to the reactor. Thus the reactor never needs to stop operating for refueling. The nature of the LFTR fuel cycle makes reactor fuel theft by terrorist impossible, while diversion of reactor fuel for weapons purposes a very unlikely approach to nuclear proliferation.
5. Lower manufacturing, construction and siting costs coupled with great manufacturing time efficiencies. The LFTR can be designed in a size that can be mass produced on assembly lines. Many external parts including heat exchanges can be made from low cost carbon-carbon composite materials, dramatically lowering materials, parts, and assembly costs. High reactor operating temperatures mean that electricity can be generated using low cost-highly efficient closed cycle gas turbines. Compact reactor/generation unit means smaller, less expensive reactor/power unit housing is required. The inherently safer design means that less money needs to be spent on reactor safety systems, and on accident containment, while assuring the highest possible public safety. Small reactor/power generator size can simplify siting problems LRTRs can be manufactured and set up in weeks or months, compared years for custom built LWRs.
6. Liquid core reactors can be used to dispose of existing stocks of nuclear waste.
Charles, that sounds as though it would also be good for the production of hydrogen - not that I believe in basing the economy on hydrogen production, but it could possibly be used to make things like biodiesel, which would be less volatile.
This might make problems of using nuclear reactors for peak power more manageable, as during periods of low demand the surplus might be used effectively.
Unfortunately hydrogen production is one of those flat out demands that is either allways on or not if you want any efficiency.
Good demand management will have to be found somewhere else.
US nuclear engineers have built new nukes, just not in the US. I've been at work on new overseas plants for 8 of the last 10 years.
The last two year of my career have been devoted to preparing the application for two reactors in Texas. The application was submitted 9/07 - we're working on revision 3 now. Several other applications are in the NRC's hopper and under review.
As to decommissioning, every US plant has to start a trust fund and make regular payments to fund removal at end of plant life. Last time I check, many plants have TOO much money in their funds since the investments paid off better than expected and the original cost estimates are proving too high.
Joseph,
I consider the US a key leader in the nuclear industry. I would put Russia, the US, France and Germany as the leaders in the Nuclear Reactor field and in that order. My perception, India is attempting to enter the arena. My sense is that they are being kept on a short leash. I am guessing China is simply applying the technologies others have developed, not trying to re-invent the wheel and working as a team player. Japan, well, they may not be showing all their hand, but they are very active as well. I stress, these are my perceptions.
I was unaware of the US Decommissioning Trust Fund. It makes complete sense. Thank you for the information.
I know the US has seven Nuclear plants planned (China 30.) I didn't look into the matter much, but if I were building a plant in the US it would be in Texas.
There are 15 Combined license applications that have been received by the NRC
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col.html
34 plants from 23 applications are expected by 2010
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/new-licensing-files/expected-n...
China has 21 reactors under or about to start construction and another 18 should start construction after that.
35 are under construction right now and that does not include Watts Bar Unit 2 being completed in Tennessee.
Watts Bar 1180 MWe reactor is expected to come on line in 2013 at a cost of $2.49 billion. Construction was suspended in 1985 and will resume late in 2008 under a still-valid permit. It will provide power at 4.4 c/kW
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html
There was a net increase of 3724 MWe in capacity 1991-2003 resulted from many reactors with increases - some substantial, offset by 19 with decreases. [net increase is increased power less reduced power]
As of December 2007 over 110 uprates had been approved, totalling 4900 MWe. A further seven uprates totalling about 750 MWe are pending with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and applications for a total of 1690 MWe are expected by 2011.
In 1980 the average utilization for all US reactors was 54%, by 1991 it was 68%, in 2001 it had risen to 90.7% and in 2007 it was 91.8%. A major component of this is the length of refuelling outage, which in 1990 averaged 107 days but dropped to 40 days by 2000. The record is now 15 days.
Output since 1990, increased from 577 billion kilowatt hours to 807 billion kWh, a 40% improvement despite little increase in installed capacity, and equivalent to 29 new 1000 MWe reactors. Average thermal efficiency rose from 32.49% in 1980 to 33.40% in 1990 and 33.85% in 1999.
Current new build by country in order of amount of power added
China 6 reactors, 5520 MW
Russia 7 reactors, 4920 MW
S Korea 3 reactors, 3000 MW
India 6 reactors, 2976 MW
Japan 2 reactors, 2285 MW
France 1 reactor, 1630 MW
Finland 1 reactor, 1600MW
Canada 2 reactors, 1500 MW
Iran 1, 915MW
Slovakia 2 reactors, 840MW
Argentina 1 reactor, 692MW
Pakistan 1 reactor, 300 MW
35 reactors, 28798 MW (most should be completed by 2012/2013)
91 reactors 99095 MW
with approvals, funding or major commitment in place, mostly expected in operation within 8 years (by 2016)
China raised its target for 2020 to 60GW
http://www.platts.com/Nuclear/highlights/2008/nucp_nw_041008.xml
Much of the increase is likely to be from increased reactor sizes
Sites tentatively identified by prospective investors as most likely to host 1,000-MW PWRs beginning in the Twelfth Plan may in some cases instead see construction of bigger units based on foreign technology from the US, Russia, and France, Chinese sources said last month. That could favor the AP1000 -- provided the State Nuclear Power Technology Co., Snptc, an arm of the State Council of Ministers responsible for China's future nuclear power development, succeeds in increasing the AP1000 power level to 1,400 MW. The 1,600-MW-class EPR, the biggest reactor to be built in China, but so far limited to construction of two units, could also be favored for additional construction should China Guangdong Nuclear Power Co., Cgnpc, overcome opposition to further construction by key Beijing bureaucrats. Russian industry, Chinese sources said, may now also be pushed to complete development of a 1,500-MW PWR for the Tianwan site.
Advancednano
As I follow your threads through this post, I find you a warehouse of knowledge. Our screen names are interesting choices, yours advancednano. I take it to mean something about smaller and better.
Mining: We know where ore or U308 is extracted. Primarily Canada and Australia. Kazakhstan is poised to become the leader. Facts on US production are unclear, the US does leaching still; however, US mining production of U308 became negligible. Now, some things I read tend to imply US leaching or mining of U308 has increased dramatically. Do you know the state of US mining of U?
Canada is projected to grow its output of U308. Anything I read indicates production in a plateau or dropping. What are your thoughts on Canada increasing production?
Do we know anything about the concentration levels of mined material in Canada or Australia? Are they decreasing?
Uranium Conversion (UF6): Converting U308 to UF6 is a gray area for me. It appears the US, through USEC, may be the world leader here. Are the same companies that enrichme Uranium the same that perform U Conversion? Who’s at the top of the list of Conversion?
Enrichment (U235): This area appears clear but it’s good to bounce information off someone. It appears Russia (Tenex) leads with 43% of enrichment. The US (USEC) has 20%. France (Avera) 19%. Germany (Urenco) 15%. Does this appear correct to you?
'Megatons to Megawatts” or “Swords for Ploughshares” deal signed in 1994. This deal expires in, I believe, 2014. Do you know if the deal is being upheld? At current U prices, the Russians may find themselves wanting to break the deal as they have with oil development deals. Did the US have to convert warheads into reactor grade U?
U Pricing: Do you know what caused the spike of U prices to spike to $133 back in 2007?
Lastly, from what I know, inventories of U are depleting. I can’t find any numbers on inventories or the rates of depletion since late the 1990’s. Do you have any information on this?
Advancednano just refers to Advanced nanotechnology as opposed to current nanoscale technology. My website used to be called advancednano but I changed it to nextbigfuture. I believe that molecular manufacturing will be developed and will massively alter human civilization.
Wise uranium has a lot of info on uranium mining
http://www.wise-uranium.org/indexu.html
US uranium mining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-situ_leach
There are currently five in-situ leaching uranium mines operating in the United States, operated by Cameco, Mestena and Uranium Resources Company, all using sodium bicarbonate. ISL produces 90% of the uranium mined in the US. Two more ISL projects are in licensing and proposal stages in the US, and two in reclamation in 2006.
Significant ISL mines are operating in Kazakhstan and Australia. The Beverley uranium mine in Australia uses in-situ leaching. ISL mining produces around 21% of the world's uranium production
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Uranium_mining
Canada uranium mining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Canada
Today the Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan hosts the largest high-grade uranium mines and deposits. Cameco, the world’s largest low-cost uranium producer, which accounts for 18% of the world’s uranium production, operates three mines and one dedicated mill in the region. Among the major mines are Cameco's flagship McArthur River mine, the developing Cigar Lake mine, the Rabbit Lake mine and mill complex, and the world's largest uranium mill at Key Lake. French-owned uranium syndicate Areva also operates the McClean Lake mill. Saskatchewan has become a hotbed of uranium exploration, with many junior exploration companies rushing to explore the highly valuable Athabasca basin.
Read up on Cameco's mine from the company's site
http://www.cameco.com/operations/uranium/mcarthur_river/
The main mine is McArthur River
average ore grade of 20.5%
http://www.investcom.com/moneyshow/uranium_athabasca.htm
various new small discoveries from the junior companies
Forum found 148 million pounds
http://www.forumuranium.com/s/NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=284791&_Type=&_T......
a new areva, denison mine, expected to produce 18,000 tons 2011-2013
http://www.miningweekly.com/article.php?a_id=122717
believe that molecular manufacturing will be developed and will massively alter human civilization.
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/mdd/v07/i07/html/704feature_willi...
Yup - Nanoparticles bypass the blood-brain barrier
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4825-buckyballs-cause-brain-damage...
And, alas I could not find a link to the 1950's monkey death/nanoparticle work.
Molecular manufacturing is making bigger things from molecules. The current nanoparticle technology is useful but is insignificant relative to the larger potential.
Eric you are fixated on small negative incidents while ignoring the larger issue.
The world is filled with naturally occurring nanoparticles. So what is the differential risk and effect ? What is the potential harm relative to potential benefits ?
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11248&page=7
Naturally occurring nanoparticles: volcanic ash, ocean spray, forest fires etc..
http://aps.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.3280.pdf
People are trying to use nanoparticles for drug delivery but are using them in targeted ways. I am unaware of proposals to dump large amounts of artificially synthesized nanoparticles into the air.
Eric you are fixated on small negative incidents while ignoring the larger issue.
And that larger issue is? Overpopulation? Capitalists out to make a buck will do things as documented in Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle? Man's willingness to screw over people who are not 'in your tribe'? What, exactly is the "larger issue"?
The world is filled with naturally occurring nanoparticles.
Oh, so then that makes man's creation of more OK then?
I am unaware of proposals to dump large amounts of artificially synthesized nanoparticles into the air.
And No one has a policy of taking another industrial building block - plastic nurdles - and dumping them in the sea. And yet the Pacific Gyre is full of 'em.
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Ocean/Trashing-Oceans-Plastic4nov02.htm
So just claiming I am unaware of proposals to dump large amounts of artificially synthesized nanoparticles into the air. does not address the known water case, or the case of 'accidental' release. The concern over 'accidental release' is vividly demonstrated by the nurdles in the Gyre.
Alternative energy in China is in the lift, but the coal part leaves little room for optimism:
Brian the Westinghouse/MIT donut fuel approach potentially could pump up the AP-1000 to 1800 MWs. It probably would take about 5 years to develop, but once developed the chinese could begin to build the revised design reactors quickly.
Even without that MIT power uprate.
China is already trying to build AP1000 reactors in Sanmen and Haiyang in China will be rated at 1,250 megawatts. And the next batch look likely to be pushed ot 1400MW.
http://construction.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0249-260138_ITM_platts
Plus China is looking at more 1600MW EPRs and 1500MW PWR.
When the MIT power uprate rolls around it could be pushing the APR to 2100+ MW