The "2010 MIT Study on The Future oF the Nuclear Fuel Cycle" (which is the one at your link) is what I was referring to. That would be the "cross disciplinary" study that opens with a discussion of
Economics and states:
"Study Findings and Recommendations
Economics
The viability of nuclear power as a significant energy option for the future depends critically on its economics. While the cost of operating nuclear plants is low, the capital cost of the plants themselves is high. This is currently amplified by the higher cost of financing construction due to the perceived financial risk of building new nuclear plants. For new base load power in the US, nuclear power plants are likely to have higher levelized electricity costs than new coal plants (without carbon dioxide capture and sequestration) or new natural gas plants. Elimi-nating this financial risk premium makes nuclear power levelized electricity cost competitive with that of coal, and it becomes lower than that of coal when a modest price on carbon diox- ide emissions is imposed. This is also true for comparisons with natural gas at fuel prices char- acteristic of most of the past decade. Based on this analysis, we recommended in 2003 that financial incentives be provided for the first group of new nuclear plants that are built. The first mover incentives put in place in the US since 2005 have been implemented very slowly.
This claim often distorted by nuclear proponents, and such distortion is address by Shrader Frechette in an exchange with Pietrangelo , in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists;
Pietrangelo claims, "Once a nuclear energy facility is built, it produces electricity at a fraction of the cost of other sources." However, this red-herring claim is like saying, "Once you pay for your home, costs of living there are a fraction of the costs of renting."
As The Economist notes, reactor capital (including interest) costs -- which Pietrangelo ignores -- are 75 percent of fission costs. Therefore, the government says reactor capital costs PDF are "the most important factor that determines the economic competitiveness of nuclear energy." Pietrangelo thus invalidly compares 25 percent (of fission costs) to 100 percent (of costs of other electricity sources).
Market data likewise contradict Pietrangelo. Both Moody's and Standard and Poor's downgrade the credit ratings of utilities with reactors. They warn that even current, massive nuclear subsidies -- the result of lobbyists' persuading taxpayers to cover atomic- energy costs, because banks and investors refuse to do so -- rarely make fission economical. Ignoring decommissioning, waste storage, insurance, and other subsidized costs, in 2008 Moody's reported that fission still costs three times more than natural gas. In 2009, years before Fukushima, Moody's Report 117883 warned -- despite enormous subsidies -- that fission-plant investments had "substantial" economic risks and were becoming even "more negative."
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/roundtables/nuclear-energy-different-other-energy-sourcesHer argument is especially germane to you PamW, since it focuses on why there is disagreement about the use of nuclear power and concludes:
A second reason that might explain disagreement is failure to cite sources. Consider five examples of pro-atomic-energy claims -- about nuclear-related radiation, terrorism, costs, fuel, and emissions. All lack citations. All are contradicted by classic scientific or market data.
Those quotes are from Shrader-Frechette "Myths about nuclear reliability, radiation, and markets" at the BAS link:
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/roundtables/nuclear-energy-different-other-energy-sourcesThe Fuel Cycle discussion is the next area of the MIT paper:
Fuel Cycle
Recommendation
For the next several decades, a once through fuel cycle using light water reactors (LWRs) is the preferred economic option for the U.S. and is likely to be the dominant feature of the nuclear energy system in the U.S. and elsewhere for much of this century. Improvements in light-water reactor designs to increase the efficiency of fuel resource utilization and reduce the cost of future reactor plants should be a principal research and development focus.
In other words, despite your out of context quote the use of any existing breeder reactor is not seen as having a place in our foreseeable energy future. It is as much a hyped pipe dream today as it was in 1970 when Nixon was promising it was going to be the answer to our energy problems.
Why don't you describe, in simple step by step detail, what the full fuel cycle is for breeder reactors?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
