From: aa139@Freenet.carleton.ca (Mike Lynch)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: National Capital Freenet, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:50:48 GMT


Regarding your questions:   
 
1. (a) The EIA study costs are in 1982 dollars.
 
   (b) The Los Alamos reporting of OTA gathered costs are in 1982 dollars. 
 
2. Factors influencing increase in costs as reported in the Office of 
Technology Assessment report ( OTA-E-216, February 1984) are as follows:
 
   (a) "Nuclear component prices increased 1 or 2 percent points faster 
than inflation (Handy Whitman nuclear index)." (p. 60)
 
   (b) "Materials used in nuclear plants have increased, e.g. from an 
estimated 2000ft/MW of cable for a typical plant to be constructed in 1971 
to about 5000 ft/MW of cable for the average of eight plants under 
construction in 1982-85." (p. 60)
 
   (c) "Materials also have become more complex.  A whole set of seismic 
requirements to restrain piping systems during earthquakes was introduced 
in the late 1970s.  Simple cast or machine pipe supports (costing several 
hundred dollars) have been replaced with very sophisticated restraints 
called 'snubbers' with shock absorbers, costing many thousands of 
dollars." (p.60)
 
   (d) "Quality control procedures and paperwork have added to the cost of 
materials and components." (p.61)
 
   (e) "Finally, there has been a steady increase in the amount of labour 
required per kw, both manual (craft) and nonmanual.  For a series of 
typical plants costed out over 15 years in a study for DOE, craft labour 
requirements increased from 3.5 workhours/kW for a plant starting 
construction in 1967 to 21.6 workhours/kW for the average of 16 plants 
under construction for completion in 1982-85.  Nonmanual field and 
engineering services have also increased dramatically.  for a slightly 
different series of typical plants, estimates of field and engineering 
services increased from 1.3 workhours/kW in 1967 to 9.2 workhours/kW in 
1980.
 
3. Another point made by the DOE study:
 
   (a) "The analysis indicates that a 25 percent increase in the size of a 
nuclear power plant would be associated with a 12 percent reduction in 
real construction costs per unit of capacity if lead times and size were 
not related.  The results of the study also indicate, however, that, in 
fact, a 25 percent increase in size is associated with an 18 percent 
increase in lead time, and the 18 percent longer lead time is related to a 
22 percent increase in the real cost or quantity of land, labor, and 
material used to construct a nuclear power plant." (DOE/EIA-0485, p.xv)
 
[Keep in mind that LWRs became progressively bigger over time.]
 
4. Concluding Remark:
 
An interesting competitive note between the CANDU PHWR and the US LWR 
systems.  AECL developed the 600 MWe reactor.  Ontario Hydro brought the 
CANDU design to 850 MWe. Current activities within AECL are directed at 
the 450 MWe reactor....shorter lead time, more attractive for finnacing, 
construction innovation with modular concept, etc.  I would suspect that 
if the US was not so protective of its design on a commercial basis, the 
CANDU would fair very well with US utilities...on the condition that there 
was a second era for nuclear power.
 
-- 
Newsgroups: sci.energy