From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 04:50:59 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

>In article <p2qrxnc@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>
>>
>>>It seems to be a common conception that nuclear power is a good response 
>>>to any possible climate change problem.  I have challenged this assumption
>>>before but I will address in more detail here.  
>>
>>>	Capital cost:			$1000/installed kW
>>>	Generation cost:		$.05/kWh
>>>	Plant construction period:	6 years
>>>	Capacity factor:		65%
>>>	Lifetime:			30 years
>>
>>>	No costs for decommissioning, waste, health impacts or political
>>>	problems are included
>>
>>Without even addressing the splintered logic  involved in the "less is
>>more", "conservation is generating capacity" line of reasoning, the
>>above numbers are enough to destroy the credibility of the report.
>>Let's look at a few of them.
>>
>>First capital cost: If we postulate a scenario where the US
>>commits to an  all-out conversion to nuclear energy, it must
>>also be postulated that things that need to be done to
>>streamline the process will be done. Things such as generic
>>type-accepted packaged units, less complex fault-tolerant
>>reactor  designs, one stop licensing, putting the intervenors
>>back out on the  street where they belong and so on.  To suggest
>>that a plant would  cost $1000/iKW is grossly dishonest.  One
>>can examine the closest thing the US has had to a type-accepted
>>design was the GE turnkey BTRs of the MkII generation.   Browns
>>Ferry is an example.  A very good example since the first two units
>>were about the last built before the nuclear hysteria sent 
>>costs to the stratosphere.  Units I and II were built for a total
>>cost of about $250 million.  At a MW capacity of about 1000 MWE each,
>>that puts the cost at about $250/iKW.  Technology advancements can 
>>comfortably be assumed to offset inflation over the period.

>In 1987 $?

Sure.  

>Most of these figures were taken from the literature of organizations
>promoting nuclear power and match the best history from France.  The
>only exception is the 65% figure.  I am not sure what its source is
>but increasing it to %80 or %90 will not change capital costs at all
>nor will it drastically change operational costs.  

Perhaps not with your brand of math but in the real world, taking 
a plant's availability from 65% to 90% is a marked change.

>There is no
>experience with 50 year old reactors.  I have read that the issue
>of embrittlement is not well understood.  If John De Armond
>thinks these figures are junk he better take his arguments to his
>friends in the nuclear industry.

Aha! Fresh meat.  Love these newbies.  Dean, I don't need to "take it to my 
friends in the nuclear industry" because I am part of it.  Or was until I 
decided to retire and put ink on dead trees for a living.  Neutron 
embrittlement is quite well understood and is being mitigated even as you 
read this.  Such things as low enrichment peripheral fuel loading and
a slight reduction in power does wonders.  If or when it becomes necessary
to address reactor pot enbrittlement, it will be done in one of a couple
of ways.  Either the pot will be annealed in place or a new pot will
be installed.  Either way, the facility continues to operate 
indefinitely.  The only reactors that will be decommissioned are those
that no longer make economoc sense to operate.

John

The most immediate 
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.