From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:58:55 GMT

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 $?
>
>Next, plant construction interval.  The japanese have routinely built
>conventional LWR plants in 3 years.  A reasonable estimate for a plant
>of modest complexity.
>
>Next, availability.  The industry standard of performance for present
>day reactors is "outage to outage" availability.  That is, pull the 
>rods and run til the fuel runs out.  A one month outage every 18 months
>gives an availability of 94%.  High burnup fuel addressing the goal of
>extending the fueling cycle beyond 18 months is a current industry
>goal.  It is reasonable to assume that an optimized reactor designed
>for widespread deployment would have the ability to refuel on-line.
>The secondary plant would still need an outage every few years for 
>turbine overhaul and so on.  
>
>Beyond that, an optimal design would have multiple fractional capacity
>reactors feeding multiple turbines in a matrix.  This would permit
>the plant to remain online at reduced capacity if one reactor must be
>shut down AND would permit the shutdown of one turbine for maintenance
>while the other ran at reduced output.  
>
>Using an availability of 65% in an analysis borders on fraud.
>
>Lastly, lifetime. The design life for present day power plants is 40 years.
>Few people in the industry believe a plant will be turned off and 
>decommissioned at the end of 40 years.  Conventional practice will be followed
>in most cases in which incremental improvements are made continuously and
>periodically major overhauls are done.  TVA (the utility I'm most
>familiar with) has fossil units almost 100 years old.  There is nothing
>there other than some of the concrete that is actually 100 years old.
>
>Consider again Browns Ferry.  It is approaching 25 years old.  There is 
>not ever a consideration of shutting down the plant in 5 years.  I was
>down for several years for a practically complete overhaul in the late
>80s.  It probably has another 20 or 30 years before another overhaul
>will be needed.  I think a 50 year lifetime would be a conservative 
>planning estimate.  A 30 year estimate is silly.
>
>I'll let others take shots at the rest of the "study".  I've seen enough
>in just this little chunk to discredit it.

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.  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.
>
>john
>-- 
>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.


-- 
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
Newsgroups: sci.environment