Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: nuclear power: abundant? and cheap?



From what I remember of the nuclear power calculations John's calcuation is
correct. In the 60s and 70s there was a big push to develop the LMFBR
Liquid metal fast breeder reactor so that there would be anough nuclear fuel
to last for a long time. It would breed twice as much fuel as it used.
Without this the fuel is indeed not very plentiful. Of course we could be
converting the excess Plutonium from the dismantled weapons in our reactors.
With the LMFBR I have seen estimates that nuclear power would last for 300
years.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX



I just did the following calculation. I'm not an expert,
so if anybody has better numbers and/or a more sophisticated
method of analysis, I'd be glad to see it.

Estimate world's supply of uranium, "proven" and
"probable" reserves:
3e6 tons natural uranium

Estimate worlds'supply of coal:
1e12 tons

Fraction of natural uranium that is useful(*) U235:
less than 1%

Useful(*) energy equivalence factor, tons of coal per
ton of natural uranium:
1e5

Calculate energy equivalent of uranium supply:
3e11 tons of coal-equivalence
=less than 1/3rd of actual non-nuclear coal supply
not to mention other fossil fuels e.g. oil and methane

(*) Note that the evaluation of useful energy-content
would go up by a couple orders of magnitude if breeder
reactors were widely used -- but they are not, apparently
because they pose risks that the government and the nuclear-
power industry can't tolerate. So for the next many years
at least, the foregoing calculation will remain valid.

This calculation seriously calls into question the claims
that uranium is an "abundant" source of energy.

==============

Nuclear power is also not as cheap as it was predicted to
be. Currently it is about 6 cents per kwh versus 4 cents
for gas or coal at current prices. OTOH it wouldn't take
too much of a perturbation in the fossil-fuel market to
tip the scales.

==============

A related calculation: The cost of the Yucca Mountan facility
is variously estimated, but it's got to be over 50 billion
dollars. Of this, less than half will be recovered via fees
charged to nuclear utilities, at present rates. Taxpayers
will get stuck with the rest. If the cost of the facility
were properly asessed to the industry, nuclear-power rates
would go up by a fraction of a cent per kwh. So, the cost
of long-term storage is a noticeable but not overwhelmingly
huge piece of the pie, if you believe that Yucca Mountain
does actually solve "the" long-term storage problem -- and
at some point it depends on what we mean by "long" term.