Seven Myths of the Nuclear Renaissance Jim Harding ......Seven Myths of the Nuclear Renaissance Jim...
Transcript of Seven Myths of the Nuclear Renaissance Jim Harding ......Seven Myths of the Nuclear Renaissance Jim...
Seve
n M
yths
of t
he N
ucle
ar
Seve
n M
yths
of t
he N
ucle
ar
Ren
aiss
ance
Ren
aiss
ance
Jim
Har
ding
Eura
tom
50th
Ann
iver
sary
Con
fere
nce
Euro
pean
Par
liam
ent –
Bru
ssel
s, B
elgi
um7
Mar
ch 2
007
Myt
h O
ne:
Nuc
lear
Pow
er is
Che
apM
yth
One
: N
ucle
ar P
ower
is C
heap
•Ex
istin
g nu
clea
r rea
ctor
s are
che
ap; n
ew o
nes a
re n
ot•
Som
e st
udie
s est
imat
e ve
ry lo
w c
osts
for n
ew p
lant
s (v
ario
us y
ear d
olla
rs)
•G
E/W
estin
ghou
se ($
1000
-150
0/kW
)•
Fren
ch M
inis
try o
f Eco
nom
ics,
Fina
nce,
and
Indu
stry
($
1664
/kW
)•
Uni
vers
ity o
f Chi
cago
($15
00/k
W)
•W
orld
Nuc
lear
Ass
ocia
tion
($10
00-1
500/
kW) –
2-3
cent
s/kW
h•
MIT
Nuc
lear
Stu
dy ($
2000
/kW
)•
US
Ener
gy In
form
atio
n A
dmin
istra
tion
($20
83/k
W)
Wha
tW
hat ’’ s
Wro
ng W
ith T
his P
ictu
re?
s Wro
ng W
ith T
his P
ictu
re?
•St
udie
s ass
ume:
•R
apid
con
stru
ctio
n, n
o de
lays
•Ea
sy fi
nanc
ing
•N
o es
cala
tion
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n•
Che
ap u
rani
um•
Ven
dor e
stim
ates
with
no
owne
r’s c
osts
•N
o tra
nsm
issi
on in
terc
onne
ctio
n co
sts
•Ea
sy im
porta
tion
of A
sian
lear
ning
(cre
ws a
nd
cont
ract
ors)
•“L
earn
ing
curv
es”
2
Back
grou
nd –
Indu
stry
Exp
erie
nce
“Las
t Ti
me”
Con
stru
ctio
n C
osts
$0
$1,0
00
$2,0
00
$3,0
00
$4,0
00
$5,0
00
$6,0
00
$7,0
00 1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
Com
mer
cial
Ope
ratio
n D
ate
Construction Costs ($/kwe)
NM
P-2
Byr
on 1
& 2
Bra
idw
ood
1 &
2
McG
uire
1 &
2
Cat
awba
LaSa
lle 1
& 2
Dre
sden
Qua
d Ci
ties
Oco
nee
Zion
Sou
th T
exas
1 &
2
Pal
o Ve
rde
1 &
2
Lim
eric
k 2
His
toric
al U
S C
onst
ruct
ion
Cos
t Exp
erie
nce
His
toric
al U
S C
onst
ruct
ion
Cos
t Exp
erie
nce
75 (p
re75
(pre
-- TM
ITM
I --2
plan
ts o
pera
ting
in 1
986;
$20
02)
2 pl
ants
ope
ratin
g in
198
6; $
2002
)
269%
$400
8/kW
$149
3/kW
1976
-197
7
381%
$441
0/kW
$115
6/kW
1974
-197
5
318%
$355
5/kW
$111
7/kW
1972
-197
3
348%
$265
0/kW
$760
/kW
1970
-197
1
294%
$200
0/kW
$679
/kW
1968
-196
9
209%
$117
0/kW
$560
/kW
1966
-196
7
% O
ver
Act
ual O
vern
ight
Estim
ated
Ove
rnig
htC
onst
ruct
ion
star
t
Mar
k G
iele
ckia
nd J
ames
Hew
lett,
Com
mer
cial
Nuc
lear
Pow
er in
the
Uni
ted
Sta
tes:
Pro
blem
s an
d P
rosp
ects
, US
Ene
rgy
Info
rmat
ion
Adm
inis
tratio
n, A
ugus
t 199
4.
That
Was
Yes
terd
ay
That
Was
Yes
terd
ay ––
This
Is
This
Is
Toda
yTo
day ’’
s Pic
ture
s P
ictu
re
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
520 Ju
n-98
Jun-
99Ju
n-00
Jun-
01Ju
n-02
Jun-
03Ju
n-04
Jun-
05Ju
n-06
Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index
950
1,00
0
1,05
0
1,10
0
1,15
0
1,20
0
1,25
0
1,30
0
1,35
0
Marshall & Swift Equipment Cost Index
Che
mic
al E
ngin
eerin
g Pl
ant C
ost I
ndex
Mar
shal
l & S
wift
Equ
ipm
ent C
ost I
ndex
Ch
em
ica
l En
gin
ee
rin
g P
lan
t C
os
t In
de
x
0.0
10
0.0
20
0.0
30
0.0
40
0.0
50
0.0
60
0.0 19
50
.00
19
60
.00
19
70
.00
19
80
.00
19
90
.00
20
00
.00
20
10
.00
Yea
r
Index
avg
. sl
op
e fr
om
195
9 -
2005
~ 3
.5 %
/yr
avg
. sl
op
e fr
om
200
2 -
2005
~ 7
.4 %
/yr
A S
teep
er C
urve
Tod
ay T
han
in th
e M
id 1
980s
Star
t by
Get
ting
Rea
lSt
art b
y G
ettin
g R
eal
•U
se d
ata
from
eig
ht re
cent
Asi
an p
lant
s•
Ass
ume
4% re
al e
scal
atio
n fr
om 2
002-
2007
and
th
roug
h 6-
yr c
ompl
etio
n•
50/5
0 de
bt e
quity
, with
3%
equ
ity p
rem
ium
•75
per
cent
life
time
capa
city
fact
or•
Hig
her f
uel c
ycle
cos
ts (2
-4x
curr
ent l
evel
s)•
Cap
ital c
ost -
$454
0/kW
($40
00/k
W in
200
7 do
llars
)•
Rea
l dis
coun
ted
cost
s –11
cen
ts/k
Wh
vers
us 5
-7
cent
s/kW
h fo
r win
d an
d 0-
4 ce
nts/
kWh
for
cons
erva
tion
•W
NA
stud
y? 2
-3 c
ents
/kW
h
Myt
h Tw
o: L
earn
ing
is E
asy
M
yth
Two:
Lea
rnin
g is
Eas
y
•M
ore
stan
dard
ized
des
ign
and
bette
r con
stru
ctio
n pr
actic
es•
But
, “le
arni
ng c
urve
s”ca
n go
in re
vers
e, d
riven
by:
•Sk
illed
labo
r and
mat
eria
ls sh
orta
ges
•G
E/To
shib
a st
udy
for T
VA
Bel
lefo
nte
foun
d in
suff
icie
nt sk
illed
labo
r w
ithin
400
mile
radi
us to
supp
ort r
apid
con
stru
ctio
n sc
hedu
le•
Onl
y on
e st
eel m
ill –
in Ja
pan
–cu
rren
tly a
vaila
ble
for p
ress
ure
vess
el
forg
ings
•O
ther
pin
ch p
oint
s thr
ough
out t
he su
pply
cha
in, w
ith p
oten
tial f
or
mon
opol
y pr
icin
g•
Frag
men
ted
mar
ket s
truct
ure
–di
ffer
ent u
tiliti
es; d
iffer
ent
cont
ract
ors
•Q
uest
iona
ble
publ
ic a
ccep
tanc
e of
add
ition
al re
posi
torie
s•
Gro
win
g co
ncer
n an
d op
posi
tion,
regu
lato
ry d
elay
s, an
d po
ssib
le
loss
of i
nves
tor a
nd u
tility
con
fiden
ce
Myt
h Th
ree:
Th
is In
dust
ry C
an
Myt
h Th
ree:
Th
is In
dust
ry C
an
Scal
e U
p R
apid
ly
Scal
e U
p R
apid
ly
•Sh
orta
ges o
f ski
lled
cont
ract
ors,
labo
r, an
d ke
y pa
rts in
evita
bly
lead
to c
ost e
scal
atio
n an
d de
lay
•Fu
el su
pply
–no
t ura
nium
in th
e gr
ound
–bu
t m
ines
, mill
s, an
d en
richm
ent c
apac
ity a
re a
hug
e pr
oble
m•
Hug
e jo
b si
mpl
y to
kee
p pa
ce w
ith re
tirem
ents
–ne
ed 8
new
pla
nts p
er y
ear f
or th
e ne
xt te
n ye
ars
and
20 p
er y
ear f
or th
e fo
llow
ing
deca
de v
s. 1
per
year
glo
bally
sinc
e 20
00
US
Gov
ernm
ent (
EIA
) Pro
ject
ions
U
S G
over
nmen
t (EI
A) P
roje
ctio
ns
of N
ew N
ucle
ar P
ower
of N
ew N
ucle
ar P
ower
The
Rev
ival
Fuel
Sup
ply
Issu
esFu
el S
uppl
y Is
sues
•W
este
rn u
rani
um p
rodu
ctio
n (3
7 kT
U) i
s abo
ut h
alf c
urre
nt
cons
umpt
ion
(62
kTU
)!•
Exce
ss u
tility
and
Rus
sian
inve
ntor
ies f
rom
can
celle
d an
d sh
utdo
wn
plan
ts (1
980-
1990
s, an
d af
ter C
hern
obyl
)•
US
enric
hmen
t priv
atiz
ed (1
998-
2006
)•
Surp
lus R
ussi
an w
eapo
ns u
rani
um (1
999-
2013
)•
So –
pric
es w
ell b
elow
cos
t, sh
ort t
erm
con
tract
s with
pric
e ce
iling
s, no
new
dev
elop
men
t•
Enr
ichm
ent c
apac
ity is
als
o pr
iced
bel
ow m
argi
nal c
ost
•N
ew p
lant
s wou
ld lo
se m
oney
at c
urre
nt p
rice
•Lo
w u
rani
um p
rices
led
to 2
5% h
ighe
r out
put w
ith m
ore
uran
ium
w
aste
d•
Lon
g le
ad ti
mes
for
expa
ndin
g bo
th -
wor
se th
an C
alifo
rnia
’s
faile
d el
ectr
icity
mar
ket e
xper
imen
t
Jeff
Com
bs, P
resi
dent
, Ux
Con
sulti
ng C
ompa
ny, P
rice
Exp
ecta
tions
and
Pric
e Fo
rmat
ion,
pre
sent
atio
n to
Nuc
lear
Ene
rgy
Inst
itute
Inte
rnat
iona
l Ura
nium
Fue
l S
emin
ar 2
006
Com
bs, O
ctob
er 2
006.
Pric
es in
mid
Feb
ruar
y 20
07 w
ere
$85/
lb –
off
the
char
t.
Tom
Nef
f (M
IT),
Ura
nium
and
Enr
ichm
ent:
Eno
ugh
Fuel
for t
he N
ucle
ar R
enai
ssan
ce?,
D
ecem
ber 2
006.
Tom
Nef
f, M
IT
Myt
h Fo
ur:
Rep
roce
ssin
g So
lves
the
Myt
h Fo
ur:
Rep
roce
ssin
g So
lves
the
Supp
ly P
robl
emSu
pply
Pro
blem
•R
epro
cess
ing
is e
xpen
sive
–pr
obab
ly 3
x on
ce-
thro
ugh
nucl
ear f
uel c
ost –
and
very
cap
ital
inte
nsiv
e•
Rok
kash
o(J
apan
) ~ $
20 b
illio
n/80
0 M
THM
/yr
•M
ore
than
$24
00/k
g ju
st fo
r cap
ital r
etur
n•
Lim
ited
capa
city
to u
se m
ixed
oxi
de fu
el in
cu
rren
t rea
ctor
s (ab
out ¼
core
with
out
mod
ifica
tions
)•
The
U a
nd S
WU
bub
bles
will
bur
st so
me
time;
ne
w re
proc
essi
ng is
ext
rem
ely
risky
1.3-
3x4x
Diff
eren
tial
21-3
5 m
ills/
kWh
20 m
ills/
kWh
Clo
sed
12-1
7 m
ills/
kWh
5 m
ills/
kWh
Ope
nFu
el c
ycle
cos
t$1
250-
2000
/kg
$100
0/kg
Rep
roce
ssin
g$4
00/k
g$4
00/k
gD
ispo
sal
$275
/kg
$275
/kg
Fabr
icat
ion
$200
-250
/SW
U$1
00/S
WU
Enric
hmen
t$1
60-2
65/k
g$3
0/kg
Ura
nium
This
ana
lysi
sM
ITFu
el c
ycle
step
s
Myt
h Fi
ve:
Was
te is
No
Big
Dea
lM
yth
Five
: W
aste
is N
o B
ig D
eal
•U
rani
um m
ill ta
iling
s con
tain
85%
of t
he ra
dioa
ctiv
ity in
th
e or
igin
al o
re, o
ften
left
on th
e su
rfac
e to
con
tam
inat
e bu
ildin
g m
ater
ials
and
wat
er su
pplie
s –ef
fect
s ofte
n lim
ited
to in
dige
nous
peo
ples
in U
S, A
ustra
lia, C
anad
a, e
tc•
Yuc
ca is
in se
rious
trou
ble
•It
has
rea
ched
its s
tatu
tory
vol
ume
limit
•U
S N
RC
Com
mis
sion
er M
cGaf
figan
–“W
e’ve
so ru
ined
pol
itics
w
ith th
e st
ate
of N
evad
a th
at w
e’ve
nev
er re
cove
red.
We’
re
unlik
ely
to re
cove
r. Y
ou c
anno
t im
pose
thin
gs o
n so
vere
ign
stat
es.”
(Feb
ruar
y 16
, 200
7)•
Form
er U
S D
OE
pro
ject
man
ager
Lak
e B
arre
tt–
“I th
ink
the
prog
ram
is in
jeop
ardy
.”(F
ebru
ary
19, 2
007)
Myt
h Si
x: R
epro
cess
ing
Solv
es th
e M
yth
Six:
Rep
roce
ssin
g So
lves
the
Rad
ioac
tive
Was
te P
robl
emR
adio
activ
e W
aste
Pro
blem
•G
NEP
–at
the
very
leas
t a $
50 b
illio
n m
ista
ke•
Treb
les (
at le
ast)
nucl
ear f
uel c
ost
•Ex
pand
s Yuc
ca c
apac
ity, p
rimar
ily b
y le
avin
g Sr
-90
and
Cs-
137
abov
e gr
ound
for h
undr
eds o
f yea
rs•
Rel
ies o
f unt
este
d an
d un
prov
en te
chno
logi
es fo
r bot
h ac
tinid
e se
para
tion
and
adva
nced
reac
tor o
pera
tion
•A
ccel
erat
es n
ear t
erm
pro
lifer
atio
n ris
ks•
It w
ill n
ot h
appe
n
Myt
h Se
ven:
The
Alte
rnat
ives
Can
not
Com
pete
–Th
ey A
lread
y D
o
-
2,00
0
4,00
0
6,00
0
8,00
0
10,0
00
12,0
00
14,0
00
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
kWh
U.S
.
Cal
iforn
ia
2004
An
Effic
ienc
y Su
cces
s Sto
ry =
22
Few
er R
eact
ors s
ince
197
0
The
Frid
ge
The
Frid
ge ––
size
up
10%
, cos
t dow
n
size
up
10%
, cos
t dow
n
60%
, and
eff
icie
ncy
up 7
5%60
%, a
nd e
ffic
ienc
y up
75%
Fina
lly
Fina
lly ––
Rap
id T
echn
olog
ical
R
apid
Tec
hnol
ogic
al
Cha
nge
in
Cha
nge
in R
enew
able
sR
enew
able
s•
Larg
er m
ore
effic
ient
win
d tu
rbin
es w
ith o
ffsh
ore
sitin
g•
Extre
mel
y ra
pid
prog
ress
in p
hoto
volta
ic te
chno
logy
•Ta
ke o
ne e
xam
ple
---N
anos
olar
•st
arte
d by
the
Goo
gle
foun
ders
, bac
ked
also
by
Swis
s Re
•B
uild
ing
two
430
MW
/yr t
hin
film
PV
pro
duct
ion
faci
litie
s thi
s ye
ar in
Ger
man
y an
d C
alifo
rnia
, usi
ng a
tech
nolo
gy th
ey e
quat
e to
pr
intin
g ne
wsp
aper
s•
Non
silic
on C
IGS
tech
nolo
gy (c
oppe
r ind
ium
gal
lium
dis
elen
ide)
•T
arge
t pri
ce is
$0.
50/p
eak
wat
t ---
chea
per
than
del
iver
ed
elec
tric
ity p
rice
in m
ost p
arts
of t
he w
orld
•W
ill it
wor
k? W
ill th
ey la
st?
Per
haps
–w
e w
ill k
now
soon
.•
Twen
ty y
ears
from
now
ligh
t wat
er re
acto
r tec
hnol
ogy
will
be
roug
hly
the
sam
e as
it is
toda
y