nine_yarder's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/207030/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/177960/comments?source=feed#comment-804341 804341 europe.theoildrum.com/...

The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part I: Nuclear Fission Energy Today

Summary of Part I: Nuclear fission energy today

Our analysis of publicly available data from the large international and very pro-nuclear organiza tions, the IAEA and the WNA, show that the current evolution of nuclear fission energy is consistent with a slow nuclear phase-out. This situation is summarized by the following points:

The overall fraction of nuclear energy to electric energy has gone down from 18% in 1993 to less than 14% in 2008. With electric energy providing roughly 16% of the world-wide energy end use, one finds overall a nuclear energy contribution of less than 2.5%.
The number of produced TWhe of electric energy from world-wide nuclear power plants is now lower than in 2005, and it has decreased by about 2% from a maximum of 2658 TWhe in 2006 to 2601 TWhe in 2008.
Today and world wide, 48 nuclear power plants with a capacity of about 40 GWe are under construction. Only 10% of them are being constructed within OECD countries, which host currently about 85% of the existing nuclear reactors. However, about 100 older reactors with slightly larger capacity are reaching their retirement age during the same period. It follows that even if all 48 reactors might be connected within the next 5 to 10 years to the electric grid, it will be difficult to maintain the current level of TWhe produced by nuclear energy.
The natural uranium equivalent required to operate the 370 GWe nuclear power plants of today is roughly 65,000 tons per year. However during the past 10 years, the world-wide uranium mines extracted, on average, only about 40,000 tons of uranium per year, and the difference had to be compensated for by secondary resources. According to the data from the Red Book 2007 and the WNA, the remaining civilian uranium stocks are expected to be exhausted during the next few years. Consequently the current uranium supply situation is unsustainable.
The urgency to increase world-wide uranium mining by a large amount is well documented in the current and past Red Book editions and related official declarations. However, the latest uranium mining data indicate that new uranium mines will not be capable to compensate for the diminishing secondary uranium resources, and that it will be difficult to fuel the existing 370 GWe. It seems that either a rather welcome but improbable further large conversion of nuclear weapons into reactor material will happen during the coming years, or fuel supply problems within the next 3-5 years will force a 10-20 GWe reduction of the operational nuclear power capacity.
We can thus conclude Part I: Nuclear Fission Energy Today, with the statement that publicly available official data are inconsistent with the widespread belief that the world is in a "Nuclear Energy Renaissance" phase. In reality, the data about uranium mining and the large number of aging nuclear reactors indicate that the trend of a 1% annual decrease of fission produced TWhe will continue at least up until 2015. In fact, the increasingly serious uranium supply situation might even lead to a forced nuclear shutdown of perhaps 5% of the world-wide reactors, most likely in countries without sufficient domestic uranium mining and enrichment facilities. Such a result would certainly end the widespread belief in a bright future for nuclear fission energy.]]> Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:16:58 -0500 europe.theoildrum.com/...

The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part I: Nuclear Fission Energy Today

Summary of Part I: Nuclear fission energy today

Our analysis of publicly available data from the large international and very pro-nuclear organiza tions, the IAEA and the WNA, show that the current evolution of nuclear fission energy is consistent with a slow nuclear phase-out. This situation is summarized by the following points:

The overall fraction of nuclear energy to electric energy has gone down from 18% in 1993 to less than 14% in 2008. With electric energy providing roughly 16% of the world-wide energy end use, one finds overall a nuclear energy contribution of less than 2.5%.
The number of produced TWhe of electric energy from world-wide nuclear power plants is now lower than in 2005, and it has decreased by about 2% from a maximum of 2658 TWhe in 2006 to 2601 TWhe in 2008.
Today and world wide, 48 nuclear power plants with a capacity of about 40 GWe are under construction. Only 10% of them are being constructed within OECD countries, which host currently about 85% of the existing nuclear reactors. However, about 100 older reactors with slightly larger capacity are reaching their retirement age during the same period. It follows that even if all 48 reactors might be connected within the next 5 to 10 years to the electric grid, it will be difficult to maintain the current level of TWhe produced by nuclear energy.
The natural uranium equivalent required to operate the 370 GWe nuclear power plants of today is roughly 65,000 tons per year. However during the past 10 years, the world-wide uranium mines extracted, on average, only about 40,000 tons of uranium per year, and the difference had to be compensated for by secondary resources. According to the data from the Red Book 2007 and the WNA, the remaining civilian uranium stocks are expected to be exhausted during the next few years. Consequently the current uranium supply situation is unsustainable.
The urgency to increase world-wide uranium mining by a large amount is well documented in the current and past Red Book editions and related official declarations. However, the latest uranium mining data indicate that new uranium mines will not be capable to compensate for the diminishing secondary uranium resources, and that it will be difficult to fuel the existing 370 GWe. It seems that either a rather welcome but improbable further large conversion of nuclear weapons into reactor material will happen during the coming years, or fuel supply problems within the next 3-5 years will force a 10-20 GWe reduction of the operational nuclear power capacity.
We can thus conclude Part I: Nuclear Fission Energy Today, with the statement that publicly available official data are inconsistent with the widespread belief that the world is in a "Nuclear Energy Renaissance" phase. In reality, the data about uranium mining and the large number of aging nuclear reactors indicate that the trend of a 1% annual decrease of fission produced TWhe will continue at least up until 2015. In fact, the increasingly serious uranium supply situation might even lead to a forced nuclear shutdown of perhaps 5% of the world-wide reactors, most likely in countries without sufficient domestic uranium mining and enrichment facilities. Such a result would certainly end the widespread belief in a bright future for nuclear fission energy.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/177960/comments?source=feed#comment-803762 803762 >
> The price of nuclear has also been grossly inflated in the US.<br/>It
> is clear that nuclear plants can be built swiftly, safely and cheaply
> and to time, as that is what is done in other countries.
> The high costs result from poor practice in both regulation and construction,
> and are not inherent in the technology at all.

If nuclear were a good option in the US, then industry would have been working towards a viable solution for the last 10 years. It is simply not an attractive option for the utility companies without huge government subsidies.

For several years I worked in a steel foundry which produced nuclear reactor vessel nozzles. These items cost about $50,000 each and required a high degree of skill to manufacture and test. In many ways it was more art than science. Blow the ingot forging, metallurgical, or machining critical tolerances and the whole reactor delivery schedule is put back 3 months. This is high risk for both the customer and the manufacturer.

It would take years to assemble and develop the expertise to produce this and related technologies. My guess is that it would take 5-10 years before the infrastructure could be put in place to produce 20 reactors per year.

And before that, it would take years for government and industry to agree on a standard one size fits all reactor vessel design.

How many engineering graduates are being produced with Nuclear Engineering degrees, like myself?

Nuclear power is not, in the remotest sense, fast, cheap or safe. After all these years, the disposal and storage issues have not been solved. Fast Breeder reactors are not technologically feasible for years to come. Fusion is a pipe dream.

On the other hand, installing solar and wind infrastructure only requires basic construction skills.]]> Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:28:39 -0500 >
> The price of nuclear has also been grossly inflated in the US.<br/>It
> is clear that nuclear plants can be built swiftly, safely and cheaply
> and to time, as that is what is done in other countries.
> The high costs result from poor practice in both regulation and construction,
> and are not inherent in the technology at all.

If nuclear were a good option in the US, then industry would have been working towards a viable solution for the last 10 years. It is simply not an attractive option for the utility companies without huge government subsidies.

For several years I worked in a steel foundry which produced nuclear reactor vessel nozzles. These items cost about $50,000 each and required a high degree of skill to manufacture and test. In many ways it was more art than science. Blow the ingot forging, metallurgical, or machining critical tolerances and the whole reactor delivery schedule is put back 3 months. This is high risk for both the customer and the manufacturer.

It would take years to assemble and develop the expertise to produce this and related technologies. My guess is that it would take 5-10 years before the infrastructure could be put in place to produce 20 reactors per year.

And before that, it would take years for government and industry to agree on a standard one size fits all reactor vessel design.

How many engineering graduates are being produced with Nuclear Engineering degrees, like myself?

Nuclear power is not, in the remotest sense, fast, cheap or safe. After all these years, the disposal and storage issues have not been solved. Fast Breeder reactors are not technologically feasible for years to come. Fusion is a pipe dream.

On the other hand, installing solar and wind infrastructure only requires basic construction skills.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/122012/comments?source=feed#comment-399660 399660 Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:12:13 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/93832/comments?source=feed#comment-245220 245220 Thu, 04 Sep 2008 08:23:09 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/89637/comments?source=feed#comment-224734 224734 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 07:20:25 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/87934/comments?source=feed#comment-218337 218337
I'm thinking of retail sales for everything including clothes, gas and food. Secure payments with bonus awards in apple store points.]]> Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:36:47 -0400
I'm thinking of retail sales for everything including clothes, gas and food. Secure payments with bonus awards in apple store points.]]>