seven myths of the nuclear renaissance jim harding ......seven myths of the nuclear renaissance jim...
TRANSCRIPT
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