Crisis opens the door to a new nuclear era

Source: www.al.com

Thursday, June 26, 2008

FINALLY, THE nation is moving back to the future of alternative energy.

It took a new energy crisis and the emergence of climate change as a global issue to persuade U.S. leaders to embrace — in some cases, warily — nuclear power. Unfortunately, the lingering effects of Three Mile Island Syndrome lasted almost 30 years, causing the country that originally harnessed the atom to fall well behind Europe and Japan in developing peaceful uses for nuclear energy.

But with the price of carbon-based energy soaring and the search for ways to cut carbon emissions intensifying, nuclear power advocates have suddenly found powerful new allies in Washington, including the two men vying for the presidency.

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, recently called for a major expansion of the nuclear power industry. Sen. McCain wants to see 45 new nuclear facilities come on line by 2030.

Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. McCain's likely Democratic foe, seems to be slowly warming up to nuclear power. During a meeting with the nation's governors last week, he said nuclear power was "not a panacea," but added that it was worth investigating with an eye toward future development.

That's hardly a ringing endorsement, but it's an improvement over the traditional anti-nuclear militancy of his party's left wing. Congressional Democrats also are quietly moving toward a more pro-nuclear stance. Many environmental activists aligned with the Democrats now realize there is no other energy alternative that has the potential to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The 2005 energy bill passed by Congress re-opened the door to nuclear power by providing federal loan guarantees to help companies with the massive cost of building new reactors. Currently, proposals for 15 new reactors are moving through the regulatory pipeline.

That falls far short of what the country needs to reduce pollution and escape dependence on foreign energy resources. According to a government study, if the U.S. power industry expanded its nuclear footprint to the same size as France's nuclear power industry, which provides 80 percent of that country's electricity, CO2 emissions in the United States would fall to the level specified by the Kyoto climate treaty.

Currently, nuclear plants supply 20 percent of the nation's electricity. The presidential candidates and congressional leaders should set a goal of more than doubling that percentage in the next 20 years.

Congress can help by removing regulatory obstacles and speeding up the glacial process of licensing nuclear facilities. In licensing and regulating nuclear plants, the government should take into account that the commercial nuclear power industry has a better safety record than any other power-generating industry.

The lack of nuclear waste disposal sites is the biggest obstacle to the growth of the nuclear industry. Obstructionists continue to block the development of a national waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. Nuclear advocates may be stymied if they fail to make an all-out push for the Yucca Mountain project.

Fifty years ago, nuclear power was considered the wave of the future. But a lot of Americans are just now finding out that it's the cleanest, most efficient alternative to fossil fuels.

With the Three Mile Island hysteria finally behind us, the nation is ready to go nuclear, big-time.

The G 20 and the GCC Agenda

17/11/2008

When the world's powers gather together during the month of November in the United States to begin a series of meetings to discuss the global financial crisis, the Gulf Cooperation Council states (GCC - Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) will be an important component of the discussion. While Saudi Arabia will be an active direct participant, the other GCC states will be keen listeners. To be sure, these states are impacted by the financial crisis just as much as other countries despite having large financial reserves based on their position as the world's most significant oil producers. In fact, the GCC states are likely to face a certain degree of pressure for an anticipated constructive role they will be expected to play. For example, US President Bush has already been suggesting that he is looking forward to the involvement of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the summit. Similarly, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has called for the Gulf States to contribute to a new fund facility being created within the International Monetary Fund.

In this context, it is important to remember that the GCC states have traditionally played a stabilizing role whether in terms of financial markets through their investment decisions or by maintaining price equilibrium and stable supplies to the world's energy markets. This position will not change. However, it is important that the discussions on the current financial crisis not be limited to the present economic agenda only but that the meeting also considers the broader political context in which this crisis is occurring and being handled. For the GCC countries this is an important item on the overall agenda and it will be necessary for other participating countries, including the United States, to comprehend that solely seeing the position of the GCC states in economic terms is no longer sufficient.

The reason for a broader agenda is that the current global financial crisis cannot and should not be seen in isolation. It is indeed the culmination and manifestation of a series of interrelated unresolved problems, which have led to accumulated tensions in the international political, security and economic system, tensions that are causing deep fractures in the system itself. One way to compare the situation is to relate it to how earthquakes occur. Here, tectonic plates are constantly in movement, getting closer or farther from each other. Such movements create growing stress at the points of juncture between plates, stress which must be released either through multiple smaller adjustments (small earthquakes) or through a major, sometimes catastrophic event.

Today, we are witnessing a major earthquake whose epicenter is in the United States and in the financial system, but its origins are not exclusively in either of the two.

The global system has accumulated stress in many of the plates that constitute it. This includes the following, not necessarily exhaustive, list:

The international trade plate has seen rapid progress towards globalization, with shifting production of material goods from the traditional industrial countries to new emerging countries, creating greater and greater trade imbalances with growing problems for employment in the industrial countries and the progressive disappearance of industry. These trends are not sustainable, in the sense that if one extrapolates them into the future, one comes to a vision which is paradoxical and clearly unacceptable. So, something must be done: not necessarily a complete reversal of liberalization, but surely a less ideological implementation of free trade, with exceptions and a degree of state re-involvement in the economy. Signs of that are already evident.

The international energy system is characterized by a huge imbalance in the level of per capita energy consumption between the US and the rest of the industrial countries; between the industrial countries and the emerging countries; between even the emerging countries and the poorer countries, including almost the whole of Africa, where billions of people do not have access to commercial energy at all. Available reserves of fossil fuel together with environmental considerations clearly tell us that the current pattern of energy consumption in the industrial (and the GCC) countries is unsustainable. Something must change very radically if one wishes to be able to envision an acceptable scenario of the future.

The international security system has been characterized by the unchallenged and unchallengeable supremacy of a single superpower, but whose immense military might has proven totally ineffective to achieve the objectives that matter. The US has not been able to win the war either in Iraq or in Afghanistan and has found its hands tied with regard to Iran. As a result, the US is looking like a useless superpower - it has the might to destroy the world but cannot impose its will unilaterally. This is an untenable position in the long run. The non-proliferation file will probably be one on which things must change quite rapidly. Faced with the resurgence of interest in nuclear energy and the impossibility of keeping nuclear ambitions in check in Iran or North Korea or elsewhere, the nuclear powers will either have to admit defeat or finally accept a substantial reduction in their nuclear arsenals. A complete rethinking of the US military strategy in the coming months and years is one aspect that can be anticipated.

The international financial system is the easiest to understand just now. For years, the system has been based on deregulation and the massive encouragement of indebtedness for US consumers and enterprises, paralleled by growing government debt and trade deficit - all based on the thinking that this was the rest of the world's problem, not the US's. The rest of the world was expected to be forever happy to buy US assets - and it has been by and large, except that the system within the US itself at some point collapsed. It is very interesting that the crisis originated out of the mortgage market, not out of a global crisis of confidence in the US economy or the US dollar. That the US financial posture was untenable has been evident for years - but the IMF and everybody else hoped for a soft landing. Instead, the soft landing has turned into a crash with the result that the international financial system will have to obviously be established on new bases.

All of the above only substantiates the claim that one cannot simply tackle the financial crisis without at the same time also addressing some of the political issues. For the GCC states, this means that they must concentrate on a few key points:

Get from the United States a clear commitment that they will support regional integration – within the GCC and with the rest of the Arab countries. The US has been systematically sniping at the GCC and this must stop. In line with the above, the GCC states should seek a commitment to honestly work towards a regional security system that is based on progressively building mutual trust rather than on the military presence of the US in the region.

Get assurances that the trade system will be redesigned in a way that is not contrary to the interests of the GCC countries. This means a combination of openness to international trade with tolerance of state intervention which is geared to achieving developmental objectives. While this is very difficult to articulate in practice, the general idea is clear.

Get assurances that a major effort will be made to put the non-proliferation train back on track, which includes negotiating a substantial cut in the arsenal of the nuclear powers and putting pressure on all countries to become parties to the NPT

Get assurances that the new international financial system will not tolerate systematic imbalances, not even in the US, and that international investment will be free within well understood rules. There should be no discrimination against Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs).

Ask for US support for the four key diplomatic initiatives of Saudi Arabia with respect to regional crises:

King Abdullah's peace plan to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

King Abdullah's diplomatic initiative to start a dialogue between the Afghan government and the Taliban.

The Saudi position towards a united Iraq in which all components share in power.

The engagement of Iran in a regional context.

All of the above are essential points and they represent a comprehensive framework that the GCC states should pursue as the discussion about resolving the present global financial crisis proceeds. Isolated and single point solutions will not work and it is time to adopt a broader approach.

Economics of Nuclear Technology

Author: Pranav Bhat

Nuclear Technology can also be used to produce ELECTRICITY which is very important according to economical condition of a country. Nuclear plant can produce more electricity than thermal or hydro electric plant.
Isotope produced using Nuclear Technology is used in many chemical and pharma companies.

1)Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.
2)Fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants.
3)In assessing the cost competitiveness of nuclear energy, decommissioning and waste disposal costs are taken into account.

The relative costs of generating electricity from coal, gas and nuclear plants vary considerably depending on location. Coal is, and will probably remain, economically attractive in countries such as China, the USA and Australia with abundant and accessible domestic coal resources as long as carbon emissions are cost-free. Gas is also competitive for base-load power in many places, particularly using combined-cycle plants, though rising gas prices have removed much of the advantage.
Nuclear energy is, in many places, competitive with fossil fuel for electricity generation, despite relatively high capital costs and the need to internalise all waste disposal and decommissioning costs. If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account, nuclear is outstanding.

External costs

The report of a major European study of the external costs of various fuel cycles, focusing on coal and nuclear, was released in mid 2001 - ExternE. It shows that in clear cash terms nuclear energy incurs about one tenth of the costs of coal. The external costs are defined as those actually incurred in relation to health and the environment and quantifiable but not built into the cost of the electricity. If these costs were in fact included, the EU price of electricity from coal would double and that from gas would increase 30%. These are without attempting to include global warming.
The European Commission launched the project in 1991 in collaboration with the US Department of Energy, and it was the first research project of its kind "to put plausible financial figures against damage resulting from different forms of electricity production for the entire EU". The methodology considers emissions, dispersion and ultimate impact. With nuclear energy the risk of accidents is factored in along with high estimates of radiological impacts from mine tailings (waste management and decommissioning being already within the cost to the consumer). Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average.

Fuel costs are one area of steadily increasing efficiency and cost reduction. For instance, in Spain nuclear electricity cost has been reduced by 29% over 1995-2001. This involved boosting enrichment levels and burn-up to achieve 40% fuel cost reduction. Prospectively, a further 8% increase in burn-up will give another 5% reduction in fuel cost.

The cost of fuel

From the outset the basic attraction of nuclear energy has been its low fuel costs compared with coal, oil and gas fired plants. Uranium, however, has to be processed, enriched and fabricated into fuel elements, and about two thirds of the cost is due to enrichment and fabrication. Allowances must also be made for the management of radioactive spent fuel and the ultimate disposal of this spent fuel or the wastes separated from it.
But even with these included, the total fuel costs of a nuclear power plant in the OECD are typically about a third of those for a coal-fired plant and between a quarter and a fifth of those for a gas combined-cycle plant.
Fuel costs are one area of steadily increasing efficiency and cost reduction. For instance, in Spain nuclear electricity cost was reduced by 29% over 1995-2001. This involved boosting enrichment levels and burn-up to achieve 40% fuel cost reduction. Prospectively, a further 8% increase in burn-up will give another 5% reduction in fuel cost.

Comparing electricity generation

For nuclear power plants any cost figures normally include spent fuel management, plant decommissioning and final waste disposal. These costs, while usually external for other technologies, are internal for nuclear power.
Decommissioning costs are estimated at 9-15% of the initial capital cost of a nuclear power plant. But when discounted, they contribute only a few percent to the investment cost and even less to the generation cost. In the USA they account for 0.1-0.2 cent/kWh, which is no more than 5% of the cost of the electricity produced.
The back-end of the fuel cycle, including spent fuel storage or disposal in a waste repository, contributes up to another 10% to the overall costs per kWh, - less if there is direct disposal of spent fuel rather than reprocessing. The $18 billion US spent fuel program is funded by a 0.1 cent/kWh levy.
French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents/kWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57. Nuclear is favourable because of the large, standardised plants used.
The cost of nuclear power generation has been dropping over the last decade. This is because declining fuel (including enrichment), operating and maintenance costs, while the plant concerned has been paid for, or at least is being paid off. In general the construction costs of nuclear power plants are significantly higher than
for coal- or gas-fired plants because of the need to use special materials, and to incorporate sophisticated safety features and back-up control equipment. These contribute much of the nuclear generation cost, but once the plant is built the variables are minor.
In the past, long construction periods have pushed up financing costs. In Asia construction times have tended to be shorter, for instance the new-generation 1300 MWe Japanese reactors which began operating in 1996 and 1997 were built in a little over four years.
Overall, OECD studies in teh 1990s showed a decreasing advantage of nuclear over coal. This trend was largely due to a decline in fossil fuel prices in the 1980s, and easy access to low-cost, clean coal, or gas. In the 1990s gas combined-cycle technology with low fuel prices was often the lowest cost option in Europe and North America. But the picture is changing.

Future cost competitiveness

The OECD does not expect investment costs in new nuclear generating plants to rise, as advanced reactor designs become standardised.
The future competitiveness of nuclear power will depend substantially on the additional costs which may accrue to coal generating plants. It is uncertain how the real costs of meeting targets for reducing sulphur dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions will be attributed to fossil fuel plants.
Overall, and under current regulatory measures, the OECD expects nuclear to remain economically competitive with fossil fuel generation, except in regions where there is direct access to low cost fossil fuels.
In Australia, for example, coal-fired generating plants are close to both the mines supplying them and the main population centres, and large volumes of gas are available on low cost, long-term contracts.
A 1998 OECD comparative study showed that at a 5% discount rate, in 7 of 13 countries considering nuclear energy, it would be the preferred choice for new base-load capacity commissioned by 2010 (see Table below). At a 10% discount rate the advantage over coal would be maintained in only France, Russia and China.

FACTORS FAVOURING URANIUM
Uranium has the advantage of being a highly concentrated source of energy which is easily and cheaply transportable. The quantities needed are very much less than for coal or oil. One kilogram of natural uranium will yield about 20,000 times as much energy as the same amount of coal. It is therefore intrinsically a very portable and tradeable commodity.
The fuel's contribution to the overall cost of the electricity produced is relatively small, so even a large fuel price escalation will have relatively little effect. For instance, a doubling of the 2002 U3O8 price would increase the fuel cost for a light water reactor by 30% and the electricity cost about 7% (whereas doubling the gas price would add 70% to the price of electricity).

REPROCCESSING & MOX

There are other possible savings. For example, if spent fuel is reprocessed and the recovered plutonium and uranium is used in mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, more energy can be extracted. The costs of achieving this are large, but are offset by MOX fuel not needing enrichment and particularly by the smaller amount of high-level wastes produced at the end. Seven UO2 fuel assemblies give rise to one MOX assembly plus some vitrified high-level waste, resulting in only about 35% of the volume, mass and cost of disposal.
For different fuel costs (fossil fuels) or lead time (nuclear plants). Assumes 5% discount trate, 30 year life and 70% load factor. While the figures are out of date, the comparison remains relevant. Note that the key factor for fossil fuels is the high or low cost of fuels (top portion of bars), whereas nuclear power has a low proportion of fuel cost in total electricity cost and the key factor is the short or long lead time in planning and construction, hence investment cost (bottom portion of bars). Increasing the load factor thus benefits nuclear more than coal, and both these more than oil or gas. (OECD IEA 1992)

Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/