Nuclear+Economics

=**Nuclear Economics**= When you take a look at the picture of the "Nuclear Fuel Cycle" posted below, it is evident that the procedure of nuclear fuel cycles is a very expensive method of producing a large amount of dangerous waste. In addition, it becomes evident that we're not really a cycle, but rather it’s a cycle that does not have a clear ending or restarting point, so recycling what is left of all the nuclear fuel is not a viable option. Nuclear power is usually much more expensive then it’s confirmed to be. And as the currency prices for most countries rises, along with the costs that are shown in the “Nuclear Fuel Cycle” diagram. The costs of disposal, which have been increasing steadily over the years, is one of the reasons that nuclear fuel expenses will continue to rise. Nuclear energy in many places is competitive with fossil fuel for electricity generation, despite the relatively high capital costs. If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account, nuclear is outstanding.

=**Nuclear Fuel Cycle Diagram**=

There are also major benefits to nuclear power. One of the strong advantages that it poses is that nucluer power does not pose a a threat to the enviornment, and does not release harmful greenhouse gases. As a result of this, nuclear fuel has th least envirionmental impact per unit of power produced. Nuclear is also a very efficient fuel. One kilogram of uranium contains 20 000 times more energy then coal. With current supplies of uranium, nuclear power has the potential to sipply 100 years of energy if it was used as the only energy source we have. Another key to nuclear fuel is that it requires less dependance on foreign oil from countries that have unstable economies. Nuclear Fuels come from stable countries such as Canada and Australia.

 =Nuclear Debate:=

media type="youtube" key="XdMHHIO5tQM&rel=1" height="355" width="425"



[|Who's Afraid of Nuclear Power Video]
=**Demand For Nuclear Power and Other Facts**=

The world will need greatly increased energy supply in the next 20 years, especially cleanly-generated electricity. Electricity demand is increasing much more rapidly than overall energy use and is likely to almost double from 2004 to 2030. Nuclear power provides over 16% of the world's electricity, almost 24% of electricity in OECD countries, and 34% in the EU. Its use is increasing. Nuclear power is the most environmentally benign way of producing electricity on a large scale. Without it most of the world would have to rely almost entirely on fossil fuels for base-load electricity production. Renewable energy sources other than hydro have high generating costs but are helpful at the margin in providing clean power. Electricity Demand The World Energy Outlook 2006 from the OECD's International Energy Agency (IEA) highlights the increasing importance of nuclear power in meeting energy needs while achieving security of supply and minimising carbon dioxide emissions. If policies remain unchanged, world energy demand to 2030 is forecast to increase by 53% accompanied by supply crises, giving a "dirty, insecure and expensive" energy future which is unsustainable. Over 70% of the increased energy demand is from developing countries, led by China and India - China will overtake the USA as top CO2 emitter by 2010. The Cons of Nuclear energy and Its effects on the environment: Nuclear power can be harmful to the environment and humans, and in the case of an accident at a nuclear power plant, the outcome could be very deadly: -"According to a 1982 study done by Sandia National Laboratories, a severe (but not necessarily "worst-case") nuclear power accident in Illinois would result in deaths in the tens-of-thousands, casualties and latent cancers in the hundreds-of-thousands, and property loss in the tens-to hundreds-of-billions of dollars." (1) The raditation that nuclear engery can give off can do severe damage to the human body -"This radiation consists of subatomic particles traveling at or near the velocity of light---186,000 miles per second. They can penetrate deep inside the human body where they can damage biological cells and thereby initiate a cancer." (2)

LINKS: http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/npfacts.htm (1) http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm (2) permalink Posted Nov 15, 2007 8:26 pm

=**Canadian Uranium Supply**=

Canada produces about one third of the world's uranium mine output, most of it from two new mines. After 2007 Canadian production is expected to increase further as more new mines come into production. About 15% of Canada's electricity comes from nuclear power, using indigenous technology. 18 reactors provide over 12,500 MWe of power. Uranium exploration in Canada began in earnest in 1942 and accelerated in 1947, resulting in significant discoveries both near Elliott Lake, Ontario and in northern Saskatchewan. By 1959, 23 mines with 19 treatment plants were in operation in five districts and uranium exports of C$ 330 million exceeded the value for every other mineral. A new burst of exploration in the 1970s resulted in major discoveries in northern Saskatchewan's Athabasca Basin. Rabbit Lake, Cluff Lake and Key Lake mines started up in 1975, 1980 and 1983 respectively. Cameco Corporation was formed by merger in 1988. Canada has developed its own line of nuclear power reactors, starting from research in 1944 and with the first CANDU power reactor coming on line in 1962. Nuclear power provides about 16% of the country's electricity - and about 50% in Ontario. Canadian electricity use is over 17,000 kWh per person, one of the highest levels in the world. Nuclear energy contributes some $5 billion per year to the Canadian economy and provides 20,000 direct jobs (2000 in mining and uranium processing) and many more indirect jobs. The total nuclear electricity generated has a value of about C$ 3.7 billion per year and helps Canada minimise emissions from electric power generation. Total exports of Canadian nuclear goods and services was some C$ 1.2 billion in 2001. Almost $500 million of this was uranium, but $350 million for reactor fuel, radioisotopes and heavy water emphasise the value-added component and the market for products capable of being produced in such countries. Reactor hardware, notably CANDU reactors, can add to this when sales are made. About C$ 6-billion was invested in Canada's nuclear program over 1952-2006 through AECL. This investment has generated more than C$ 160-billion in GDP benefits to Canada from power production, research and development, CANDU exports, uranium, medical radioisotopes and professional services, according to AECL. Canada became the 18th member of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) in November 2007. Uranium resources Canada is the world's largest producer of uranium. In 2004 production at 13,676 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate (11,597 tonnes U) was about 30% of total world production. Its value was about C$ 800 million. Canada's known uranium resources (Reasonably Assured Resources plus Inferred Resources to US$ 130/kgU) are 524,000 tonnes of U3O8 (444,000 tU, 9% of world total), compared with Australia's reserves of 2.5 times that. Some $539 million was spent on Uranium exploration in Canada 1986-97 (over twice as much as Australia's $226 million) and this led to a sharp increase in recoverable resources to 507,000 tonnes U3O8 (measured, indicated & inferred resources). Despite depletion from mining, this remains much the same. Of the total at 1/1/04, 297,000 tonnes (252,000 tU) was "measured", possibly equivalent to "proven reserves" in some of the company data quoted on p3 below. Exploration expenditure in 2004 was C$ 44 million, mostly at established projects. However, the C$26 million of this on grassroots exploration in Saskatchewan - double the 2003 level - represented a major proportion of world uranium exploration. Canada and Australia are the main countries able to expand production strongly as required to meet increases in world uranium demand

=More Economics:=

To protect the nuclear fuel option for the future, it requires overcoming four main obstacles, costs, safety, wastes, and production. The effort to overcome these challenges however, is justified only if nuclear fuel power can help contribute to decrease the effects of global warming, and is a viable and cheap option to be used worldwide. Therefore, preserving the nuclear option for the future means planning for growth, as well as for a future in which nuclear energy is competitive, safer, and a more secure source of power. Costs: nuclear power has higher lifetime costs overall as compared to as compared to natural gas and coal. Safety: Growing concern about the safe and secure transportation of nuclear materials and the security of nuclear facilities from terrorist attacks. Also has raised some questions due to recent accidents in countries such as United States, Russia and Japan Waste: Nuclear power still has some unresolved challenges in management of radioactive wastes. The US and other countries still have yet to put into operation final disposition of spent fuel or high radioactive waste streams created from various stages in the nuclear fuel cycle. Since this poses a threat to present and future generations, the general public hasn’t accepted the idea yet. A successful operation of a disposing facility at Yucca Mountain would ease, but not completely solve the problem for US and other countries if nuclear power expands to a large extent. Nuclear power will only succeed in the long run if it has a lower cost then competing technologies. This is even more important because electricity markets all over the world are becoming less subject to economic regulation. The future of future nuclear fuel construction is an expensive market, with the rapid demand for global energy. However, it has seen increased competitiveness due to the decrease in construction, financing, and plant operations. Slowly but surely, it is increasing in economic competitiveness daily. The key development in nuclear fuel is that it has now become less expensive than fossil fuels and any other form of electricity generation. As marginal costs of generation from nuclear plants have fallen below prices of most other generating modes, owners have found it worthwhile to invest in nuclear plants. Nuclear operating costs can also be reduced additionally in some ways. We cannot assume that uranium prices will fall anytime soon, as they have been steady, even increasing recently. The prices are predicted by economists to stay relatively high, thus encouraging more mine investment. Fuel service costs could be cut in the future due to technological advances and as well as achievement of innovations (Fuel Management).

The carbon free nature of nuclear power argues for the government to encourage the maintenance of the nuclear option, mainly because of the regulatory doubts to tolerate the risk of introducing a new generation of nuclear facilities with their high capital costs = = = =

=**Nuclear Elasticity**=

Nuclear power in Canada right now is inelastic. It provides about 12% of the country's electricity - and about 50% in Ontario. Canadian electricity use is over 17,000 kWh per person, one of the highest levels in the world. Nuclear energy contributes some $5 billion per year to the Canadian economy and provides 20,000 direct jobs (2000 in mining and uranium processing) and many more indirect jobs. The total nuclear electricity generated has a value of about C$ 3.7 billion per year and helps Canada minimise emissions from electric power generation. Total exports of Canadian nuclear goods and services was some C$ 1.2 billion in 2001. Almost $500 million of this was uranium, but $350 million for reactor fuel, radioisotopes and heavy water emphasise the value-added component and the market for products capable of being produced in such countries. Reactor hardware, notably CANDU reactors, can add to this when sales are made. About C$ 6-billion was invested in Canada's nuclear program over 1952-2006 through AECL. This investment has generated more than C$ 160-billion in GDP benefits to Canada from power production, research and development, CANDU exports, uranium, medical radioisotopes and professional services, according to AECL Nuclear power provides about 12% of the country's electricity - and about 50% in Ontario. Canadian electricity use is over 17,000 kWh per person, one of the highest levels in the world. Nuclear energy contributes some $5 billion per year to the Canadian economy and provides 20,000 direct jobs (2000 in mining and uranium processing) and many more indirect jobs. The total nuclear electricity generated has a value of about C$ 3.7 billion per year and helps Canada minimise emissions from electric power generation. Total exports of Canadian nuclear goods and services was some C$ 1.2 billion in 2001. Almost $500 million of this was uranium, but $350 million for reactor fuel, radioisotopes and heavy water emphasise the value-added component and the market for products capable of being produced in such countries. Reactor hardware, notably CANDU reactors, can add to this when sales are made. About C$ 6-billion was invested in Canada's nuclear program over 1952-2006 through AECL. This investment has generated more than C$ 160-billion in GDP benefits to Canada from power production, research and development, CANDU exports, uranium, medical radioisotopes and professional services, according to AECL http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf49.html

=**Nuclear Costs**=

Nuclear power reactors are very expensive to build but relatively cheap to operate. Their economic competitiveness thus depends on keeping construction to schedule so that capital costs do not blow out, and then operating them at a high capacity over many years. The cost of building a Nuclear Power Plant varies, but Plants in the past have cost anywhere from $1 billion to $5 billion. 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 half 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. 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. http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm


 * Electricity cost** (US cent/kWh)
 * ~  ||~ MIT 2003 ||~ France 2003 ||~ UK 2004 ||~ Chicago 2004 ||~ Canada 2004 ||~ EU 2007 ||
 * ~ Nuclear || 4.2 || 3.7 || 4.6 || 4.2 - 4.6 || 5.0 || 5.4 - 7.4 ||
 * ~ Coal || 4.2 ||  || 5.2 || 3.5 - 4.1 || 4.5 || 4.7 - 6.1 ||
 * ~ Gas || 5.8 || 5.8, 10.1 || 5.9, 9.8 || 5.5 - 7.0 || 7.2 || 4.6 - 6.1 ||
 * ~ Wind onshore ||  ||   || 7.4 ||   ||   || 4.7 - 14.8 ||
 * ~ Wind offshore ||  ||   || 11.0 ||   ||   || 8.2 - 20.2 ||


 * US $ cost to get 1 kg of uranium as UO2 reactor fuel**
 * Uranium: || 8.9 kg U3O8 x $53 || 472 ||
 * Conversion: || 7.5 kg U x $12 || 90 ||
 * Enrichment: || 7.3 SWU x $135 || 985 ||
 * Fuel fabrication: || per kg || 240 ||
 * Total Approx: || US$ 1787 ||

=Other Costs=

Security
Unlike other power plants, nuclear plants must be carefully guarded against both attempted sabotage (generally with the goal considered to be causing a radiological accident, rather than just preventing the plant from operating) and possible theft of nuclear material. Thus security costs of both protecting the physical plant and the screening of workers must be considered. It is true that some other forms of energy also require high security, like natural gas storage facilities and oil refineries. 

Uranium
Nuclear plants require fuel. Generally, the fuel used is uranium, although other materials may be used. In 2005, prices on the world market averaged [|US$]20/lbs (US$44.09/kg). On 2007-04-19, prices reached US$113/lbs (On 2007-9-24, the price had dropped to $85/lb. While the amounts of uranium used are a fraction of the amounts of coal or oil used in conventional power plants, fuel costs account for about 28% of a nuclear plant's operating expenses. Currently, there are proposals to increase the numbers of nuclear power plants by 57% more reactors from the 435 currently in operation, according to John S. Herold's Ruppel. While it is unlikely all proposed plants will actually be completed, an increase in plants, combined with the current decline in supply, caused by flooding at some of the world's largest uranium mines, and speculators winning repositories in North America and Europe, means that prices are likely to increase. In addition, about 45% of the 2006 world supply of uranium came from old nuclear warheads, mostly Russian. At current supply and demand levels, those old stockpiles will be completely depleted by 2015. Mining activity is growing rapidly, especially from smaller companies, but developing a uranium mine takes a long time, 10 years or more Waste disposal All nuclear plants produce radioactive waste. Much of the waste is extremely deadly and will remain so for thousands of years. To pay for the cost of transporting it to and storing it at a safe location, in the United States, a surcharge of a tenth of a cent per kilowatt-hour is added to the electric bills of customers.

Decommissioning
At the end of a nuclear plant's lifetime (estimated at between 40 and 60 years), the plant must be decommissioned. This entails either Dismantling, Safe Storage or Entombment. Operators are usually required to build up a fund to cover these costs while the plant is operating, to limit the finacial risk from operator bankruptcy.In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires plants to finish the process within 60 years of closing. Since it may cost $300 million or more to shut down and decommission a plant, the NRC requires plant owners to set aside money when the plant is still operating to pay for the future shutdown costs. 

Subsidies
Critics of nuclear power claim that it is the beneficiary of inappropriately large economic subsidies — mainly taking the forms of taxpayer-funded research and development and limitations on disaster liability — and that these subsidies, being subtle and indirect, are often overlooked when comparing the economics of nuclear against other forms of power generation. However, competing energy sources also receive subsidies. Fossil fuels receive large direct and indirect subsidies, such as tax benefits and not having to pay for the greenhouse gases they emit. Renewables receive large direct production subsidies and tax breaks in many nations. Energy research and development (R&D) for nuclear power alone has and continues to receive much larger state subsidies than R&D for all renewable energy sources put together or for fossil fuels. However, today most of this takes places in Japan and France: in most other nations renewable R&D as a whole get more money. In the US, public research money for nuclear fission declined from 2,179 to 35 million dollars between 1980 and 2000. However, in order to restart the industry, the next six US reactors will receive subsidies equal to those of renewables and, in the event of cost overruns due to delays, at least partial compensation for the overruns. 

Cost per MWh (or kWh)
Factoring in all these issues, various groups have attempted to calculate a true economic cost for electricity generated by the most modern designs proposed. If an actual cost per MWh (or kWh) can be calculated, then it is possible to compare it to other power sources to determine if such an investment is economically sound. In 2003, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology issued a report entitled, "The Future of Nuclear Power". They estimated that new nuclear power in the US would cost 6.7 cents per kWh. The lifetime cost of new generating capacity in the United States was estimated in 2006 by the U.S. government. Nuclear power was estimated at $59.30 MWh. However, the "total overnight cost" for new nuclear was assumed to be $1,984 per kWe.