Nuclear power fuel costs

Wind power is essentially free of fuel costs (except for royalties to the land owners), and has rather low operating costs, compared to nuclear power. Capital costs are in the range of half the capital costs of nuclear power. However, wind has a typical capacity factor of only about 30% (there are a few locations where one might expect as high as 40%). Installed capital costs for wind turbine systems have seen a significant increase during the last year, because of inflated copper and reinforced concrete prices. A nominal installation cost of 2000/kW is typical. This is equivalent to 6667/kW at a 100% capacity factor. 

In the early years of reactor development, electricity from nuclear sources was expected to be much cheaper than that from other sources. Whereas nuclear fuel cost is low, the operating and maintenance costs of a nuclear faciHty are high. Thus on average, electric power from coal and nuclear costs about the same. 

The isotope plutonium-238 [13981 -16-3] Pu, is of technical importance because of the high heat that accompanies its radioactive decay. This isotope has been and is being used as fuel in small terrestrial and space nuclear-powered sources (3,4). Tu-based radioisotope thermal generator systems dehvered 7 W/kg and cost 120,000/W in 1991 (3). For some time, %Pu was considered to be the most promising power source for the radioisotope-powered artificial heart and for cardiovascular pacemakers. Usage of plutonium was discontinued, however, after it was determined that adequate elimination of penetrating radiation was uncertain (5) (see PROSTHETIC AND BIOMEDICAL devices). 

Natural gas is the fuel of choice wherever it is available because of its clean burning and its competitive pricing as seen in Figure 1-30. Prices for Uranium, the fuel of nuclear power stations, and coal, the fuel of the steam power plants, have been stable over the years and have been the lowest. Environmental, safety concerns, high initial cost, and the long time from planning to production has hurt the nuclear and steam power industries. Whenever oil or natural gas is the fuel of choice, gas turbines and combined cycle plants are the power plant of choice as they convert the fuel into electricity very... 

One energy source that first appeared to be highly attractive was nuclear power. The problem with nuclear power is that some costs were hidden in its initial development. Especially pernicious is the disposal of uranium oxide fuel after it has become depleted. It can be reprocessed, but at considerable expense, and the product plutonium can be used for weapons. In the United States the plan is to bui y... 

Producers of electricity from nuclear power plants are assessed a fee of 0.1 cent per kilowatt-hour to pay for future storage of spent nuclear fuel at a federal facility. Receipts from this fee are allocated to the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund and arc appropriated by Congress to cover the costs of developing and constructing a permanent storage facility. 

One of the many problems of nuclear power is the availability of fuel uranium-235 reserves are only about 0.7% those of the nonfissile uranium-238, and the separation of the isotopes is costly (Section 17.12). One solution is to synthesize fissile nuclides from other elements. In a breeder reactor, a reactor that is used to create nuclear fuel, the neutrons are not moderated. Their high speeds result in... 

We are optimistic that the world in 2030, while still heavily dependent on cleaner fossil fuel use, will be one in which growing demand for electricity as a preferred energy source, new inherently safe nuclear power designs, and dramatic improvements in the economics of renewable technologies and end-use efficiency, will provide a broad spectrum of clean, low-cost reliable electricity choices for the marketplace. 

It seems increasingly clear that the operating cost (operation and maintenance plus fuel costs) is very competitive with the same cost of its main competitors, coal-and gas fired plants. Therefore, the economic advantage of life extension is obvious, and also the clear trend to operate existing nuclear power plants on base load only. Even in France where there are too many nuclear plants to operate them all on base load, there is a trend to decrease the share of nuclear power in total production in view to operate eventually all... 

Along with these power plants, the U.S. could build up a fuel reprocessing capability to allow spent nuclear fuel to be reused which would lower fuel cost and eliminate the storage of high-level nuclear waste. Fuel for the reactors has been estimated to be available for 1,000 years using standard reactors with high breeding ratios and breeder reactors where more fuel is produced than consumed. 

Nuclear energy is cost competitive with fossil fuel, has very low greenhouse gas emission, and creates far less air pollution. However, fear of potential accidents and intractable issues of waste containment have prevented construction of nuclear power plants in the United States for three decades. 

Practical Utilization, Since the potential reserves of 235U are limited, some point will be reached where this power source no longer will be competitive with fossil fuels, synthetic fuels, solar power plants, etc.—unless the development of means for the practical utilization of plutonium can be achieved. An important element of nuclear fuel cost is the credit received from the sale or future utilization of plutonium after its recovery from spent fuel. The plutonium credit is realistic only if the plutonium is used for power production, since, at present, there are few commercial uses envisioned where it would yield a similar economic return. 

---