Why Japan isn't going off nukes anytime soon

[c1ue]

As EJ noted - here are some numbers just for Japan:

Using 950 billion kwh total Japan electricity consumption as a baseline, with 30% of that (285 billion kwh) being generated by nuclear power

Uranium:

8000 tons imported per year.
Annual cost @ $60/pound: $960 million

Coal equivalent:

Using the range of 1 to 2 pounds of coal per kwh generated yields:
142.5 to 285 million tons of coal imported per year

@ $130/ton:
$18.5 billion to $37 billion import cost per year

Natural gas equivalent:

Using 7 cubic feet = 1 kwh yields:
1,995 cubic feet of natural gas = 56.5 billion cubic meters

@ $4/cubic meter:
$226 billion import cost per year.

Note this ignores the cost of building replacement electricity generation.

Ah, but we can replace this with solar you say.

1 KW solar installation yields roughly 1000 kwh to 1500 kwh per year.

@$6000 per KW installed, the cost to replace nuclear with solar PV would be $1.1 trillion to $1.7 trillion - again ignoring details like new transmission, conversion, etc etc.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Why Japan isn't going off nukes anytime soon

As EJ noted - here are some numbers just for Japan:

Using 950 billion kwh total Japan electricity consumption as a baseline, with 30% of that (285 billion kwh) being generated by nuclear power

Uranium:

8000 tons imported per year.
Annual cost @ $60/pound: $960 million

Coal equivalent:

Using the range of 1 to 2 pounds of coal per kwh generated yields:
142.5 to 285 million tons of coal imported per year

@ $130/ton:
$18.5 billion to $37 billion import cost per year

Natural gas equivalent:

Using 7 cubic feet = 1 kwh yields:
1,995 cubic feet of natural gas = 56.5 billion cubic meters

@ $4/cubic meter:
$226 billion import cost per year.

Note this ignores the cost of building replacement electricity generation.

Ah, but we can replace this with solar you say.

1 KW solar installation yields roughly 1000 kwh to 1500 kwh per year.

@$6000 per KW installed, the cost to replace nuclear with solar PV would be $1.1 trillion to $1.7 trillion - again ignoring details like new transmission, conversion, etc etc.

This is another teachable moment for kids in school. Let's call this the economics of alternatives to atomic power for Japan.
I hope every student around the world gets a copy of this table of equivalent costs for energy generated by atomic power.

[flintlock]

Re: Why Japan isn't going off nukes anytime soon

Professor c1ue: Today we are going to talk about economics of alternatives to atomic power.

Student #1 : But what about Solar, isnt the sunshine free?

Professor c1ue: Calling you an idiot would be an insult to all the stupid people.

Student #2: Wind power is really making gains

Professor c1ue: Listen, are you always this stupid or are you just making a special effort today?

Student #3: Nevermind.



I keed, I keed!

[c1ue]

Re: Why Japan isn't going off nukes anytime soon

I keed, I keed!

It isn't that some form of alternative energy cannot be a viable true alternative.

If Solar PV can triple its effective conversion capability - i.e. close to its theoretical limit - then the above numbers become far more tenable. It will be cheap enough to actually build perhaps 15% solar reliance.

But none of the 'big 3' alternative energy sources will obviate the need to use existing forms of electricity generation - whether coal, natural gas, nuclear, or hydroelectric/geothermal.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Why Japan isn't going off nukes anytime soon

So basically, what this is telling me is that buying Uranium Participation Corp as it bottoms could be a very good longterm buy.

[GRG55]

Re: Why Japan isn't going off nukes anytime soon

As EJ noted - here are some numbers just for Japan:

Using 950 billion kwh total Japan electricity consumption as a baseline, with 30% of that (285 billion kwh) being generated by nuclear power

Uranium:

8000 tons imported per year.
Annual cost @ $60/pound: $960 million

Coal equivalent:

Using the range of 1 to 2 pounds of coal per kwh generated yields:
142.5 to 285 million tons of coal imported per year

@ $130/ton:
$18.5 billion to $37 billion import cost per year

Natural gas equivalent:

Using 7 cubic feet = 1 kwh yields:
1,995 cubic feet of natural gas = 56.5 billion cubic meters

@ $4/cubic meter:
$226 billion import cost per year.

Note this ignores the cost of building replacement electricity generation.

Ah, but we can replace this with solar you say.

1 KW solar installation yields roughly 1000 kwh to 1500 kwh per year.

@$6000 per KW installed, the cost to replace nuclear with solar PV would be $1.1 trillion to $1.7 trillion - again ignoring details like new transmission, conversion, etc etc.

You are comparing apples to pomegranates. The nuclear, coal and natural gas numbers are the fuel consumed costs only. The solar figure is some sort of installed cost. In reality the full cycle costs of each should be the true benchmark for comparison.

As we all know, if nuclear was really so cheap then it would command much more than the roughly 14% of global electricity generation that it does today.

Nuclear power operators are the TBTF banks of the utility industry. As long as everything is going fine the rewards go to the executives, board and shareholders. Once something blows up, it is only the public purse that can handle the incredible costs. I doubt there is a single utility company executive out there that doesn't understand they are betting the company if they have a nuclear plant in the inventory. TEPCO won't survive this in anything like its previous form...

[globaleconomicollaps]

Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium

Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium
A few weeks before the tsunami struck Fukushima’s uranium reactors and shattered public faith in nuclear power, China revealed that it was launching a rival technology to build a safer, cleaner, and ultimately cheaper network of reactors based on thorium.
Thorium could be a much safer option for China which has been unsettled by the nuclear crisis in Japan where fears over radiation levels are rising
Thorium could be a much safer option for China which has been unsettled by the nuclear crisis in Japan where fears over radiation levels are rising Photo: AP
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard 9:30PM GMT 20 Mar 2011

This passed unnoticed –except by a small of band of thorium enthusiasts – but it may mark the passage of strategic leadership in energy policy from an inert and status-quo West to a rising technological power willing to break the mould.

If China’s dash for thorium power succeeds, it will vastly alter the global energy landscape and may avert a calamitous conflict over resources as Asia’s industrial revolutions clash head-on with the West’s entrenched consumption.

China’s Academy of Sciences said it had chosen a “thorium-based molten salt reactor system”. The liquid fuel idea was pioneered by US physicists at Oak Ridge National Lab in the 1960s, but the US has long since dropped the ball. Further evidence of Barack `Obama’s “Sputnik moment”, you could say.

Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium. The system is inherently less prone to disaster.

“The reactor has an amazing safety feature,” said Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA engineer at Teledyne Brown and a thorium expert.

“If it begins to overheat, a little plug melts and the salts drain into a pan. There is no need for computers, or the sort of electrical pumps that were crippled by the tsunami. The reactor saves itself,” he said.

“They operate at atmospheric pressure so you don’t have the sort of hydrogen explosions we’ve seen in Japan. One of these reactors would have come through the tsunami just fine. There would have been no radiation release.”

Thorium is a silvery metal named after the Norse god of thunder. The metal has its own “issues” but no thorium reactor could easily spin out of control in the manner of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or now Fukushima.

Professor Robert Cywinksi from Huddersfield University said thorium must be bombarded with neutrons to drive the fission process. “There is no chain reaction. Fission dies the moment you switch off the photon beam. There are not enough neutrons for it continue of its own accord,” he said.

Dr Cywinski, who anchors a UK-wide thorium team, said the residual heat left behind in a crisis would be “orders of magnitude less” than in a uranium reactor.

The earth’s crust holds 80 years of uranium at expected usage rates, he said. Thorium is as common as lead. America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining. Norway has so much that Oslo is planning a post-oil era where thorium might drive the country’s next great phase of wealth. Even Britain has seams in Wales and in the granite cliffs of Cornwall. Almost all the mineral is usable as fuel, compared to 0.7pc of uranium. There is enough to power civilization for thousands of years.

I write before knowing the outcome of the Fukushima drama, but as yet none of 15,000 deaths are linked to nuclear failure. Indeed, there has never been a verified death from nuclear power in the West in half a century. Perspective is in order.

We cannot avoid the fact that two to three billion extra people now expect – and will obtain – a western lifestyle. China alone plans to produce 100m cars and buses every year by 2020.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said the world currently has 442 nuclear reactors. They generate 372 gigawatts of power, providing 14pc of global electricity. Nuclear output must double over twenty years just to keep pace with the rise of the China and India.

If a string of countries cancel or cut back future reactors, let alone follow Germany’s Angela Merkel in shutting some down, they shift the strain onto gas, oil, and coal. Since the West is also cutting solar subsidies, they can hardly expect the solar industry to plug the gap.

BP’s disaster at Macondo should teach us not to expect too much from oil reserves deep below the oceans, beneath layers of blinding salt. Meanwhile, we rely uneasily on Wahabi repression to crush dissent in the Gulf and keep Arabian crude flowing our way. So where can we turn, unless we revert to coal and give up on the ice caps altogether? That would be courting fate.

US physicists in the late 1940s explored thorium fuel for power. It has a higher neutron yield than uranium, a better fission rating, longer fuel cycles, and does not require the extra cost of isotope separation.

The plans were shelved because thorium does not produce plutonium for bombs. As a happy bonus, it can burn up plutonium and toxic waste from old reactors, reducing radio-toxicity and acting as an eco-cleaner.

Dr Cywinski is developing an accelerator driven sub-critical reactor for thorium, a cutting-edge project worldwide. It needs to £300m of public money for the next phase, and £1.5bn of commercial investment to produce the first working plant. Thereafter, economies of scale kick in fast. The idea is to make pint-size 600MW reactors.

Yet any hope of state support seems to have died with the Coalition budget cuts, and with it hopes that Britain could take a lead in the energy revolution. It is understandable, of course. Funds are scarce. The UK has already put its efforts into the next generation of uranium reactors. Yet critics say vested interests with sunk costs in uranium technology succeeded in chilling enthusiasm.

The same happened a decade ago to a parallel project by Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research). France’s nuclear industry killed proposals for funding from Brussels, though a French group is now working on thorium in Grenoble.

Norway’s Aker Solution has bought Professor Rubbia’s patent. It had hoped to build the first sub-critical reactor in the UK, but seems to be giving up on Britain and locking up a deal to build it in China instead, where minds and wallets are more open.

So the Chinese will soon lead on this thorium technology as well as molten-salts. Good luck to them. They are doing Mankind a favour. We may get through the century without tearing each other apart over scarce energy and wrecking the planet.

This is my last column for a while. I am withdrawing to the Mayan uplands.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...h-thorium.html
Telegraph
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

[c1ue]

Re: Why Japan isn't going off nukes anytime soon

You are comparing apples to pomegranates. The nuclear, coal and natural gas numbers are the fuel consumed costs only. The solar figure is some sort of installed cost. In reality the full cycle costs of each should be the true benchmark for comparison.

Fair enough, although in context the nuclear installations are already 'spent money' so capital costs for replacements using coal, natural gas, solar or whatever are quite relevant.

Actual costs from the EIA for construction and operation listed below.

Multiplying out using the numbers below, the $1.1 trillion to $1.7 trillion solar replacement for nuclear would cost about $180 billion for coal with CCS and $126 billion for 'regular' coal. Natural gas would cost $36 billion to $72 billion. Quite a large difference.

As a check: replacement using nuclear (i.e. rebuilding all plants) would cost $220 billion, solar (from below table) would cost $4.2 trillion. The difference is likely that the $6000 used previously is actually post-subsidy cost - which nations don't have the luxury of.

I used the following formula: 285 billion / 365 / 24 / capacitor factor * overnight capital cost per KW

I've taken the liberty of adding in relative performance factors - i.e. what percent of 24/365 operation each category displays (the last 4 columns). This should show relative cost to generate.

	Plant Characteristics		Plant Costs				Plant Costs with Capacity Factor
	Nominal Capacity (kilowatts)	Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)	Overnight Capital Cost (2010 $/kW)	Fixed O&M Cost (2010$/kW)	Variable O&M Cost	Capacity	Overnight Capital Cost (2010 $/kW)	Fixed O&M Cost (2010$/kW)	Variable O&M Cost
					(2010 $/MWh)	Factor			(2010 $/MWh)
Coal
Single Unit	650,000	8,800	$3,167	$35.97	$4.25		$3,519	$39.97	$4.72
Advanced PC						0.9
Dual Unit	1,300,000	8,800	$2,844	$29.67	$4.25		$3,160	$32.97	$4.72
Advanced PC						0.9
Single Unit Advanced PC with CCS	650,000	12,000	$5,099	$76.62	$9.05	0.9	$5,666	$85.13	$10.06
Dual Unit Advanced PC with CCS	1,300,000	12,000	$4,579	$63.21	$9.05	0.9	$5,088	$70.23	$10.06
Single Unit IGCC	600,000	8,700	$3,565	$59.23	$6.87	0.9	$3,961	$65.81	$7.63
Dual Unit IGCC	1,200,000	8,700	$3,221	$48.90	$6.87	0.9	$3,579	$54.33	$7.63
Single Unit IGCC with CCS	520,000	10,700	$5,348	$69.30	$8.04	0.9	$5,942	$77.00	$8.93
Natural Gas
Conventional NGCC	540,000	7,050	$978	$14.39	$3.43	0.9	$1,087	$15.99	$3.81
Advanced NGCC	400,000	6,430	$1,003	$14.62	$3.11	0.9	$1,114	$16.24	$3.46
Advanced NGCC with CCS	340,000	7,525	$2,060	$30.25	$6.45	0.9	$2,289	$33.61	$7.17
Conventional CT	85,000	10,850	$974	$6.98	$14.70	0.9	$1,082	$7.76	$16.33
Advanced CT	210,000	9,750	$665	$6.70	$9.87	0.9	$739	$7.44	$10.97
Fuel Cells	10,000	9,500	$6,835	$350	$0.00	0.9	$7,594	$388.89	$0.00
Uranium
Dual Unit Nuclear	2,236,000	N/A	$5,335	$88.75	$2.04	0.9	$5,928	$98.61	$2.27
Biomass
Biomass CC	20,000	12,350	$7,894	$338.79	$16.64	0.9	$8,771	$376.43	$18.49
Biomass BFB	50,000	13,500	$3,860	$100.50	$5.00	0.9	$4,289	$111.67	$5.56
Wind
Onshore Wind	100,000	N/A	$2,438	$28.07	$0.00	0.3	$8,127	$93.57	$0.00
Offshore Wind	400,000	N/A	$5,975	$53.33	$0.00	0.3	$19,917	$177.77	$0.00
Solar
Solar Thermal	100,000	N/A	$4,692	$64.00	$0.00	0.19	$24,695	$336.84	$0.00
Small Photovoltaic	7,000	N/A	$6,050	$26.04	$0.00	0.19	$31,842	$137.05	$0.00
Large Photovoltaic	150,000	N/A	$4,755	$16.70	$0.00	0.19	$25,026	$87.89	$0.00
Geothermal
Geothermal – Dual Flash	50,000	N/A	$5,578	$84.27	$9.64	0.9	$6,198	$93.63	$10.71
Geothermal – Binary	50,000	NA	$4,141	$84.27	$9.64	0.9	$4,601	$93.63	$10.71
MSW
MSW	50,000	18,000	$8,232	$373.76	$8.33	?	$8,232	$373.76	$8.33
Hydro
Hydro-electric	500,000	N/A	$3,076	$13.44	$0.00	0.44	$6,991	$30.55	$0.00
Pumped Storage	250,000	N/A	$5,595	$13.03	$0.00	0.44	$12,716	$29.61	$0.00

As for TEPco - I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Did TEPco screw up 40 years ago in not anticipating 10 and 12 meter waves at Fukushima #1 and Fukushima #2, respectively?

Was there clear operator error in the events of the past week?

TEPco has done lots of questionable things in the past decades, but this isn't what we're talking about.

http://mitnse.com/2011/03/20/status-...at-330-pm-edt/

The Fukushima power plants were required by regulators to withstand a certain height of tsunami. At the Daiichi plant the design basis was 5.7 metres and at Daini this was 5.2 metres.


Tepco has now released tentative assessments of the scale of the tsunami putting it at over 10 metres at Daiichi and over 12 metres at Dainii.


The plant sites were inundated, causing the loss of residual heat removal systems at both sites as well as emergency diesel generators at Daiichi.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Why Japan isn't going off nukes anytime soon

Nuclear power operators are the TBTF banks of the utility industry. As long as everything is going fine the rewards go to the executives, board and shareholders. Once something blows up, it is only the public purse that can handle the incredible costs. I doubt there is a single utility company executive out there that doesn't understand they are betting the company if they have a nuclear plant in the inventory. TEPCO won't survive this in anything like its previous form...

Thanks for those thoughts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-anderson

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) is a United States federal law, first passed in 1957 and since renewed several times, which governs liability-related issues for all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. The main purpose of the Act is to partially indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first approximately $12.6 billion (as of 2011) is industry-funded as described in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear utility liability or would be covered by the federal government. At the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power — this was because electric utilities viewed the available liability coverage (only $60 million) as inadequate. [1]

In 1978, the Act survived a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court case Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group (see below). The Act was last renewed in 2005 for a 20-year period.

[GRG55]

Re: Why Japan isn't going off nukes anytime soon

...As for TEPco - I'm not sure what you're trying to say...

...

I think it's pretty clear what I said. TEPCO is now the most visible utility company that owns and operates nuclear reactors, and just like a TBTF bank, is entirely incapable of covering the costs of the failure of what it created. Every other non-public utility company with a nuclear reactor is in the same situation. There's no way TEPCO, or any of the other companies, has the balance sheet or the "open ended" insurance coverage to pay the costs of a catastrophic failure like we are witnessing unfold at Fukushima. The Japanese taxpayers will be on the hook for this clean-up. Sort of a glow-in-the-dark TARP. And when the radioactive dust settles, TEPCO will be a very different company, if it survives as a company at all.

[c1ue]

Re: Why Japan isn't going off nukes anytime soon

I think it's pretty clear what I said. TEPCO is now the most visible utility company that owns and operates nuclear reactors, and just like a TBTF bank, is entirely incapable of covering the costs of the failure of what it created. Every other non-public utility company with a nuclear reactor is in the same situation. There's no way TEPCO, or any of the other companies, has the balance sheet or the "open ended" insurance coverage to pay the costs of a catastrophic failure like we are witnessing unfold at Fukushima. The Japanese taxpayers will be on the hook for this clean-up. Sort of a glow-in-the-dark TARP. And when the radioactive dust settles, TEPCO will be a very different company, if it survives as a company at all.

Perhaps you should define what you mean by the failure created.

Are you talking about liability costs for radiation release?

Repair/replacement of Fukushima #1 either partially or wholly?

Military/civilian firefighting/water spraying?

TEPco actually could replace Fukushima #1 itself - the company has something like $60 billion/year in revenue.

If the tort lawyers on all 7 continents band together and are able to successfully push some type of spilled coffee suit through, then certainly TEPco couldn't withstand that.

But is the accident in the Gulf any different?

And just how much did BP change as a result?

As someone in the industry, perhaps you can elaborate on the changes that you've seen - because I sure don't see too many.

[c1ue]

Re: Why Japan isn't going off nukes anytime soon

More data on the serious electricity crunch the Kanto area is going through - and likely will be going through for quite a long time:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Japan-...&asset=&ccode=

Tokyo Electric Power Co., Japan's biggest electricity utility and operator of the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant, said Tuesday its power generating capacity stands at 35.5 million kilowatts, down from 52.4 million kilowatts before the disaster.

16.9 million kilowatts = 16.9 gigawatts = 148 billion Kwh (if extended over 1 year), or roughly 15.5% of Japan's entire annual electricity consumption for 2009 or 17.4% vs. 2010 numbers.

[GRG55]

Re: Why Japan isn't going off nukes anytime soon

Perhaps you should define what you mean by the failure created.

Are you talking about liability costs for radiation release?

Repair/replacement of Fukushima #1 either partially or wholly?

Military/civilian firefighting/water spraying?

TEPco actually could replace Fukushima #1 itself - the company has something like $60 billion/year in revenue.

If the tort lawyers on all 7 continents band together and are able to successfully push some type of spilled coffee suit through, then certainly TEPco couldn't withstand that.

But is the accident in the Gulf any different?

And just how much did BP change as a result?

As someone in the industry, perhaps you can elaborate on the changes that you've seen - because I sure don't see too many.

Comparing the risks to a company of owning and operating a nuclear power plant vs an offshore well blow out is specious. There was NEVER any real danger that BP would go bankrupt...that is why I bought some BP stock after it got clobbered up on the emotional reaction. The effects from Fukushima will far outlast the effects of the BP blowout. Whether there is any change other than at the margins in the way our governments, regulators or the relevant corporations behave in either case [I think that unlikely] is not relevant to the point I was making.

I think what I was alluding to was pretty clear. But just in case not, it should be now.

The whole scheme has a familiar tone to it...

Govt buyout of TEPCO pitched / Public-funded takeover could help utility survive huge damages bill

The Yomiuri Shimbun

The government might place Tokyo Electric Power Co. under effective state control to help the utility survive if it has to pay massive amounts of compensation to businesses and individuals affected by its crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, according to government sources.

A plan proposed by some members of the government would involve the government and other state entities acquiring a majority stake in TEPCO to help the beleaguered firm pay the damages, the sources said.

One government source said the plan was proposed to secure electric power supply for areas served by TEPCO "by temporarily nationalizing [TEPCO] first, and then rehabilitating it and raising capital so it can be privatized."...

...The plan calls for the purchase of TEPCO shares to be financed with taxpayer money, meaning even people who live outside areas covered by TEPCO's operations will shoulder the financial burden...

[c1ue]

Re: Why Japan isn't going off nukes anytime soon

I guess it all depends on your point of view.

BP got a nice cap on their damages - a nominal $20B fund of which apparently less than $6B will actually get paid out. In return, no lawsuits. (wiki)

The same wiki article notes:

On July 5 2010, BP reported that its own expenditures on the oil spill had reached $3.12 billion, including the cost of the spill response, containment, relief well drilling, grants to the Gulf states, claims paid, and federal costs.^[296] The United States Oil Pollution Act of 1990 limits BP's liability for non-cleanup costs to $75 million unless gross negligence is proven.^[297] BP has said it would pay for all cleanup and remediation regardless of the statutory liability cap. Nevertheless, some Democratic lawmakers are seeking to pass legislation that would increase the liability limit to $10 billion.^[298][299]

If TEPco gets the same setup, the economic impact on that company will be identical: a short term hit followed by a recovery.

[c1ue]

Re: Why Japan isn't going off nukes anytime soon

Apparently neither will Europe stop using nukes anytime soon - Germany's political gesture just meant shifting nuclear derived electricity production to its neighbors via importing electricity...