Nuclear Power Technical and Institutional Options for the Future (1992) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Summary
Summary
Pages 1-14
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS The reasons that e~n~ion of commercial nucJ ear energy has virtually halted ~ the United States include reduced growth in demand for electnc~W, high costs, regulatory uncertainty, and public opinion. Concern for safer, the economics of nuclear power, and waste disposal issues adversely affect the general acceptance of nuclear power.
|
From page 2... ...
Billions of dollars in dic~llowances of recovery of costs from utility ratepayers have made utilities and the financial community leery of further investments in nuclear power plants. Dunog the 1980s, rate base dicaltowances by state regulators totaled about $14 billion for nuclear plants.
|
From page 3... ...
Public Attitudes Several factors seem to influence the public to have a less than positive attitude toward new nuclear plants: no perceived urgency for new capacity, nuclear power Is believed to be more costly than alternatives; concerns Mat nucJ ear power Is not safe enough little trust In government or ministry advocates of nuclear power; concerns about the health effects of low-level radiation; concerns that there Is no safe way to dispose of high-level waste; and concerns about proliferation of nuclear weapons. The following wood improve public opinion of nuclear power: · a recognized new for a greater electrical supply that can best be met by large plots; · economic sanctions or public policies imposed to reduce fossil fuel burning;, · maintaining the safe operation of e~nst~g nuclear plants and informing the public; .
|
From page 4... ...
Greater confidence ~ the condom of costs can be realized with pit decide that are more nearly complete before construction begins, plants Tut are easier to construct, use of better construction and management methods, and blackness arrangements among the participants that provide stronger ~ncent~es for cost-effec~ve, timed completion of project The principal participants in the nuclear ~ndustry~utilities, architecten~neers, and suppliers -- should begin now to work out the fun range of contract arrangements for advanced nuclear power plants. Sum arraDgements would increase the confidence of state regulatory bodies and others that the principal participants In advanced mlclear power plant projects will be financially accountable for the quality, timeliness, and economy of their products and services.
|
From page 6... ...
Economic incentive programs instituted by state regulatory bodies wig continue for nuclear power plant operators. Properly formulated and administered, these programs should improve the economic performance of nuclear plants, and they may also enhance safety.
|
From page 7... ...
Admuns~a~ion and Congress The clear impression the Committee received from Brushy representatides was that protection such as the Pnce-Anderson Act would continue to be needed for advanced reactors, although some Committee members believe that this was an expression of desire rather than of need. At the very least, renewal of Pnce-Anderson in 2002 would be viewed by the industry as a supportive action by Coyness and would eliminate the potential disruptive effect of developing alternative liability arrangements with the insurance .
|
From page 8... ...
Without such assurances, private investment capital is not likely to flow to this technology. Periodic reviews of construction progress and costs could remove much of the investor visit and uncertainty currently associated with state regulatory treatment of new power plant construction.
|
From page 9... ...
The Committee believes that a prudent design course retains the histoncal defensein-depth approach The economic projections are highly uncertain, first, because past experience suggests higher costs, longer construction times, and lower availabilities then projected and, second, because of different assumptions and levels of marking Hong the designs. The Committee believes that the large evolutionary LWKs are likely to be the least costly to build aIld operate on a cost per kilowatt electric or kilowatt hour basis, while the high-temperature gas-cooled reactors and LMRs are likely to be the most expensive.
|
From page 10... ...
b. Bemuse of the large size and capital investment of evolutionary reactors, utilities that might order nuclear plants may be reluctant to do so.
|
From page 12... ...
Special attention will need to be paid to the LMR. ~ lo, ~ c~ ~~ —_ ~~— ~ ~ecnno~on, also provides enhanced safety featured but its 2 The Gas Cooled Reactor Associates estimates that, if the MHTGR is selected as the new tritium production reactor, development costs for a commercial MHTGR could be reduced from about $1 billion to $03 - 0.6 billion.[DOE, 1990 in Chapter 3]
|
From page 13... ...
Alternative 1 adds funding to assist development of the mid-s~zed LWRs with passive safety features. Alternative 2 adds a LMR development program and associated facilities~the transient reactor test facility, the zero power physics reactor, the Energy Technology Eng~neenag Center, and either the hot fuel examination facility/north ~ Idaho or the Hanford hot fuel examination facility.
|
From page 14... ...
14 NUCLE4R POWER · would support deployment of Mars to breed fuel by We second quarter of the new century should that be needed; and · would maintain a research program in support of both existing and advanced reactors.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.