Nuclear Power Technical and Institutional Options for the Future (1992) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 Conclusions and Recommendations
5 Conclusions and Recommendations
Pages 180-198
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 180... ...
Where the recommendations appear they are identified as such by bold italicize type. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS In 1989, nuclear plants produced about 19 percent of the United States' electrical, 77 percent of France's electricity, 26 percent of Japan's electricity, and 33 percent of West Germany electncity.
|
From page 181... ...
Costs Major deterrents for new U.S. nuclear plant orders include high capital carrying Ages, driven by high construction costs and extended construction times, as well as the risk of not recovering all construction costs.
|
From page 182... ...
Pmdency Billions of dollars in disallowances of recovery of costs from utility ratepayers have made utilities and the financial community leery of further investments in nuclear power plants. During the 1980s, rate base cl;"llowances by state regulators totaled about $14 billion for nuclear plants, but only about $0.7 billion for non-nuclear plants.
|
From page 183... ...
A awe ~ been ~~ ~10 ~ .
|
From page 184... ...
As stated there, the industry must develop better methods for managing the design and construction of nuclear plants. Arrangements among the participants that would assure timely, economical, and high-quality construction of new nuclear plants, the Committee believes, win be prerequ~s~tes to an adequate degree of assurance of capital cost recovery from state regulatory authorities In advance of construction.
|
From page 185... ...
electnc energy requirements. The Committee encourages industry efforts to reduce reliance on the adversarial approach to issue resolution.
|
From page 186... ...
Nuclear Regulatory Commission An obstacle to continued nuclear power development has been the uncertainties In the Nuclear Regulatory Comm~on's (NRC3 licensing process. Because the current regulatory framework was mainly intended for light water reactors (LWR)
|
From page 187... ...
A joint industry/state study of economic incentive pro~ams could help assure that such programs do not interfere ~nth the safe operation of nuclear power plants. It is the Con~mitteets op~n~on, based upon our e~erience, that NRC should continue to exerc~se its federaBy mandated preemptive authority over the regulation of commercia1 nucJ ear power plaIlt safety if the activities of state government agenaes (or other public or pnvate agencies)
|
From page 188... ...
waste problem jeopardizes future nuclear power development. The Committee believes that the legal status of the Yucca Mountain site for a geologic repository should be resolved soon, and that the Department of Energy's (DOE)
|
From page 189... ...
The Committee believes that enactment of such legislation could remove much of the investor visit and uncertainty currently associated with state regulatory treatment of new power plant construction, and could therefore help retain nuclear power as an option for meeting U.S. electric energy requirements.
|
From page 190... ...
The reactor concepts assessed by the Committee were the large evolutionary LWRs, the mid-sized LWRs with passive safety features,2 the (Canadian deutenum uramnm (CANDU) heavy water reactor, the modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (MHTGR)
|
From page 191... ...
191 ~th regard to advanced des~gns, the Committee reached tbe follo~ conclusions. La~e Evolutionary Light Water Reactors The large evolutionary LWRs ofEer the most mature technology.
|
From page 192... ...
The construction and operation of a first plant would likely be requ~re~d before design certification R~ the opposite conclumon of the ~GR propo nents, the Committee was not convince that a foreseeable commercial market exists for MHTGR-produced process heat, which Is the unique strategic capability of the MHTGR. Based on the Committee's view on containment requirements, and the economics and "ethnology issues, the Committee judged the market potential for the MHTGR to be low.
|
From page 193... ...
In addition, actinides, including those from LWR spent fuel, can undergo fission without significantly affecting performance of an advanced LMR, transmuting the actinides to fission products, most of which, except for technetium, carbon, and some others of little import, have halflives very much shorter tin the actinides. (Actinides are among the materials of greatest concern ~ nuclear waste disposal beyond about 300 years.)
|
From page 194... ...
The economic projections are highly uncertain, first, because past e~enence suggests higher costs, longer construction times, and lower availabilities than projected and, second, because of different assumptions and levels of maturity among the designs. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRp data, which the Committee believes to be more reliable than that of the vendors, indicate that the large evolutionary LWRs are likely to be the least costly to build and 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 195... ...
c = ~ as E ~ ~n ~, 0 ~o ~s: c ._ a' C~ J o 0 i~ eL _ o — 0 ~ C} ._ as ._ CS ~ 0 0 C)
|
From page 196... ...
investment of evolutionary reactors, utilities that might order nuclear plants may be reluctant to do so. If nuclear power plants are to be available to a broader range of potential U.S.
|
From page 197... ...
However, based on the extensive e~enence base with light water technology in the United States, the lack of success tenth commercial use of gas te~nolo~, the likely higher costs of this technology compared tenth the alternatives, and the substantial development costs that are still required before certification,3 the Co~nmiKee concluded that the MHTGR had a low market potential. The Committee considered the possibility that the MHTGR might be selected as the new triti~nn production reactor for defense purposes and noted the vendor assomation's estimated reduction in development costs for a commercial version of the MHIGR.
|
From page 198... ...
Consequently, the Comm'Kee believes Hat DOE should colder mamraining a coated fuel particle research program within that part of DOE focused on space reactors. Alternative 1 adds Inching to assist development of the mid-sized LWRs with passive safer features Alternative 2 adds a LMR development program and associated facilities -- the transient reactor test facility, the zero power physics reactor, the Energy Teleology Eng~neenng Center, and either the hot fuel examination facility/north in Idaho or the Hanford hot fuel examination facility.
|
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.