Aim High, LFTR energy cheaper than from coal

General discussion of thorium and nuclear energy.
User avatar
arcs_n_sparks
Posts: 123
Joined: Nov 22, 2008 9:22 pm

Re: Aim High, LFTR energy cheaper than from coal

Post by arcs_n_sparks »

LANL would be a better choice.
jagdish
Posts: 2390
Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am

Re: Aim High, LFTR energy cheaper than from coal

Post by jagdish »

Getting back to costs of energy.
Taxation and regulatory costs have a lot of influence on the costs of energy. This is not forgetting production costs and supply and demand factors.
Nuclear energy development is in a limbo in the biggest nuclear energy user and second highest coal user, the USA. If the nuclear energy and other domestic resources were given a level playing field, the US would not be energy dependent or have to fight oil wars. The China, the biggest coal user and India the third biggest, are going steadily in the nuclear energy even if the external constraints, namely the NSG, hampered the development in India for decades. Russia, the new energy superpower, is flush with uranium, oil, gas and coal. They use all for internal consumption or export to suit commercial or political interests.
The US regulating authority, the NRC should only be concentrating on safety. The costs of regulation must be borne by the Govt. Breeder technology both with uranium and thorium fuels must be developed both for domestic use and for the rest of the world. The US has practically unlimited stocks of DU, SNF and military surplus HEU and Plutonium. Costly fresh mined uranium could be easily generously left for late developers. Coal could be mined increasingly via the underground gasification and problem of ash disposal got rid of. Sifting uranium out of coal ashes and seawater should be left for Chinese, Japanese and Indians to handle. If there are some more deepwater horizons, the coal gas could be converted to liquid fuels.
jagdish
Posts: 2390
Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am

Re: Aim High, LFTR energy cheaper than from coal

Post by jagdish »

China mining toll 'falls' in 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7855330.stm
The news item says that:-
China's state news agency Xinhua also reported that the number of accidents fell by 19% to 413,700 last year.
It is obvious that nuclear energy is cheaper than coal in China.
If the nuclear power is not loaded with "Regulation Costs" and others are not subsidized, the nuclear energy will become cheaper than coal. It is prospering in France, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea on this basis. The France may have some subsidy for renewable.
The constant efforts to reduce costs and improve safety will always be desirable and commendable. However as the LFTR is decades away, the desireable medium-term actions are introduction of Th-20%LEU fuel for all solid fuel reactors and fast reactor development on SVBR-100 lines.
LFTR development and recovery of TRU's from spent nuclear fuel should also continue as it is in UK, France and Japan.
User avatar
rmaltese
Posts: 131
Joined: Jan 27, 2009 12:09 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Aim High, LFTR energy cheaper than from coal

Post by rmaltese »

I would like to prepare a table and maybe a graph. Does anybody have of the following data
(for just one country - US is best since they have a wide range of energy sources)
Power Density could be dollars/GW
Heating of Atmosphere could be Joules/GW?
Landuse could be Acres per GW
Percent Down Time - just a percentage
Grid Friendliness Rating - poor, good, very good, best
Deaths per year - human deaths? (windmills account for a total 60/year in UK )
found bird deaths per year for Windmills in US is 7000/year!!!

Code: Select all

         |   Power     |  Heating of  |   Land Use  |  Percent     |   GRID Rating | Deaths/yr/GW  |
         |  Density    |  Atmosphere  |             |   Down Time  |               |               |         
Coal     |
Nuclear  |
Wind     |
Solar    |
Nat. Gas |
Oil & Gas|
JUST ONE LFTR PROTOTYPE WOULD BE A HUGE BOOST
User avatar
Axil
Posts: 1053
Joined: Aug 21, 2008 12:57 pm

Re: Aim High, LFTR energy cheaper than from coal

Post by Axil »

A new study identifies 39 additional coal-ash dump sites in 21 states that pollute drinking water with arsenic, lead and other heavy metals.




The analysis comes as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency begins regional hearings on whether to regulate coal ash waste from coal-fired power plants. It will hold the first of seven hearings Monday in Arlington, Va. A public comment period ends Nov. 19.


"This is a huge and very real public health issue for Americans. Coal ash is putting drinking water around these sites at risk," says Jeff Stant of the Environmental Integrity Project, a nonpartisan group that co-wrote the report with the Sierra Club and Earthjustice. The heavy metals exceeded federal drinking water standards at every site equipped with monitoring wells.
The old Zenith slogan: The quality goes in before the name goes on.
User avatar
rmaltese
Posts: 131
Joined: Jan 27, 2009 12:09 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Aim High, LFTR energy cheaper than from coal

Post by rmaltese »

http://www.coal2nuclear.com/3_the_coal_ ... module.htm

Jim Holm did a lot of work preparing this.

Also I've been busier than usual this month on my blog
http://thoriummsr.wordpress.com
JUST ONE LFTR PROTOTYPE WOULD BE A HUGE BOOST
User avatar
jaro
Posts: 1922
Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Re: Aim High, LFTR energy cheaper than from coal

Post by jaro »

energy cheaper than from coal ?
Mitsubishi abandons plan to build new coal-fired power plants
09 September 2010

A unit of the Mitsubishi group, electricity generator and retailer Diamond Power Corp, has abandoned a plan to build two coal-fired power plants in Fukushima Prefecture, balking at the growing costs associated with keeping down carbon dioxide emissions.

The company, which Diamond Power began retail sales of electricity on deregulation in 2000, had planned since 2003 to construct new coal fired plants. These two plants, each with an output of 200 MW, would be constructed in the grounds of Nippon Kasei Chemical Co's Onahama factory. The partners have been conducting an environmental assessment with a view to bringing the facilities online in 2012.

While coal is relatively cheap compared with other fossil fuels, it is among the most CO2 emitting of the fossil fuels, leading Japan's environment minister to express reservations about the plan last year; and the minister of economy, trade and industry called for additional environmental measures.

Diamond Power considered steps such as improving the plants' power generation efficiency by 1 percentage point and increasing the ratio of biomass fuel from the initially planned 3-5% to about 10%. But with estimated construction costs potentially doubling to almost 100 billion yen, the firm decided that the project was no longer economically viable. To make matters worse, the prospect of a new environmental tax undercuts the cost benefit of coal.
jagdish
Posts: 2390
Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am

Re: Aim High, LFTR energy cheaper than from coal

Post by jagdish »

Majority of the world, living in Asia, realize the importance of nuclear energy. It is here that most of reactor building is going on. It is also here that construction of breeder reactors will take off. One fast uranium burner each is under construction in Russia and India.
Thorium burner has been designed in India and is awaiting allotment and procurement of a site. However this solid fuel burner is not expected to be a breeder.
Thorium breeders will have to await fluid fuel and/or fast spectrum reactors.
User avatar
jaro
Posts: 1922
Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Re: Aim High, LFTR energy cheaper than from coal

Post by jaro »

This article illustrates how current LWR technology does NOT cut it as "energy cheaper than from coal"
(this has nothing to do with SA's PBMR fiasco, BTW)
Nucleonics Week October 7, 2010
South Africa seeking to restart nuclear program at lower cost
South Africa is poised to restart its stalled nuclear power program in the
coming months, seeking a solution less costly than the Westinghouse and Areva
bids it received in early 2008.
Among the possibilities the government is considering, according to South
African and other officials interviewed last month, are reactors from China and
South Korea that rivals say lack 21stcentury safety features. For the South
Africans, those “Generation II+” designs have the benefit of support from major
nuclear utilities — including, perhaps, France’s EDF — and the prospect of
generous export financing.
The CEO of state utility Eskom, Brian Dames, has said that South
Africa “may not be able to afford” a Generation III reactor design, according
to Clive Le Roux, chief nuclear officer and senior general manager, nuclear
division of Eskom Holdings Ltd.
Le Roux said in an interview September 20 that the government is
taking an “open technology” approach and asked Eskom to evaluate “all PWR
technologies based on the criteria used in 2006” to establish Eskom’s initial
reactor tender, which ultimately failed on grounds of cost.
But South African industry officials said the nuclear power plan could be
significantly delayed or abandoned if the government — which is in charge
of the country’s nuclear program — chooses a reactor design
that requires a larger emergency planning zone than is foreseen
in the environmental impact assessment process on
which approval of the proposed sites depends.
That might be the case for so-called Generation II+ reactors
such as the Chinese CPR-1000, according to Le Roux.
Eskom is responsible for conducting the EIA process. He said
the EIA documents for Eskom’s sites are based on an evacuation
zone of 2 kilometers (about 1.2 miles).
Rob Adam, CEO of the Nuclear Energy Corp. of South Africa,
Necsa, said in an interview September 17 that the government
is expected to approve next month an integrated resource plan
that foresees construction of 11,000 MW of nuclear capacity by
the late 2020s, with initial construction in 2020.
He said the deployment of the reactors would be done
in a “fleet” approach from the outset, in contrast to Eskom’s
tender of 2007, which asked for detailed bids on two or
three initial units and an option for 10 to 12 later on. But
the government has not yet announced the timeline for a
decision on how to proceed with the procurement, he said.
Adam said it’s not yet decided whether the procurement
will be “country-to-country” or via a tender.
In December 2007, Eskom invited Westinghouse and
Areva to submit bids for their flagship products, AP1000 and
EPR respectively. Eskom had asked for two bids, one called
“Nuclear 1” for initial capacity of 3,200 MW-3,500 MW and
a second for a fleet of 10 to 12 replicate units.
But Eskom and the government were taken aback by the
cost of the bids when they were submitted in January 2008,
South African officials said last month. Eskom repeatedly
delayed a decision on Nuclear 1, as the utility found itself
caught between what loomed as a huge capital investment
for the turnkey plants — South African media at the time
cited the figure of $9 billion for the two or three units, but
Eskom has not confirmed that — and a decreasing ability
to raise financing after its credit rating was cut by Moody’s
Investors Service in August 2008.
The international financial crisis put an end, at least
temporarily, to the utility’s nuclear plans, and the board of
Eskom Holdings announced on December 5, 2008 that it
had decided to terminate the Nuclear 1 tender “due to the
magnitude of the investment.”
At the time, South African officials said the government
was looking for an alternative model for building the reactor
fleet that would involve a “bigger opportunity for South
African companies” and bring the unit cost of nuclear power plants down.
South Africa’s ambassador to the IAEA and deputy foreign
minister, Abdul Samad Minty, said September 20 that
the country’s Department of Energy “is also leading the
development of a nuclear energy implementation strategy”
to develop necessary infrastructure, including “localization
and industrialization and nuclear fuel security.” “We will
work with international partners with the most cost-effective
plans that address these issues with minimum impact on
cost and delivery schedule,” he told the IAEA general conference in Vienna.
Le Roux said Eskom has evaluated PWR technology
from Japan, Russia and South Korea in addition to
the Westinghouse and Areva technology, and has added
China’s design for consideration. The China Guangdong
Nuclear Power group, or Cgnpc, which is part-owned by
China National Nuclear Corp., has developed a three-loop,
1,000-MW-class PWR based on technology transferred by
Areva predecessor Framatome in the 1980s. The CPR-1000,
as it is called, is the workhorse of China’s burgeoning
nuclear power program, representing most of the 24 reactors
under construction in the country.
Le Roux said that in the previous tender, “we asked
Areva to build an ‘RSA-1000,’” meaning a CPR-1000 adapted
for the Republic of South Africa. But he said that the Eskom
board had eventually rejected the idea.
With the experience of the failed 2008 tender, the new
South African government and the new Eskom board might
be more receptive to a reactor design that is not labeled
Generation III and doesn’t have the same price tag.
Chinese utility Cgnpc has announced unit overnight
costs for its CPR-1000 built in China that are less than half
those of the AP1000 or EPR (NW, 1 July, 3).
Evacuation zone
But Le Roux said that the EIAs for Eskom’s proposed reactor
sites were based on the European Utility Requirements
document, a compilation of specifications for new reactor
designs by most of Europe’s nuclear utilities.
The EUR, Le Roux said, specifies an emergency evacuation
zone around a reactor site of only 800 meters (about
half of a mile). Eskom’s sole nuclear power station, the two-unit
Koeberg PWR plant, has an “immediate evacuation”
zone of 5 km (about 3.1 miles) and a “contingency” evacuation
zone of 16 km, Le Roux said. The latter is based on the
US NRC’s 10-mile emergency planning zone, he said.
Eskom is looking at three new sites for its next nuclear
power units: Thyspunt, Bantamsklip, and Duinefontein,
which is adjacent to Koeberg. All are in the Cape region,
where electricity demand is highest and which is far from
South Africa’s coal fields. Le Roux said Eskom had assumed
the EUR emergency planning zone criteria when preparing
the EIA for new units at Duinefontein, even though the
16-km zone exists for Koeberg.
Le Roux said that Eskom had asked Cgnpc whether it
had redesigned the CPR-1000 so that it could meet the new
evacuation zone criteria.
Adam said that “there is a lot of discussion with the
Chinese” at present. If Eskom insisted on a Generation III
reactor, “they couldn’t do it on their own,” because Areva
and Westinghouse have technology rights to their designs
outside China. If Eskom chose a Generation II design, he
said, it could be put at Koeberg considering the emergency
planning zone, but not at the other sites.
“It would be messy to redo the EIAs,” he said. “You’d
have to tinker with the EPZ.”
Adam also said that if the Chinese are keen to build reactors
in South Africa, it’s not just to export their products but
also because they are interested in the country’s uranium resources.
South Africa’s nuclear policy, on the other hand, calls for
indigenous development of nuclear fuel cycle technologies,
including enrichment and fuel fabrication, so that the country
can sell more valuable products for export.
CPR-1000 with EDF?
Meanwhile, French daily Les Echos reported last month
that EDF was interested in partnering with Cgnpc in selling
CPR-1000s to South Africa, but that the French government
had rejected that idea on grounds that EDF should not promote
Chinese technology over that of Areva. The French
government owns more than 85% of each of those companies.
It recently declared EDF the leader of the French nuclear
industry, but said EDF and Areva should work together
more, especially when it’s necessary for export business.
EDF CEO Henri Proglio, who took his position last
November, has set the goal of establishing EDF as a nuclear
architect-engineering force worldwide, and reorganized the
utility’s nuclear engineering division to include a “future
nuclear” department charged with investigating new reactor
designs. The department has been looking at various
designs, including the CPR-1000, according to one EDF
official. He did not confirm that EDF was also looking at a
1,500-MW-class design separate from Areva’s 1,650-MW EPR,
as Les Echos had reported.
The five-member commission of France’s Nuclear Safety
Authority, ASN, issued a statement July 6 asserting that reactors
built today should include features to prevent core melt
accidents and to limit radioactive releases in the event of such
an accident, notably systems to recover molten corium that
might melt through the reactor vessel. EPR has such a system,
but some other reactors do not, including the CPR-1000 and
the South Korean version of the APR-1400 PWR that is to be
built in the United Arab Emirates. The commissioners wrote,
“We don’t want two-speed safety and we will continue to
promote in Europe and internationally safety goals that take
into account the lessons of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and
September 11, 2001. Faced with projects to export reactors
that don’t meet these safety goals, ASN will not hesitate to
say that such reactors could not be built in France.”
Asked September 23 whether that ruled out the CPR-
1000, ASN Chairman Andre-Claude Lacoste told Platts that
the commission was not designating any specific design,
and said he did not know what design features the Chinese
or the South Koreans might be proposing for export projects,
including in South Africa.
Safe enough?
In a separate interview September 22 in Vienna, Bernard
Bigot, chairman of France’s Commission for Atomic Energy
and Alternative Energies, or CEA, said France was promoting
an agreement among countries exporting nuclear reactor
technology on new design criteria. They are: reduction of the
risk of core melt by a factor of 10 compared to existing units,
practical elimination of radioactive releases outside the reactor
building, and resistance to extreme external events, including
voluntary attacks.
“The whole world must share this [approach],” Bigot said.
He said the CPR-1000 “does not meet the three criteria,” in
particular because it doesn’t have a double protective shell surrounding
the reactor building. France’s Nuclear Policy Council,
chaired by President Nicolas Sarkozy, said last July that “we
won’t export low-cost reactors,” Bigot recalled.
He said that while there are differences of opinion within
EDF on which technologies are acceptable for export, “the
French government has a clear position.”
Necsa’s Adam said there is some resistance in South Africa to
taking on a Generation II reactor design, and that there is hope
that vendors will “bring down the cost” of Generation III designs.
The CEA’s Bigot said that buying a nuclear reactor today is
a commitment for 60 years or more, so entrants into the market
should look for the highest safety standard available today.
Bigot said that “the South Africans have not asked for CPR-
1000” but rather want the Chinese to help lower the cost of
EPRs that would be built in South Africa. “EPR is in the process
of being clearly optimized” on the basis of experience with the
design, he said.
Liu Hua, director general of the department of nuclear
safety and environmental radiation management in China’s
Ministry of Environmental Protection, said in an interview
September 22 that the CPR-1000 had been significantly
upgraded compared to the French technology of 30 years
ago. He cited measures to reduce the risk of vessel melt-through,
to limit the risk of loss of coolant accidents, and
to increase the capacity to cope with hydrogen formation
under containment, as well as backfit of digital instrumentation
& control systems.
He said the CPR-1000 meets IAEA safety standards for new
reactors, with a core melt frequency of 10 E-5 and a release
probability an order of magnitude lower. “We are satisfied that
CPR-1000 is a safe reactor type,” Liu said. “It’s safe enough.
How safe is safe enough is a hot topic. Even the AP1000 still
needs improvement,” the Chinese regulator said.
South Africa’s Minty told the IAEA conference that completion
of the final EIA for the three proposed reactor sites is
anticipated “before the end of 2010.” He said the EIA would be
submitted to the government for “evaluation and a decision
on an environmental authorization in the first half of 2011.”
Boyce Mkhize, CEO of South Africa’s National Nuclear
Regulator, told Platts September 23 that “in the end, it’s
the government’s decision which technology” is deployed
in South Africa.””We just need to make sure what’s chosen
meets the IAEA safety standards.”
—Ann MacLachlan, London, Vienna and Paris
jagdish
Posts: 2390
Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am

Re: Aim High, LFTR energy cheaper than from coal

Post by jagdish »

The most cost-effective solution for South Africa would be buying Indian PHWRs, the most economical ones in current times. Sometimes I wonder why Indians are negotiating for the French EPR. It must be for the assured fuel supply after the experience with the US. If the South Africans can produce enough yellow cake for Indian and local PHWRs, it would assure energy security for both. Indians find PHWR competing with thermal plants at 1000km from the pithead. Give some negative points to messiness of coal and positive security points to South African uranium and they have a solution cheaper than coal. Now 220 and 500MW reactors are on offer.
User avatar
Charles Barton
Posts: 245
Joined: Jun 24, 2007 10:43 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Re: Aim High, LFTR energy cheaper than from coal

Post by Charles Barton »

jagdish wrote:The most cost-effective solution for South Africa would be buying Indian PHWRs, the most economical ones in current times. Sometimes I wonder why Indians are negotiating for the French EPR. It must be for the assured fuel supply after the experience with the US. If the South Africans can produce enough yellow cake for Indian and local PHWRs, it would assure energy security for both. Indians find PHWR competing with thermal plants at 1000km from the pithead. Give some negative points to messiness of coal and positive security points to South African uranium and they have a solution cheaper than coal. Now 220 and 500MW reactors are on offer.
I have concluded that Indian PHWRs would offer the best short run energy solution for Africa, where there appears to be plenty of uranium, but no enrichment facilities.
Luke
Posts: 460
Joined: Jul 28, 2008 5:01 am
Location: Teesside, UK

Re: Aim High, LFTR energy cheaper than from coal

Post by Luke »

jagdish wrote:The most cost-effective solution for South Africa would be buying Indian PHWRs.....
Charles Barton wrote:I have concluded that Indian PHWRs would offer the best short run energy solution for Africa, where there appears to be plenty of uranium, but no enrichment facilities.
True, but the Koreans have the momentum at the moment. NEI nuclear notes pointed out this article in the Korean Times on the signing of an agreement on nuclear trade between SA and Korea, and as Jaro's quote points out, the South Africans want to build enrichment and fabrivation facilities themselves, to export finished fuel elements rather than just U3O8.
jagdish
Posts: 2390
Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am

Re: Aim High, LFTR energy cheaper than from coal

Post by jagdish »

Koreans deal with bigger reactors. Indian PHWRs are the best for 200 and 500MW units. They also do not involve enrichment and are economical in mined uranium due both to neutron economy and avoiding waste of U235 in enrichment 'tails'.
If and when 20% enriched LEU becomes available, they could be converted to thorium-LEU fuel with part of energy (40% or more) from thorium and further economy in mined uranium and fuel fabrication. With 4-10% of Monazite rejected as 'Waste' even richer in thorium, thorium is likely to be cheaper than uranium for a long time.
With basic mutual dependence between India and South Africa and alternative sources also available (eg Canada for both) energy security is assured for both.
User avatar
robert.hargraves
Posts: 303
Joined: Sep 10, 2008 7:40 pm
Contact:

New edition: Aim High, LFTR energy cheaper than from coal

Post by robert.hargraves »

Amazon reduced the price of the 2009 Aim High book to $9.99.
http://www.amazon.com/Aim-High-Thorium- ... 23&sr=8-1/

I put together a shorter, simpler 2011 Aim High booklet now on Amazon for $7.99.
http://www.amazon.com/Aim-High-Dr-Rober ... 23&sr=8-2/

It's also at the Kindle store for $2.99. It includes the APS forum newsletter article on Liquid Fuel Nuclear Reactors by Ralph Moir and me. Search for "aim high thorium".

I'm hoping that the booklet will be useful in marketing LFTR.

Contact me if you want to buy in bulk and I can get them printed for about half price. That's as low as I can get the price with full color printing.
jagdish
Posts: 2390
Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am

Re: Aim High, LFTR energy cheaper than from coal

Post by jagdish »

Further economy is possible by changing the coolant to non-volatile salts or liquid metals like Mg-Al eutectic, running the power plant at a higher temperature and achieving higher thermal efficiency. It is being proposed in the LFTR, Pebble Bed AHTR and could be done in a CALANDRIA configuration of PHWR's where the coolant does not have to double up as moderator. In the fast spectrum reactors it could be a safer alternate to sodium or a less corrosive substitute to Lead-Bismuth.
An Indian BARC brochure of AHWR300-LEU proposes Thorium-19.75%LEU fuel for higher fuel economy. Higher enrichment for higher burn up is constantly being introduced and this concept takes this development to its ultimate conclusion. This could be extended to existing reactors too.
Post Reply