Jun 20, 1974 - which is itself only about 30% of the cost of producing electricity with ...... 130. Carnow, B. W., et al., "Air Pollution and Pulmonary Cancer," Arch.
(NASA-CR-146344) E V A I U A T I O N OF CONVEHTIONEL POWE: SYSTEMS ( C a l i f o r n i a Univ.) 194 F HC 5’. 5G CSCL f O E
N76- 18675
Unclas G3/44
-..
I
Subcontract d9540i 1
J E T
OROPULSION
C A L I F O R N I A
I N S T I T U T E
P A S A D E N A ,
LABORATORY OF
T E C H N O L O G Y
C A L I F O R N I A
10420
Kirk R. Smith, Postgraduate Researcher d o h k y a n t e Postgraduate Researcher
John P. Holdren, Assistant Prbfeswr ENERGY AND RESOURCES PBBGdw9 Roam 112, Building 1-S Universl t y o f Cat iforhia Berkeley, Cal i f o r n l a 9 7 2 0
July 1975
Foreword
The NASA O f f i c e o f Energy Programs i s p r e s e n t l y conducting a study of the p o t e n t i a l u t i l i t y of l a r g e o r b i t a l c e n t r a l power s t a t i o n s as a p o s s i b l e means t o help meet our c o u n t r y ' s demands f o r e l e c t r i c i t y .
As
p a r t o f t h i s study, JPL has been d i r e c t e d t o perform a survey of p o t e n t i a l t e r r e s t r i a l energy conversion systems f o r comparison w i t h o r b i t a l c e n t r a l power s t a t i o n s .
The candidate t e r r e s t r i a l o p t i o n s being reviewed include
conventional power p l a n t s and both s o l a r thermal and p h o t o v o l t a i c conversion. This r e p o r t presents an e v a l u a t i o n o f conventional power systems.
The work
was performed by personnel a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a a t Berkeley under a subcontract t o JPL. The work was performed under the t e c h n i c a l d i r e c t i o n and guidance o f Mr.
Richard Caputo o f JPL.
The Cognizant NASA Program Manager
Simon Manson o f the Energy Technology A p p l i c a t i o n s D i v i s i o n .
IV
is
Mr.
Acknowledgements
The b u l k of t h i s work was performed by K. R. Smith and J. Weyant under t h e supervision o f J. P. Holdren, P r i n c i p a l I n v e s t i g a t o r .
The authors
a r e gra7eful for the time and information g i v e n to us d u r i n g our conversations w i t h persons a t t h e f o l l o w i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s and agencies:
J e t Propulsion
Laboratory, Bechtel Corporation, Westinghouse Corporation, Erookhaven National Laboratory, General Atomic Corporation, National Science Foundation, Environmental P r o t e c t ion Agency, Energy Research and Development Agency, Natural Resources Defense Counci 1, Resources for t h e Future, National l n s t it u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health, Council on Environmental Q u a l i t y , E l e c t r i c Power Research I n s t i t u t e , A.
D. L i t t l e Corporation, Oak Ridge (Hol i f i e l d )
National Laboratory, and National Aeronautics and Space A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
-
Lewis.
We appreciate the assistance o f Professor Melvyn Branch o f the Mechanical Engineering Department, U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a ,
Berkeley.
T.
English of JPL was very h e l p f u l i n reviewing t h i s study and provided many cons t r u c t i v e suggestions.
I n a d d i t i o n , we a r e chankful f o r the patience and s k i l l
of our t y p i s t s ; Linda E l l i o t t , Linda Marczak, Debbie Tyber and Mari Wilson, and the JPL t y p i s t , Peggy Panda.
O f course, a l l e r r o r s a r e the authors' responsi-
bi I ity.
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Chapter I
Chapter II
Chapter 1 1 1
-
-
-
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1
Selection o f Systems
2
Summary Comparisons
10
Costs and Resource U t i 1i z a t i o n
10
E w i ronmental and Health Impacts
16
TECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONS
21
Foss i 1 Systems
22
Nuclear Sys tems
30
Summary Tables
38
COSTS AND IMPACTS: DISCUSSION AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
40
Ill-A:
41
Costs and Resource U t i l i z a t i o n
Ill-A-1:
Introduction
41
I I I-A-2:
Harvesting Fuels
44
III - A - 3 :
Ilpgrading Fuels
50
I I I-A-4:
Transporting Fuels
53
Ill-A-5:
Conversion t o E l e c t r i c i t y
54
Ill-A-6:
Management o f F i n a l Waste
60
Ill-A-7:
Multiple Sensitivities
62
I I I -A-8:
Research and Deve 1opmen t Costs
65
vi
Page
111-8:
Environmental and H e a l t h Impacts
69
I II-B-1:
Harvesting of Fuels
69
I11-8-2:
Upgrading of Fuels
73
I1 1 - 8 3 :
T r a n s p o r t i n g of Fuels
76
I11-8-4:
Conversion t o E l e c t r i c i t y
78
111-8-5:
Management o f F i n a l Waste
85
I11-8-6:
Indices
88
111-8-7:
Global and Social E f f e c t s
92
Refe rences
96
Appendicies
B -
A
C
-
Coal w i t h Lime Scrubber Flue Gas D e s u l f u r i z a t i o n
113
Coal w i t h Fluidized-Bed Combustion
125
Coal w i t h Low-Btu G a s i f i c a t i o n and Combined-Cycle Combustion
132
E
- Residual Fuel O i l - Light-Water Reactor
F
-
D
140
150
Light-Water Reactor w i t h Plutonium Recycle
- L i q u i d Metal Fast Breeder Reactor H - High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor
C
vi i
162
170 180
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
This r e p o r t i s a review o f the t e c h n i c a l , economic, and environmental characteri s t i c s of (thermal, non-solar) e l e c t r i c - p o w e r p l a n t s t h a t are 1 i k e l y t o see widespread use i n the United States i n the remainder of t h i s century. from e x t r a c t i o n o f neM f u e l t o f i n a l waste management, i s included.
The f u e l c y c l e , We have
selected f o r p a r t i c u l a r l y thorough review e i g h t examples of the f o s s i I - f u e l and nuc 1 ear techno ogies most l i k e l y to be h e a v i l y r e l i e d upon.
The study has
employed e x i s t ng knowledge and l i t e r a t u r e and does n o t develop any : e w a n a l y t i c a t o o l s o r exper mental data.
The r e p o r t does n o t address several important issues
about e l e c t r i c energy production: various fuels; fuels;
i t does n o t estimate the resource base o f the
i t does not evaluate the c o s t s and impacts o f e x p l o r a t i o n f o r
i t does n o t evaluate the costs and impacts o f transmission o r f i n a l end
use o f the e l e c t r i c i t y ;
i t makes no attempt t o address the questions r e l a t e d to
the growth i n demand f o r e l e c t r i c i t y o r t r y t o p r e d i c t what t h a t growth w i l l o r should be;
i t makes
no attempt t o eva uate where a l t e r n a t i v e sources might be
s u b s t i tuteil f o r e l e c t r i c i t y ;
i t makes
i t t l e attempt t o evaluate the energy
systems being developed i n o t h e r p a r t s o f the world. The usefulness o f t h i s r e p o r t i s t h a t i t attempts t o place the e i g h t reference e l e c t r i c energy systems i n the same assessment framework.
The systems are evalu-
ated i n the same time p e r i o d , w i t h the same economic ground-rules, and w i t h the same categories o f environmental and h e a l t h impacts.
Most o f the c o s t s , resource
requirements, emissions and impacts f o r each system have been n o r m a l ' x d t o the e l e c t r i c a l output o f the system i n megawatt-years (Mwe-yr).
This app-oach should
provide useful information, not o n l y f o r comparing these e i g h t systems, but a l s o f o r assessing the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f other systems which might becone a v a i l a b l e
d u r i n g o r a t the end of t h i s p e r i o d .
1
Se 1ec t ion of Sys tems
Figures I-1-a,b,c
i u s t r a t e the f u e l cycles of most non-solar e l e c t r i c -
power sys tems o f present
n t e r e s t i n the technica
commun t y .
No judgment
is
implied, i n these f i g u r e s , about the technical o r economic f e a s i b i l i t y o f the systems shown, and i n f a c t , most o f the systems a r e u n l i k e l y to c o n t r i b u t e a very s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n o f U. 5 . generation c a p a c i t y i n the p e r i o d before t h t year 2000.
Figures I-2-a,b,c
i l l u s t r a t e a smaller s e t o f systems--those we
b e l i e v e may a c t u a l l y become a v a i l a b l e i n t h i s time p e r i o d o r , as i n the case o f fusion, might become important i n the e a r l y p a r t of the next century. systems marked w i t h a s t e r i s k s i n Figures I-2-a,b,c
make up the s t i l i smaller
subset whose members might i n d i v i d u a l l y supply more than 5% o f U.S. production i n the year 2000. tion,
Those
electricity
(We t h i n k high-Btu c o a l g a s i f i c a t i o n , coal l i q u e f a c -
and imported l i q u e f i e d n a t u r a l gas (LNG) a r e 1 i k z l y t o be important
energy technologies i n t h i s time period, b u t root f o r e l e c t r i ' c i t y generation.)
E g h t o f these f i n a l systems ( a l l i n the present study.
b u t conservation) were examined i n d e t a i l
I n our view, unless there a r e s i g n i f i c a n t p o l i t i c a l changes,
unexpected technical o r resource breakthroughs, or major changes i n pub1 i c a t t i t u d e , these e i g h t systems a r e the non-solarelectricity-producing technologies most l i k e l y t o be o f s i g n i f i c a n c e i n the p e r i o d 1990-2000.
If t e r r e s t r i a l o r s a t e l l i t e solar
power systems should become a v a i l a b l e by the yedr 2000, u t i l i t i e s w i l l l i k e l y be choosing between these s o l a r systems and the e i g h t power systems i n our f i n a l group. Conservation can a l s o be considered a source o f e l e c t r i c power, because e l e c t r i c i t y saved i n one a p p l i c a t i o n becomes a v a i l a b l e f o r use i n others. b e l i e v e conservation w i 11 be the most important "n,
2
J
Indeed, we
source" i n the time frame
VI
9)
>
U
m
C
L
9)
u c
a L
0
LL I
.-u L
u
u
9) c
W
.-ul c
v)
0 IJ.
..
m I
c
I c
9)
L 3
.-m LL
3
U
m C
L
9)
tJ c
a
.-v L
U
V 9) c
W L
m Q)
u J z
..
n I
4
c
L
-a Q)
&I
-u L
Y
U Q) c
w
L (0 c
Q)
E
..
u I
c
I c
.-
L
.-
w
v\
t d F
B
9
+.I
9)
L
0
E
0 0 , O C
0
a-
N > . c
-u .- --u 2
3 L m u
>. .-
u
f
9)
Eb: c
aQI
d > .
*-I
..
ul vi: 0
v
n I
N I c
.-
I&
7
k
0 0
O
o
Ln E
a
(UL
r
le0
0
1 0 01N
u
w
0 0
v
c x
-
m n
cn
u-
COT
0 I
c 0
-m2
E
L 01
.c
IL 9)
c r
0
u c
m
0 u
u u m-9
.K3
- 0 C
r
L
a
W C
.n
'2 .-
3 *v E *-
I
3
I-
01L
u u
m u 2.9)
cn-
..u I
cv I c
9)
L
1 ol
.L.
\
4'
I
l o
* m o o
considered.
because of the time and z t a f f limitations o f our project, however,
we have not provided a detailed analysis of conservation's economic and
mental effects
environ-
The most comprehensive such analysis in the l i t e r a t u r e to date
i s the report of the Energy Pol icy Project o f the Ford Foundation (
9
24)
-
Some Summary Comparisons
In t h i s section, several o f t h e most important costs and impacts o f e l e c t r i c power production a r e summarized i n a form t h a t f a c i l i t a t e s comparisons between the e i g h t a l t e r n a t i v e technologies.
Each system has inherent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
which made i t unique, and t r u l y meaningful comparisons r e q u i r e more i n f o r m a t i o n and synthesis than the graphs provide i n t h e f o l l o w i n g summary sections.
To a v o i d
misunderstanding o f the information presented i n these sections, t h e reader I s advised to read t h e r e s t of t h i s r e p o r t and to study the t a b l e s i n Appendices A-H.
Comparisons:
Costs and Resource U t i l i z a t i o n
Extensive cost and resource u t i l i z a t i o n data were c o l l e c t e d f o r t h e e i g h t electric-power generation systems for t h i s study.
The raw data normalized to
one megawatt-year o f c l e c t r i c a l output a t t h e power p l a n t a r e included i n t h e
In S e c t i o n - l l l - A these data a r e summarized aqd the s e n s i t i v i t y o f
Appendices.
e l e c t r i c generation costs t o v a r i a t i o n s i n some of t h e base-case parameters a r e explored.
A more concise summary f o l l o w s here.
The cost o f e l e c t r i c generation i s conventionally broken down i n t o i t s c a p i t a l , f u e l , and operation and maintenance components.
Although i n the present study the
conventional d e f i n i t i o n s of these cost components a r e not s t r i c t l y adhered t o i n c a l c u l a t i n g e l e c t r i c generation costs, we can a p p r o p r i a t e l y use them t o summarize some o f the cost data t h a t were c o l l e c t e d (see footnotes i n Table A-1).
I n t h i s study the
base-case referes t o technological and economic c o n d i t i o n s t h a t a r e expected t o e x i s t i n the electric-power i n d u s t r y i n about 1990. i n Figure 1-3.
The base-case cost data are summarized
The c a p i t a l costs shown are i n mid-1974 d o l l a r s and assume no
e s c a l a t i o n o r de-escalation between now and 1990.
10
The f u e l costs and e l e c t r i c
Figure 1-3:
Base Case Fuel, Capital and Electric Generation Costs.
Capital costs are i n mid-1974 dollars and include interest during constructton.
Fuel and e l e c t r i c generation costs are in levelfzed mid-1974 siIls/KwHa.
f U €
L 6
I
E L
I oin C
bo
C
A
C f R
r
P
R
I
I
1 A
E 1 E
L
C
L
C 1
0 f T
500
E
R I
I
C I t Y
C T A I C I T
E
!I Coal
Scrub
Coa 1
-
Y
Coal
C A P I
C A
I T. A 1
P
1 R
I 1 A
Y
L
RFb
Fluidized OaS Bed Combined
Cvcla a.
30
Y
I
v
C
r
E 1 E C 1 R I C I
I
I
t I
L
.
LWR
6 E II E
R
i
A T I 0 N
1
E 1 E C T R I C
C
0 5 10
I
r
1
V
Y
LHFBR
f
U E
HTGR
The PR areas denote the cost savings attributable to Plutonium Recycle I n LWRs
11
E L E
f
5
(n.Ils/ KnHe)
generation costs are i n l e v e l l z e d mid-1974 mills/KwHe,
which means t h a t the
e f f e c t o f long-run i n f l a t i o n has been taken i n t o account. notes imnediate’y the t r a d i t i o n a l
I n t h i s t a b l e one
h i g h e r c a p i t a l and lower f u e l costs f o r the
nuclear syr.tc:a:.i as opposed to t h e f o s s i l
systems.
Among t h e f o s s i l systems
the f1uid:zed bed system seems t o have both the lowest c a p i t a l cost and e l e c t r i c generatio?
s t s , w h i l e among the n u c l e a r systems t h e HTGR system, w h i l e e x h i b i -
3
t i n g s l i g h t l y h i g h e r c a p i t a l cost than the LWR system, has (marcjinally) the lowest e i e c t r i i generation cost due t o i t s more e f f i c i e n t u t i l i z a t i o n of scarce uranium resour’es. clear
COS.:
Using the base-case assumptions, the nuclear systems show a
advantage over the f o s s i l system due t o t h e c u r r e n t l y e x i s t i n g h i g h
p r i c e s o f coal end r e s i d u a l fuel o i l . The base-case assumptions selected were c e r t a i n t o be c o n t r o v e r s i a l no matter what p a r t i c l . l a r values were chosen.
While ERDA a n a l y s t s are p r o j e c t i n g c a p i t a l
cost reductions f o r nuclear power p l a n t s i n the f u t u r e due t o l e a r n i n g e f f e c t s and economies o f scale (see, e.g.,
References (6) and (13911, o t h e r a n a l y s t s a r e
c o l l e c t i n g data m i c h show ’hat the c a p i t a l c o s t o f nuclear power p l a n t s has i n creased dramat ical l y i n recent years (see,
e.q., Reference (169)).
Further,
evidence e x i s t s which argues t h a t the OPEC c a r t e l p r i c e i s considerably below the c u r r e n t worlrt p r i c e :or o i l , and t h a t the c u r r e n t p r i c e o f coal i s substant a i l l y above the marginal t o s t o f producing i t (see and (60)).
%.
References ( 3 1 1 , (571,
I n view o f t’iese c o n t r o v e r s i e s and i n s t a b i l i t i e s , and the i n e v i t a b l e
u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n cond, &ions i n - t h e e l e c t r i c - p o w e r i n d u s t r y o f the f u t u r e o f which they are a produc., assumed f o r represent,tive
we explored the impact o f v a r y i n g some o f the parameter values
.e base-case over ranges wide enough t o i n c l u d e a l t e r n a t i v c values o f those fnurid i n the 1 i t e r a t u r e .
12
Various a l t e r n a t i v e assumptions
about c a p i t a l cost escalations, f u t u r e fuel fuel p r i c e s , capacity f a c t o r s and power p l a n t e f f i c i e n c i e s Figure 1-4.
l e d t o the range of e l e c t r i c generation c o s t s shown i n
Note t h a t no system
has a lower e l e c t r i c generation cost than
another under a l l p o s s i b l e circumstances.
In f a c t , as pointed o u t i n Section
e s c a l a t i o n i n nuclear power p l a n t c o n s t r u c t i o n costs over and above t h a t
Ill-A,
f o r f o s s i l power p l a n t s may negate the e l e c t r i c generation cost advantage f o r nuclear generation t h a t was so v i s i b l e i n Figure 1-3
.
While the futgre costs of e l e c t r i c generation by technologies t h a t a r e now commercial
(9. RFO, LWR, HTGR)
t h a t are s t i l l
are d i f f i c u l t t o ascertain, those f o r technologies
(2. Fluidized-Bed, LMFBR) are even more d i f f -
under development
i c u l t to estimate.
I n fact,
the f u r t h e r a technology i s from commercialization,
the m r e uncertain are i t s u l t i m a t e cost and performance parameters.
Additionally,
i n order f o r a technology to gain widespread acceptance, R t D funds must o f t e n be expended t o improve the safety and r e l i a b i l i t y o f c u r r e n t l y commercial technologies
(9. LWR).
Figure 1-5.
Projected
R
D costs for t h e e i g h t study systems a r e shown i n
t
I n the Table o n l y R t D costs t h a t can be d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t e d t o a
-
p a r t i c u l a r system--; .e. mostly those spent on the power p l a n t s themselves are i n -
eluded.
Section 111-8 considers
systems,
-.
uranium mining.
R
& D categories t h a t can impact on
several
One notes immediately the r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e expen-
d i t u r e and long time span p r o j e c t e d f o r the LMFBR program.
13
Figure 1-4:
Range of Electric Generation Costs due to Plausible Variations from Base-Case Parameter Values
70
Generation costs i n leuellzed. mid-1974 m i 1 Is/KWHe
E L E C
W Denotes value base-case.
assumed for
60
1 R
I C 6 E
50
N E R A
1 I
o
b
I C 0 5 T
30 (mills/ KwHe)
c
4
29
I
t
I
I
Coal Scrub
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
RFO
LWR
LWR-PU
LMFBR
HTGR
Coal Coal Fluidized 6as Bed Combined Cycle
Varied Parameters (for details see Section
1ll-A)
. Capital costs - High end i s 5% d i f f e r e n t i a l i n f l a t i o n t o 1990 plant startup.
. Fuel costs - High end i s 3%d i f f e r e n t i a l i n f l a t i o n t o f o r coal. . Plant (Gapacity) factors - nominal (0.75) t o h i s t o r i c . Power
plant efficiencies
14
nominal t o advanced.
1990 startup (-0.60)
Figure 1-5:
Projected R b D costs
Ill-A-6. Section Ill-A-8 for additional general support
See Table
See coal, o i l and reactor systems
RSD for
197
6500 R & D costs
(in m i 1 I ions
of dol lers)
1500
1000
194
500
I981
Coal Scrub
Coal
1984
Coal
RFO
Fluidized Gar Bed tomblned
Cycle a.
See coal-scrub.
IS
1984
1984
LWR
LWR-PU
LHFBR
HTGR
Comparisons:
Environmental and Health Impacts
Figures 1-6
-
1-8 present t h e occupational and pub1 c h e a l t h impacta, and
t h e r i s k s of c a t a s t r o p h i c accidents a t power p l a n t s .
I n some cases, t h e range
of estimates i s l a r g e due to u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n t h e unders anding of t h e processes involved,
e,q., nuclear
power p l a n t r i s k s .
I n o t h e r areas the ranges a r e l a r g e
because of u n c e r t a i n t i e s about f u t u r e regulations,
*,
dust l e v e l s i n coal mines.
In many cases where there i s a seemingly narrow range, moreover, the reason i s
not t h a t t h e impact i s known w i t h g r e a t accuracy, b u t r a t h e r than we found o n l y one source i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e d e a l i n g w i t h t h a t impact.
The ranges shown a r e o n l y
a r e s u l t o f t h e s c a t t e r of values i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e , n o t the r e s u l t of an a n a l y s i s of p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n .
Thus, for t h e impacts of t h e HTGR, f o r example, the
t r u e ranges o f u n c e r t a i n t y a r e probably much l a r g e r than the ranges f o r the LWR impacts. system.
However, many more estimates have been made f o r the impacts of t h e LWR
For a more d e t a i l e d discussion o f e x a c t l y what assumptions, u n c e r t a i n t i e s ,
and data went i n t o developing the range of impacts f o r each system, see Chapter 1 1 1 and Appendices A-H. It i s evident from Figures 1-6 and
1-7 t h a t f u t u r e coal systems ( f l u i d i z e d
bed and g a s i f i c a t i o n ) could have h e a l t h impacts s u b s t a n t i a l l y below t h e l e v e l o f the coal-scrubber system.
Occupational impacts w i l l f a l l mainly through b e t t e r con-
t r o l of dust l e v e l s and accidents i n coal mines, and p u b l i c impacts w i l l f a l l through smaller a i r emissions a t power p l a n t s .
The impact of the low-Btu gaslcornbined c y c l e
coal system has the p o t e n t i a l o f being over 300 times less damaging t o p u b l i c h e a l t h than p r e s e n t l y operating coal-scrubber systems.
Implementation of c u r r e n t dust
standards and improving mine accidept safety t o t h e l e v e l o f today's safest mines would r e s u l t i n a reduction by more than a f a c t o r o f IO i n the damage t o workers' health. Nuclear systems do not seem t o have a chance f o r such a spectacular improvement i c . o u t i n e impacts, although, because of increased c o n t r o l o f rbdioisotopes a t
16
Occupational Impacts @
Figure 1-6:
Logarithmic
Scala
1-1 100
Accidents
I-------
I Disease
10 I
r
z I
\ Y
v)
0 v)
>
I
1
(0
i
-0 I C
s
I
a8 a
T
T
7
I
i
1
t
f
&
A
I I @
I@
0.1
I
I
-c
t I
Coa 1 Scrub
a. Upper rates b. Lower mines
Coa 1 Fluidized
Cod 1
Bed
Combined Cyc I e
part of i n coal impacts were t o
I
I
R FO
1 I
LWR
I
LUR-Pu
I
f
LHFBR
HTGR
I
Gas
range is p r i m a r i l y based on c u r r e n t average accident mines. can be achieved i f the average accident r a t e s i n coal approach the r a t e s i n safest present mines.
c. This range represents t h e impact i f present dust l e v e l r e g u l a t i o n s a r e enforced. d. See Appendix A-3 for disease r a t e s i n present mines. e. No occupational diseases have been i d e n t i f i e d here f o r RFO. f. Could be thought o f as t h e best p o s s i b l e cor LWR as w e l l . 9 . Icnnc! person-davs loFt (PnL)/&ath blhether premature deaths o r a c u t e d e a t h s , 50 PDL/accident o r i l l n e s s and 100 PDL/cancer. These very d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l impacts can be separated by reference t o append ices
.
17
Figure 1-7: Public impact: Routine Emissions and Accidents Logari. thmfc Sea le
7-
7 I
I
I
I I
I
I
T
I
I I
I
1
?-
I
fs
I
8
h9
I
I
I
l
I
L
I
A.
1; I
I
I
I l
I
I I
I
-L C
$ L el
n.
I I
CoeI Scrub
a.
b. C.
d.
Cod I Fluidized
Coe 1
Bed
Combined Cyel e
Rfo
LWR
*I I
LWR-PU
LMFER
HTGR
Cas
SOX pollution and whole body radiation dose only. No public accidents identified for RFO. Includes the global dose from Kr-85 and H-3. See Appendlx.
Health impacts o f long-term storage o r disposal considered t o be zero due to current lack of data i n t h i s area.
reprocessing p l a n t s and less uranium mining
(s., i n the LMFBR
c y c l e ) , the t o t a l
r o u t i n e impacts can be lessened i n f u t u r e appl i c a t i o n s . Only the r e s i d u a l f u e l o i l (RFO) system competes a t a l l w i t h nuclear systems on tbe basis o f r o u t i n e impacts, a t present.
However, f u t u r e coal systems w i l l
narrow the gap between the magnitude o f nuclear and coal r o u t i n e impacts considerably.
I n a d d i t i o n , coal systems do not seem t o have the p o t e n t i a l f o r major
impact thrcugh large accidents, as do nuclear systems and RFO ( t h e event of cern w i t h RFO being major f i r e s under i n v e r s i o n c o n d i t i o n s ) . which presents o n l y the impacts
(See F i g u r e
CCC-
1-8,
o f deaths from l a r g e accide:its a t power plants.)
I f nucleer accidents are as infrequent and low i n consequence as i n d i c a t e d by the
low end o f the ranges i n Figure 1-8, the average impact o f these accidents would not add much t o the t o t a
impact.
I f , however, the accident r i s k i s a t the higher
end o f these ranges, the r e s u l t of adding i n the average impact would be t o place nuc ear and the best coa
systems on a rough par w i t h each o t h e r .
7 ere are, o f
course, o t h e r impacts t o be considered and there a r e severe problems t h a t r e s u l t from the differences
i n the temporal, geographic and demographic d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f
impacts i n d i f f e r e n t systems.
See Chapter 1 1 1 and the Appendices f o r a more com-
p l e t e d iscuss ion. To summarize:
coal systems a r e becoming safer f o r workers and cleaner f o r
everyone, but not t o the l e v e l of nuclear systems.
Nuclear systems, however,
have a r i s k of l a r g e accidents which makes the t o t a l impact from nuclear povJer uncertain, but p o t e n t i a l l y as great o r g r e a t e r as the impact from the best f o s s i l sys tems.
Figure
1-9;
S o c i e t a l R i s k a t Power P l a n t :
Large Accidents
Logeri thmic Scale
100
10
-
1-
0.1-
0.01
0.001
-
I
-
0.0001
I
I
I
Coal Scrub
I
I
I
I
Coe 1 Coa1 Fluidized Gas Bed Combined
1
1
R FO
1
I
LWR
1 I
LWR-PU
1
I
1
LHFBL
HYGR
Cyc 1e a. A t
6000
injury,
days p e r d e a t h . T h i s i n c l u d e s no a c c o u n t i n g o f t h e days l o s t t o i l l n e s s , g e n e t i c e f f e c t s , b l a c k m a i l , d i v e r s i o n o r sabotage.
b. No l a r g e a c c i d e n t s have been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c o a l p l a n t s .
20
Chapter I I
TECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONS
This chapter presents the technical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and present l e v e l o f development i n the e i g h t systems picked f o r d e t a i l e d study.
There are f o u r
f o s s i l and f o u r ncclear systems i n t h i s group and summary o f the important technical parameters a r e rresented a t the end o f the chapter i n Tables 1 1 - 1 anc' 11-2.
Foss i 1 Systems : Coal Systems Steam conversion and wet 1 ime flue-gas d e s u l f u r i z a t i o n
(coal-scrub)
Fluidized-bed conversion w i t h s u l f u r recovery Low-Btu g a s i f ication/combined-cycle combustion (C-C. system) Residual Fuel O i l w i t h steam conversion and & e t lime flue-gas d e s u l f u r i z a t i o n (RFO)
Nuclear Sys tems : Light-Water Reactor (LWR) Light-Water Reactor w i t h plutonium recycle (LWR-Pu) L i q u i d Metal F a s t Breeder Reactor 'I MFBR) High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor (HTGR)
COAL SYSTEHS
& f i r s t describe the f u e l c;#cle necessary to prepare coal f o r use a t the three a l t e r n a t i v e coal-based power p l a n t s we have selected f o r study. In t h i s study we consider two a l t e r n a t i v e sources for coal:
4ppalach an deep mines and (2) Northwestern surface mines.
(1) Northern
The occupational h e a l t h
and subs dence problems associated w i t h deep mines, and the land damage/reclamation problems asrcciated w i t h surface mines are tabulated separately.
However, Once
*5e coal i s mined i: i s aggregaied, f o r the purposes o f t h i s study, i n t o a s i n g l e l b a t i o n a l average coal .I1
A f t e r e x t r a c t i o n , t h i s "national average coal" i s trans-
ported (usually a short distance by t r u c k o r conveyor) t o a processing p l a n t where i t i s crushed and cleaned.
The clean coal i s then t y p i c a l l y transported by t r a i n
several hundred miles t o the power plant. c y c l e see g.q., references (11, (21,
(31,
For f u r t h e r d e t a i l s on the coal fuel and
(7).
A major problem w i t h the c o a l - < i r e d e l e c t r i c g e m r a t i o n p l a n t s o f the past has been the excessive amount of s u l f u r oxides t h a t these p l a n t s generate.
These
s u l f u r e m i s s i o n s have been shown t o have detrimental environmentaf and h e a l t h effects.
I n a coal-based system s u l f u r can be removed before, during
combustion.
or a f t e r
Each of the coal-based systems we have selected f o r analysis i s de-
signed t o remove the s u l f u r a t one o f these three stages:
stack-gas cleanup,
a f t e r combustion; f l u i d i t e d - b e d combustion, during combustion; and coal g a s i f i c a t i o n , before combustion.
22
Coa 1 w i t h Lime Scrubber Flue Gas D e s u l f u r i z a t i o n
This a l t e r n a t ve involves the use o f a conventional c o a l - f i r e d steam-cycle p l a n t w i t h removal of s u l f u r d i o x i d e f r o m the stack gas. a c o a l - f i r e d steam c y c l e i s a mature technology.
E l e c t r i c generation from
I n modern p l a n t s the combustion
of coal i n a b o i l e r i s used t o r a i s e steam a t 1100" F and 3800 psig.
This steam
i s p a r t i a l l y expanded through a t u r b i n e t h a t d r i v e s an e l e c t r i c generator.
The
steam i s then sent back t o the b o i l e r for reheat t o llOOo F (now a t lower pressure) and expanded through another t u r b i n e and condensed and cooled t o about 100°F.
The
thermal e f f i c i e n c y of t h i s system i s about 37% (accounting f o r wet c o o l i n g towers and SO2 removal) and i s n o t expected t o improve very much i n the future;
the
metals c u r r e n t l y used are near t h e i r m e t a l l u r g i c a l l i m i t , and metals capable o f withstanding more severe steam c 7 d i t i o n s a r e t o o c o s t l y and have a l i m i t e d l i f e time (Ref.
(6)).
The m a j o r problem w i t h removing s u l f u r from the stack gas i s t h a t a l a r g e f r a c t i o n o f a small concentration o f SO2 must be removed from l a r g e volumes o f stack gas. ment.
There are dozens of flue-gas d e s u l f u r i z a t i o n processes under develop-
A recent report o f the Commission on Natural Resources of the National
Academies o f Science and Engineering (Ref.
(15)) contains a c r i t i c a l assessment of the
deve!opment s t a t u s of these a l t e r n a t i v e processes.
This r e p o r t f i r s t notes t h a t ,
o f a l l the proposed f l u e gas d e s u l f u r i z a t i o n systems, o n l y the lime and limestone scrubbing systems have been operated s u c c e s s f u l l y on a commercial scale.
Secondly,
i t i s concluded t h a t lime scrubbing i s the most r e l i a b l e system a t t h i s time.
Therefore, we have selected the 1 ime scrubber f lue-gas d e s u l f u r i z a t i o n system for i n c l u s i o n i n t h i s study. I n the lime scrubber process about 90% o f the s u l f u r i n the stack gas i s absorbed i n t o a lime s l u r r y .
One drawback o f t h i s process i s t h a t a l a r g e amount o f
23
sludge i s generated and must be disposed of. are being studied (e.$ -
Ref.
Although methods for sludge disposal
(go)), the long term solution to this problem may be
the successful development o f regenerative flue gas desulfurization processes (Ref. (15)).
24
Coal w i t h Fludited-Bed Combustion I n f l u i d i z e d - b e d combustion s u l f u r
itself.
Is removed d u r i n g the combustion process
A i r i s passed upwards through a bed o f granular l i m e o r ash c r e a t i n g an
a i r suspension o f these non-combustible m a t e r i a l s .
T h i s a i r a l s o serves as com-
b u s t i o n a i r f o r crushed or f i n e l y grcund c o a l which i s i n j e c t e d near the base of Heat t r a n s f e r surfaces are immersed i n t h e bed a l l w i n g
a f l u i d i z e d bed.
improved heat t r a n s f e r , h i g h volumetric heat release, and r e l a t i v e l y l o w o p e r a t i n g temperatures of about 1600 t o 1800 degrees F.
Low o p e r a t i n g temperatures lead t o
reduced n i t r o g e n o x i d e e m i s s i o n s as compared to conventional b o i l e r s , and burning coal i n the presence o f a s u l f u r acceptor such as limestone or dolomite promises t o e f f e c t i v e l y remove up t o 958 o f the s u l f u r i n the coal d u r i n g combustion. Both atmospheric (References (97) and (98)) and pressurized (References
(13).
(94) and (96))
f l u i d i z e d - b e d b o i l e r concepts a r e being developed.
Atmo-
s p e r i c systems would replace conventional b o i l e r s , w h i l e pressurized systems p o t e n t i a l l v operating a t pressures i n excess o f 20 atmospheres promise thermal e f f i c i e n c i e s as h i g h as
45%.
pressurized fluidized-bed
We have selected the Westinghouse 635-Mwe
b o i l e r (References ( 1 3 ) .
(94), and (96))
as i t promises higher e f f i c i e n c i e s i n the long run (i.e.
for a n a l y s i s ,
i n the time frame
s p e c i f i e d for t h i s study) than the atmospheric systems and the Westinghouse p r e l i m i n a r y design studies o f the system ‘References ( 1 3 ) ,
‘94) and ( 9 6 ) )
in-
clude data thought t o be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f proposed f l u i d i z e d - b e d systems.
The
Westinghouse system operates a t 1750 degrees F. and 10 atmospheres, w i t h an i n i t i a l thermal e f f i c i e n c y o f 37% ( i n c l u d i n g p r o v i s i o n f o r a w e t c o o l i n g tower). One f i n a l p o i n t needs c l a r i f i c a t i o n . combined-cycle system.
Westinghouse r e f e r s t o i t s design as a
Before the f l u e gases are rele,-sed t o the atmosphere, they
are cleansed o f p a r t i c u l a t e s by cyclones and aerodyne-type dust c o l l e c t o r s and ( s t i l l a t 1600’
F. and 10 atms.) expanded through a gas t u r b i n e .
25
I n fact t h i s
gas t u r b i n e supplies 24% o f the system's maximum 635-Mwe output power.
system, the steam and expander t u r b i n e cycles are run i n p a r a l l e l . report, a 'combinedAcycle'
In this
In this
system r e f e r s t o a system i n which the gas and steam
turbines are run i n series, w i t h the steam t u r b i n e using the exhaust o f the gas combustion t u r b i n e as input.
26
Low-Btu
Coal Gasification/Combined-Cycle System
This system involves a two stage process i n which coal i s converted t o a low-
Btu ( t y p i c a l l y 120
t 7
200 Btu/Scf) gas, which i s subsequently used as fuel f o r a
combined-cycle power system, been proposed (Refs.
Many methods f o r producing low-Btu gas from coal have
(105), ( l o b ) , (107). ( l a ) , and ( l o g ) ) .
A f t e r i m p u r i t i e s have
been removed, the product o f the g a s i f i c a t i o n process i s a m i x t u r e
? carbon monoxide,
carbon d i o x i d e , hydrogen, n i t r o g e n and methane. S u l f u r can be removed from the gas stream by a number o f commercial methods. a t temperatures up t o about 600'
F.
(Ref.
However, these processes a r e o n l y e f f e c t i v e
(110)).
O f a l l the proposed low-Btu g a s i -
f i c a t i o n processes, o n l y the L u r g i and I g n i f l u i d processes have had s i g n i f i c a n t c o m e r cia1 application.
Since ample data a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r the Lurgi process and because
i t represents a benchmark f o r advanced systems, we have selected i t f o r i n c l u s i o n i n our study.
I n the Lurgi process (Refs.
(1061, (107), ( l o a ) , ( 1 1 1 ) . and (112)) coal i s fed
i n t e r m i t t e n t l y through a l o c k hopper i n t o a f i x e d bed a t about 20 atmospheres and
1200-1600° F. and g a s i f i e d w i t h a i r and steam. remove coal dust, a l k a l i and c h l o r i n e .
The raw gas i s then scrubbed to
A f t e r cooling, the H2S
gas stream by an a l k a l i z e d wash and converted i n t o elemental gas i s a t about 200° F. and about
17 atms.
i s removed from the sulfur.
The product
The thermal e f f i c i e n c y o f t h i s process i s
75.8%and s u l f u r removal e f f i c r e n c i e s as h i g h as 99.7% (Ref. ( 3 ) ) are expected. I n t h i s system waste heat from a gas t u r b i n e i s used as a heat source f o r a
steam cycle.
I n 1972, several hundred-ke o f n a t u r a l gas f i r e d combined-cycle systems
were i n use, and 2500-Mwe were on order (Ref.
(40)). The thermal e f f i c i e n c y o f
a
combined-cycle system i s 1 i m i t e d l a r g e l y by the achievable t u r b i n e i n l e t temperature. The system considered here has a t u r b i n e i n l e t temperature o f about 2200' which gives a combined-cycle thermal e f f i c i e n c y o f 47%.
27
F.,
Turbine i n l e t temperatures
of 31OO0F (leading
-0
thermal e f f i c i e n c i e s of 57.7%) are thought to be possible
i n the foreseeable future (Refs. 23, lO3A).
For our overall coal-gasif icat ion/
combined cycle power plant the thermal efficiency i s about 37%.
28
Residual Fuel 011 F i r e d P l a n t w i t h Stack Gas Cleanup
This a l t e r n a t i v e i s i d e n t i c a l t o the c o a l - f i r e d p l a n t w i t h stack gas cleanup described above, except f o r minor differences due t o the f a c t t h a t r e s i d u a l f u e l
o i l replaces coal as the primary f u e l .
With o i l , which i s less b u l k y than coal,
less storage space i s required, and f o l l o w i n g combustion there i s v i r t u a l l y no ash t o be disposed of.
However, the f u e l c y c l e required t o prepare the o i l f o r
use a t the power p l a n t i s obviously q u i t e d i f f e r e n t f r o m the coal f u e l c y c l e and
w i 1 1 be described here. I n t h i s r e p o r t we w i l l consider two a l t e r n a t i v e sources o f o i l f o r e l e c t r i c power generation:
(1) domestic o f f s h o r e o i l which i s assumed t o be transported t o
the r e f i n e r y by p i p e l i n e and (2) f o r e i g n crude which i s assumed t o be transported t o the r e f i n e r y by o i l tanker.
A t the r e f i n e r y the crude i s transformed i n t o a
number o f petroleum products i n c l u d i n g gasol ine, d i s t i1 l a t e f u e l o i 1 and residual fuel o i l .
Residual fuel o i l i s tSen t y p i c a l l y transported t o the power p l a n t by
pipeline.
For f u r t h e r discussion o f thz oil f u e l cycle see the references given
a t the end o f the coal fuel c y c l e description. Summary data i s shown in Table 1 1 - 1
29
f o r the f o s s i l systems.
LWR The designation of l i g h t - w a t e r r e a c t o r i n t h i s study includes both b o i l i n g water (BWR) and pressurized-water (PUR) r e a c t o r systems.
Most of t h e costs and
impacts a r e s i m i l a r for t h e two systems, and we combine them i n t o a s i n g l e t a b l e here except i n those categories where t h e r e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t difference.
LWRs r e l y f o r t h e i r energy production mainly on t h e f i s s i l e isotope of uranium, U-235,
which f i s s i o n s best w i t h thermal ( l o w energy) neutrons.*
U-235
contains pound for pound about 2.5 m i l l i o n times as much energy as coal, but
U-235 makes up o n l y about 0.7% of n a t u r a l uranium, and uranium makes up o n l y about 0.17% of the sandstone o r e being mined today. ment i s n o t t r i v i a l .
Accordingly,
the ore require-
For use i n a LWR, t h e uranium o r e i s 1/35 o f t h e rJeight o f
coal f o r equivalent amount o f energy a t the power p l a n t . This o r e i s processed i n uranium m i l l s t o e x t r a c t uranium o x i d e (U 0 ). The U 0
3 8
3 8
i s sent t o a conversion
p l a n t which converts i t i n t o t h e gas, UF6, f o r i n p u t t o the gaseous-diffusion e n r i c h ment plants.
A t the enrichment p l a n t s the percentage o f U-235 i s increased to 2 4 %
and the depleted uranium (or t a i l s ) , containing 0.25% U-235 and 95.75% U-238, stored on s i t e .
The enriched uranium i s then f a b r i c a t e d i n t o f u e l rcds o f UO 2
which a r e loaded i n t o t h e reactor. c o n t a i n i n g "spent"
After 3 to
4
years i n t h e r e a c t o r the rods, now
f u e l , are sent t o f u e l reprocessing p l a n t s where, a f t e r
chemical processing, three separate streams o f m a t e r i a l emerge.
*
is
The f i r s t
A f i s s i l e m a t e r i a l w i l l r e a d i l y undergo f i s s i o n and release energy when s t r u c k
by a neutron.
A f e r t l e m a t e r i a l undergoes f i s s i o n much l e s s r e a d i l y but under
some circumstances can capture a neutron and thereby be converted i n t o a f i s s i l e material.
Today's LWRs o b t a i n about 80 percent o f t h e i r energy from the f i s s i o n
o f U-235 and 2 0 percent from the c o i n c i d e n t a l f i s s i o n o f f e r t i l e U-238 and p l u t o n ium made irorn U-238.
30
stream c o n s i s t s o f f i s s i o n products and o t h e r r a d i o a c t i v e wastes which a r e sent t o waste management f a c i l i t i e s .
Another stream c o n s i s t s o f tt,c remaining uran-
i u m which now i s o n l y s l i g h t l y enriched over n a t u r a l uranium and i s sent back t o the conversion p l a n t i n p a r a l l e l
to the incoming stream o f n a t u r a l uranium.
The
t h i r d stream i s plutonium-239 produced i n the r e a c t o r by the capture of neutrons i n f e r t i l e U-238.
T h i s plutonium i s stored for p o s s i b l e f u t u r e r e c y c l i n g i n LWRs,
o r i n breeder reactors.
LWR power p l a n t s a r e comnercial l y a v a i l a b l e now, and w i t h i n the time p e r i o d of t h i s study t h e i r design i s l i k e l y to change s g n i f c a n t l y o n l y i n the areas
of increased environmental and s a f e t y equipment.
The f u e l - c y c l e f a c i l i t i e s from
mining t o power p l a n t a r e a l s o w e l l developed and subject t o o n l y s l i g h t chanse i n the next decades, w i t h the exception o f enrichment.
on methods of enrichment--=.*,
(Research i s being done
l a s e r separation--which p o t e n t i a l l y could lowed-
the c a p i t a l and enercjy requirements of -iirlchment s i g n i f i c a n t l y .
See chapter 1 1 1 . )
However, the two steps a f t e r the power p l a n t , reprocessing and waste management, do n o t e x i s t i n comnercial form today and w i l l have t o be developed q u i c k l y i n order t o support a l a r g e c a p a c i t y o f LWRs.
There i s no operating f u e l repro-
cessing p l a n t a t t h i s time, although one i s being b u i l t and another undergoing niodification. ities.
Spent f u e l rods a r e beginning t o e x e r t a burden on storage f a c i l -
Previously reprocessed waste i s being stored i n temporary f a c i l i t i e s
u n t i l a d e c i s i o n i s made about the type o f management scheme t o be followed. e x p x t a t i o n o f the i n d u s t r y and t t . problems w i l l be solved .y ences 6,9,
19,21,45,143.
)
The
responsible government agencies i s t h a t these
the end o f t h i s decade o r s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r .
(Refer-
LWR w i t h Plutonium Recycle
A LWR can be operated w i t h several d i f f e r e n t mixtures o f plutonium and uranium f u e l q a n d there i s an economic incentive
to u t i l i z e the plutonium
which i s produced i n uranium-fueled LWRs t o reduce the requirement f o r enriched u r a n i m input. We have chosen the type of plutonium-recycle system i n which some of the enriched uranium oxide f u e l rods i n the LWRs have been replaced w i t h rods cont a i n i n g both Pu02 and n a t u r a l U O p . t o be used i n the time perio.
This seems to be the most l i k e l y system
msidered i n t h i s study.
There are sigr I f i c a n t d i t t e r e n c e s between a LWR power system w i t h and without plutonium recycle.
The economic f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g the value o f p l u t o n -
ium a r e extremelv complicated and subject t o wide i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .
With p l u t o n -
ium recycle, the major environmental d i f f e r e n c e s r e s u l t from the increased e f f e c t o f leaks associated w i t h the l a r g e r amounts of plutonium i n the c y c l e , and from the increased a v a i l a b i l i t y o f t h e plutonium i n forms a t t r a c t i v e f o r
I f recyc e i s i n s t i t u t e d , mixed oxide f a b r c a t ion p l a n t s w i 1 1 have
diversion. t o ';e !ru i!t
.
The d e c i s i o n whether 3r n o t t o i n i t i a t e plutonium recycle i n LWRs was
? , - : g ; . . j l y scheduled t o be made i n
I975
~ . . 1 i i 1a t l e a s t 1978. (References 3,12,
but has been delayed f o r f u r t h e r study
141,163,164.)
32
The LMFBR i s p a r t o f a nuclear power system which d i f f e r s i n several import a n t respects from LWR systems.
I t has d i f f e r e n t economic and enviionmentai
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and i s i n a much e a r l i e r stage o f development. The basic d i f f e r e n c e betweet? a breeder r e a c t o r and t + e "converter"
type of
r e a c t o r represented by the LWR i s t h a t a much l a r g e r percentage o f the t o t a l energy p o t e n t i a l l y a v a i l a b l e i n the uranium can be u t i l i z e d i n breeder reactors. Much more of the U-238 i s converted t o plutonium and, p o t e n t i a l l y , a breeder svstem t a n generate a l l i t s f u e l from U-238 and be completely independent o f U-235.
No enrichment capacity i s necessarv f o r a breeder system i f the breeding doubling time" roughly corresponds t o the doubling time f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f new generating capacity.
However, the f i r s t breeders w i l l have doubling times
much longer than the 10 years o r l e s s thought t o be optimum i n the i n d u s t r y .
At
f i r s t , the i n i t i a l and reload cores o f plutonium w i l l be f a b r i c a t e d from the plutonium produced and stored i n t h r LWR c y c l e . breeders and LWRs cannot be e n t i r e l y separated;
Indeed, the economics o f . i.e., _-
there i s some a d d i t i o n a l
i n c e n t i v e f o r b u i l d i n g more LWRs because some o f tne plutonium produced
n LWRs w i l l be bought f o r use i n the breeders.
The amount o f uran um
needed i n a LMFBR (as a source of U-23s f o r breeding w i t h plutonium) i s much
~~
A
The doubling ti:ne i s the time i t takes t o double the inventory o f f i s s i l e
m a t e r i a l incIudir,g the m a t e r i a l c i r c u l a t i n g in the f u e l cycle.
Consequently i t
i s a f u n c t i o n not o n l y of the r e a c t o r and f u e l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s b u t a l s o o f the
cool ing period,
processing t i m e and o t h e r f u e l c y c l e parameters.
33
smaller than the
requirement o f LWks and other converters.
For some time t o
come,theneeds of LMFBRs probably w i l l be obtained from the depleted n a t u r a l uranium t a i l s a t enrichment p l a n t s . technology and
However, i f breeders become the major nuclear
remain so, new uranium w i l l e v e n t d a l l y have t o be mined t o
supply them w i t h U-238.
Thus we have counted the environmental e f f e c t of mining
and m i l l i n g the LMFBRIs small uranium requirement a g a i n s t the breeder program, as have several o t h e r studies. Fuel fabric;.ion
p l a n t s w i l l be s i m i l a r t o the .?ixed oxide p l a n t s r e q u i r e d
f o r a LWR r e c y c l e system.
Fuel reprocessing p l a n t s , although s i m i l a r t o those
f o r LWRs, w i l l have t o be more c a r e f u l l y managed; t h i s i s so because t o maximize breeding r a t i o , f u e l discharged from LMFBRs w i l l not be stored as long as i s LWR f u e l before reprocessing, so i t w i l l be more r a d i o a c t i v e .
I n a d d i t i o n there
a r e l a r g e r amounts of plutonium a t each step than i n e i t h e r the LWR o r LWR-plutoniumr e c y c l e systems. Research i n f a s t reactor f u e l s f o r use i n commercial p l a n t s w i l l be undertaken a t !.he Fast F l u x Test F a c i l i t y (FFTF) which i s a government funded t e s t r e a c t o r rated a t 400-Mwth and scheduled f o r o p e r a t i o n i n 1977.
The f i r s t demon-
s t r a t i o n r e a c t o r , which f o l l o w s the operat i o n o f several snial l e r special-purpose f a s t reactors, w i l l be b u i l t f o r TVA a t C l i n c h River. t o begin
o p e r a t i o n i n 1982.
This r e a c t o r i s now planned
I t w i l l be r a t e d a t 350-Mwe, operate a t about
36% tht8,naI e f f i c i e n c y , and have a very long doubling time--perhaps 60 years o r more.
The f i r s t f u l l - s c a l e corrmercial p l a n t s a r e planned t o come i n t o o p e r a t i o n
about 1990 and be a t l e a s t 1300’Mwe.
These p l a n t s are expected t o have about a
40% thema1 e f f i c i e n c y and a 25 year doubling t i m e .
Decreased doubling t i m e s
w i l l i r o b a b l y r e q u i r e advanced oxide, n i t r i d e o r carbide f u e l s which a r e u n l i k e l y
t o have much impact i n the t i m e period being considered i n t h i s study. (References
6 , 2 1 , 43, 45, 170-172, 178. ) 34
HTGR
The HTGR i s a he1 ium-cooled, advanced-converter r e a c t o r (not a breeder), which operates on the uranium-thorium f u e l c y c l e . f i s s i l e ) i s used i n g r a p h i t e m a t r i x core.
Highly enriched uranium (93.5%
combination w i t h the f e r t i l e m a t e r i a l , thorium 232, i n a The helium coolant i s c i r c u l a t e d a t h i g h precsure and the
Lemperatures p o t e n t i a l l y a t t a i n a b l e are h i g h enough t o reach 40% thermal e f f i c i e n c y w i t h simple steam conversion. Uranium 233 i s formed when thorium 232 captures a neutron i n the core.
Since
the thorium and uranium f u e l p a r t i c l e s i n the r e s c t o r are p h y s i c a l l y separate t h i s U-233 can be separated e a s i l y a t the reprocessing p l a n t . separate streams which emerge from the reprocessing p l a n t . which i s sent back t o the f a b r i c a t i o n p l a n t f o r recycle.
Thus there a r e s i x
Cne i s unreacted U-235 The second, newly formed
U-233, and the t h i r d , recycled U-233, are a l s o sent back t o the f a b r i c a t i o n p l a n t . The f o u r t h i s the f i s s i o n products and o t h e r r a d i o a c t i v e wastes which ;-e the waste management f a c i l i t i e s .
sent t o
The f i f t h i s unreacted thorium whicn i s .:3w very .'.
r a d i o a c t i v e and w i l l be disposed o f i n waste management f a c i l i t i e s .
The F-ixth
i s U-235 and U-238 which has passed through the r e a c t o r a second time and now
Is
unsuitable f o r f u r t h e r use due t o Icw concentration and poison b u i l d u p (U-236) and must be send t o waste management. I n a a d i t i o n , although t h e r e i s r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e U-238 i n the HTCR c y c l e the small amount does produce some plutonium by neutron capture.
A t the present
time i t does qot seem economical t o separate out t h i s plutonium and so i t i s l e f t
A
The thorium could be stored f o r about I 5 years u n t i l the r a d i o a c t i v i t y becomes
low enough f o r r e c y c l e and manual f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n but t h i s i s not planned.
35
i n the waste streams.
Thus, although there i s much l e s s plutonium produced i n
HTGRs than i n 1URs there i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y more i n the f i n a l waste.
*
The a m u n t of enrichment required f o r an HTGR i s a c t u a l l y l e s s than for a
1WR evcn though the l e v e l of enrichment i s so much higher. the much smaller t o t a l o f uranium requirement.
This r e s u l t s f r o m
The f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n and r e -
processing f a c i l i t i e s are very d i f f e r e n t from those used for LWRs o r LMFBRs and, o f course, o n l y the HTGRsrequire thorium mining and m i l l i n g .
The thorium r e -
quirements, however, a r t very modest. A prototype 40-Mwe HTGR was operated a t Peach Bottom, Penn. from 1967 u n t i l shutdown i n 1974.
In
1974 power t e s t i n g began a t the Fort S t . V r a i n
3 3 0 - H ~demonstration ~ HTGR ir: Colorado.
General Atomic i s o f f e r i n g 770
and 1160-Nb;e p l a n t s for sale and several u t i l i t i e s have placed orders. However, recently, there have been several c a n c e l l a t i o n s and d e f e r r a l s and there a r e no operating f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n or reprocessing p l a n t s for the HTGR, although
small demonstr6tion p l a n t s a r e planned to begin o p e r a t i o n i n 1979.
The success-
f u l e n t r y o f HTGRs intc the u t i l i t y market w i l l depend on the performance o f the demonstration reactor, the establishment of a complete f u e l c y c l e , the s t a t u s o f the nuclear i n d u s t r y ir, general, and to some e x t e n t on the w i l l ingness o f the government t o provide research and deve1o;-mnt to
+
assistance t o the e f f o r t which,
date, has been l a r g e l y funded by p r i v a t e industry.*$:
This plutonium, however, has a smaller f r a c t i o n o f long-1 ived Plutonium-239
and thus a f t e r several hundred years the a c t i v i t y o f plutonium fro17 HTGRs i s
less.
General Atomic, who i s the commercial s u p p l i e r o f HTGR,has r e c e n t l y announced t h a t they w i l l not be supplying HTGRs (Nuclear News, Nov. 75).
36
HTGRs could p o t e n t i a l l y operate a t a temperature h i g h enough
to be used
as a source of process heat f o r i n d u s t r i a l a p p l i c a t i o n s o r hydrogen generation. A l t e r n a t e l y , w i t h the a p p l i c a t i o n of a c h s e d - c y c l e gas t u r b i n e p l u s a vapor bottoming c y c l e the thermal e f f i c i e n c y for e l e c t r i c i t y generation could potent i a l l y reach 50%. However, w i t h present m a t e r i a l s these h i g h temperatures a r e d i f f i c u l t t o use and s t i l l achieve a h i g h degree o f component s a f e t y and re-
1 i a b i 1 ity.
These appl i c a t i o n s w i 1 1 probably not have a s i g n i f i c a n t impact d u r i n g
the time p e r i o d considered by t h i s study. (References 3,6,21,179-185) Sumnary data i s shown i n Table 11-2 for t h e nuclear systems.
37
Table 11-1 Technical Specfffcatfems
Fossil Power Plant$
Coal -Steam with Scrubber
therlWll Efficiency
8
Critical Temperature
Size
@
OC
37
1000
)Iwe
Coal F 1uid iz e b Bed
- 39
36
- 43
- llO@
1603
-
toat
oi I-Steam
Low-Btu Gad combined- cycle
Scrubbar
,SO@
3@
IO@
29
1800
6
- 51 8 - jlO@
8
with
37
1000
- 39 - 11Op
see coalsteam w i t h scrubber
Sulfur Removal %
@
80
- go
a.
See text and appendices.
b.
Steam temperature.
90
- 9s
Lime scrubber, 830-Mwe beinp b u i l t
d.
Combust ion temperature
e.
Atmospheric piant t o begin operation June, 1975 (215).
f.
39
9h.
Combined-cycle plant only ( 3 0 ) .
578 combustion,
- 99.7
80
- 90
(IS)
C.
-
98
(6). 75
- 90%g a s i f i e r .
Gas turbine i n l e t temperature (23).
Is operatinq i n Genany (113e).
A 170-Mwe plant u t i l i t i n g Lurgi low-Btu g a s i f i c a t i o n
Table 11-2 Technical Spec 1f ice t ions Nuclear P o w r Plants
LWR Pu Recycle
I_
31
Efficiency %
Critical 0 Temperature C
@
320 205
S i n Hne
1
I
- 34 -
36
1535
PUR BUR
39
- 566@
755
0
0
430@
1100
0
- 40
330'
350
~
Uranium @ Utilization %
0.51
a
1.06
0.73 0.69
0.55
a.
Coolant o u t l e t temperatures
b.
0.25% T a i l s assay
0.95
Btu/Kg-U a t 100 % u t i l i z a t l o n 7.6 75% capacity Change o f
+/- .OS%
i n Taiis assay results i n a corresponding change
o f about +/- 10% i n the values l i s t e d f o r LWR and HTCR (11) C.
Topnumbers i n r o w base on y e a r l y load
d.
Bottomnumbers i n row base on
e.
San Onofre experiment 1970-1973
I n i t i a l core + ( y e a r l y load x 29)
30 (12)
f.
Clinch River Breeder Reactor (95)
9,
Projections i n W-1535 (6)
h.
Ref. 3 C 6
I.
F t . S t . Vraln Reactor
(185) 39
COSTS AN0 IHPACTS: DISCUSSION AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 1 1 1
Introduction This chapter compares and c o n t r a s t s the e i g h t reference power systems. We have chosen t o discuss a few important costs and impacts i n each o f the f u e l c y c l e steps i n order t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e range o f u n c e r t a i n t i e c and t o explore the p o s s i b l e i m p l i c a t i o n s Appendices A
- H for
51
these u n r - r t a i n t i e s .
The reader i s r e f e r r e d t o
s p e c i f i c estimates of the economic, re.,urce,
environmental
and h e a l t h impacts of the e i g h t power systems. We have assigned i t o t a l primary e f f i c i e n c y t o each of the reference systems.
I f t h e eatal e f f i c i e n c y o f these f u e l cycles changes, t h e impacts a t
each of t h e 5ceps w i l l change as w e l l .
w i l l be e x a c t l y p r o p o r t i o n a l . Nil1 directly affect per Mw-yr.
For some types o f impacts t h e change
For example, a change i n power p l a n t e f f i c i e n c y
emissions a t t k e p l a n t and t h e amount of mining r e q u i r e d
However, some types o f impacts do not change i n a l i n e a r fashion
w i t h changes i n e f f i c i e n c y .
These types of impacts are a f u n c t i o n o f both the
e f f i c i e n c y and the s i z e o f Ir.c!;vidual
facilities.
For example, the land used
for a million-MT/yr mine i s l i o t e x a c t l y one h a l f of the land used a t a mine w i t h twice t h i s capacity. data, l a r g e variat:ons
However, there are s i g n i f i c a n t u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n the pub1 ished i n regional p r a c t i c e and a range in t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f
the technologies which a l l tend t o broaden the r m g e o f estimates f o r a p a r t i c u l a r cost
o r impact.
Except f o r c e r t a i n costs, we have n o t t r i e d t o c o r r e c t
f o r the s c a l i n g problems arld b e l i e v e t h a t the range o f estimates w i t h i n the f i n a l t a b l e s ( E .H) would span any changes due t o non-1 inear s c a l i n g .
For example, i f
a power p ant i s reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e t o have a power r a t i n g o f 1i)OO-M.Je an annual load f a c t o r o f 754; (L) and an emission o f xMT/yr, emi ss ions as x/LP o r x/750 per Mwe-yr.
(P),
we have reported the
I f the power p l a n t c o n s t r u c t i o n m a t e r i a l i s
y MT, then we have reported t h i s a a t e r i a l requirement as y/750 Mwe per 30 y r l i ' e t i m e (y/22500 Mwe-yr).
The d i f f e r e n c e i n these two examples i s t h a t the f i r s t i t e m i s
r e l a t i v e l y p r o p o r t i o n a l t o energy production, w h i l e the second
30 year l i f e t i m e o f the p l a n t .
40
ib
used once i n the
Costs and Resource U t i 1 i z a t i o n
III-A: I II - A - 1 :
Introduction (1) summarize the M j o r i m p l i c a t i o n s of the c o s t and
I n t h i s s e c t i o n we:
resource u t i 1 i z a t i o n data c o l lec;ed selected for study,
(2) explore the s e n s i t i v i t y of t h i s d a t a - - p a r t i c u l a r l y
e l e c t r i c generationcosts and
f o r the e i g h t e l e c t r i c generation systems
(3) r e p o r t on the R
-
t o changes i n the base case economic assumptions,
8 0 costs estimated to be required to b r i n g the selected
systems to commercial r e a l i z a t i o n .
f o r ease of exposition,
the present d i s -
cussion daes not enumerate a l l of the technical d e t a i l s and assumptions involved i n the data normalization process.
The i n t e r e s t e d reader may f i n d t h i s inform-
a t i o n as w e l l as a l l the basic d a t a i n the Appendix.ln c o l l e c t i n g these data each e l e c t r i c generation system was d i v i d e d i n t o f i v e general processing stages: harvesting f u e l s , upgrading f u e l s , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f f u e l s , conversion to e l e c t r i c i t y and management o f f i n a l waste.
The waste streams i n each o f these processin5
stages a r e a l s o accounted for i n a d d i t i o n t o f i n a l wastes.
It i s therefore possible t o
assess the economic and resource u t i l i z a t i o n impact a t each of these stages f o r each system as we11 as to compare a l t e r n a t i v e systems w i t h i n t h i s convenient framework.
The o b j e c t i v e of the s e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s presented here i s not t o ex-
p l o r e the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f the e n t i r e range o f possible values f o r each economic parameter, but r a t h e r t o analyze the e f f e c t s o f changes i n the values o f a 1 i m i ted rlumber of parameters whose impact changes s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h i n a p l a u s i b l e
(according t o documented analysis by q u a l i f i e d experts) range o f p o s s i b l e values. Traditionally,
the major components o f the cost o f e l e c t r i c generation have
been f u e l cost, and power p l a n t c a p i t a l and 0 d M c o s t s . P m e r p l a n t e f f i c i e n c y , capacit) f a c t o r and s i t e , a s well as basic econorn c i n d i c a t o r s such a s the p r o j e c t e d i n f l a t i o n and i n t e r e s t r a t e s a r e a l s o r e evant. components i r t o a measure i n d i c a t i v e o f
Many ways o f combining these
he actual cost o f e l e c t r i c generation
4
have been proposed.
The method used t o accomplish t h i s task here was developed
a t the J e t P r o p u l s i o n Laboratory (JPL) and i s thought t o be t y p i c a l of t h e type
o f c a l c u l a t i o n made by e l e c t r i c u t i l i t i e s i n assessing t h e economic m e r i t s o f a l t e r n a t i v e e l e c t r i c - p o w e r g e n e r a t i o n systems and t h e r e f o r e a p p r o p r i a t e for assessing t h e commercial competitiveness o f these technologies.
D e t a i l s on
the methods o f c a l c u l a t i o n a r e l e f t for the Appendix and the j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r i t to Ref.
(28).
Although t h e terms i n f l a t i o n and e s c a l a t i o n have been d e f i n e d i n ways by v a r i o u s authors,
different
i n t h i s r e p o r t i n f l a t i o n i s d e f i n e d as the r a t e o f
increase i n the o v e r a l l p r i c e l e v e l i n the economy (as perhaps b e s t i n d i c a t e d by ivcreases i n t h e consumers p r i c e index), w h i l e e s c a l a t i o n i n a p a r t i c u l a r i n d u s t r y r e f e r s t o the r a t e of increase i n t h e p r i c e l e v e l i n t h a t i n d u s t r y o v e r and above the o v e r a l l i n f l a t i o n r a t e i n t h e economy.
I n the present
a p p l i c a t i o n , f o r the base case, c o s t s a r e c a l c u l a t e d i n l e v e l i z e d mid-1974 d o l l a r s ( t h e term " I e v e l i z e d "
r e f e r s t o the f a c t t h a t c a p i t a l , 0 8 M and f u e l
c o s t s a r e i n p u t i n mid-I974 d o l l a r s , b u t t h a t t h e e f f e c t o f long range i n f l a t i o n
on these c o s t s i s considered) f o r i n i t i a l commercial o p r r a t i o n i n about 1990. This i s done by p r o j e c t i n g e s c a l a t i o n f r o m t h e r e l a t i v e l y easy t o i d e n t i f y sources, and assuming t h a t no e s c a l a t i o n i n o t h e r p o r t i o n s of the e l e c t r i c - p o w e r
w i l l occur.
As t h e e l e c t r i c - p o w e r
industry
i n d u s t r y has r e c e n t l y experienced s i g n i f i c a n t
e s c a l a t i o n from n o n - a n t i c i p a t e d sources, a l t e r n a t i v e e s c a l a t i o n assumptions a r e i n c l u d e d i n our s e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s .
To a i d i n p r o j e c t i n g e s c a l a t i o n i n the e l e c t r i c - p o w e r i n d u s t r y , d a t a on the c o s t of b u i l d i n g and o p e r a t i n g new energy f a c i l i t i e s ( a t each f u e l conversion stagelhave been c o l l e c t e d .
C o n s t r u c t i o n manpower requirements f o r these f a c i 1 -
i t i e s were also compiled according t o f o u r general c a t e g o r i e s d e f i n e d i n a recent study by the Bechtel C o r p o r a t i o n (8), while o p e r a t i o n a l manpower requirements
42
An attempt was a l s o made t o assess the e f f i c i e n c y
were completely aggregated.
o f resource u t i l i z a t i o n a t each stage cf each e l e c t r i c - g e n e r a t i o n system.
Data
on non-primary f u e l energy requirements a t each stage were a l s o compiled.
Con-
s t r u c t i o n m a t e r i a l requirements were c o l l e c t e d f o r f i v e major categories defined i n the Bechtel study (8), as were m a t e r i a l s requirements necessary f o r operating s u l f u r removal systems f o r the coal f u e l e d options. use were considered:
(1)
land temporarily committed and d i s t u r b e d f o r the
useful l i f e of the f a c i l i t y , and
(3)
Three categories of land
(2)
land permanently committed
land temporarily committed, bu* undisturbed (i.9
:lot reclaimable even a f t e r the end
the useful service l i f e o f the f a c i l i t y under c u r r e n t economic c o n d i t i o n s ) . F i n a l l y , the q u a n t i t y o f water consumed (only water t h a t i s evaporated and therefore no longer assured o f a v a i l a b i 1 it y t o the l o c a l water t a b l e was considered) was c o l l e c t e d . The next f i v e subsections r e p o r t on the s i g n i f i c a n t resource u t i l i z a t i o n s and economic sensi t i v i t i e s of each conversion stage, w h i l e w i t h some m u l t i p l e s e n s i t i v i t y analyses.
subsection
7 deals
F i n a l l y , sdbsection 8 tabulates some
estimated R & D requirements for the c o m n e r c i a l i z a t i o n of the a l t e r n a t i v e elect r ic-power generat i o n sys tems.
43
I I I -A-2 : Harvesting Fuels Although a l l f o u r o f the r e a c t o r concepts considered i n t h i s r e p o r t r e q u i r e n a t u r a l uranium (U 0
38
systems.
the amounts u t i l i z e d vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y among the v a r i o u s
The biggest consumer i s the LWR, f o r which about 154 MT o f U 0
38
must
be mined and m i l l e d for each r e a c t o r year (a 100@Mwe r e a c t o r o p e r a t i n g a t capacity f a c t o r f o r one year).
A LWR w i t h Pu r e c y c l e r e q u i r e s about
75%
80%o f
t h i s amount, a HTGR, a l i t t l e more than h a l f and a LMFBR l e s s than 1% ( a c t a a l l y f o r t h e f i r s t LMFBRs no uranium would be mined, as the accumulated enrichment t a i l s from LWR f u e l processing would be used as t h e source o f f e r t i l e material).
The U t i l i z a t i o n by a given r e a c t o r type o f nonfuel
resources,such as chemicals f o r m i l l i n g uranium or manpower,during
t h e har-
v e s t i n g o f f u e l s stage i s roughly p r o p o r t i o n a l t o i t s r e l a t i v e annual uranium requirement (although the HTGR r e q u i r e s the mining o f a small amount o f thorium). Even f o r LWRs, though, the amount o f nonfuel resource consumption f o r mining and m i l l i n g uranium i s very s m a l l - - t y p i c a l l y l e s s than 1%--of the resource u t i l i z a t i o n a t the power p l a n t , except f o r land use (i.e.,
landdisturbed
by the surface mining o f uranium) and o p e r a t i o n a l manpower (e.g., t o e x t r a c t uranium and various mine a d m i n i s t r a t i v e personnel). LWR the cost o f mining U 0
38
miners r e q u i r e d Further, f o r a
i s o n l y roughly 25% o f the t o t a l f u e l c y c l e c o s t ,
which i s i t s e l f o n l y about 30% o f the c o s t o f producing e l e c t r i c i t y w i t h LWRs. Per u n i t o f e l e c t r i c a l output, nonfuel resource u t i l i z a t o n f o r the mining o f coal f o r use i n the coal-based systems considered here i s a s i g n i f i c a n t f r a c t i o n ( u s u a l l y > l o % )o f the nonfuel resource u t i l i z a t i o n a t the power p l a n t i t s e l f . Land use and o p e r a t i o n a l and maintenance personnel are, again, the most s i g n i f i cant nonfuel resource uses associated w i t h mining, w i t h about 2400 square m e t e r s a f f e c t e d by subsidence and 1600 man-hours required t o mine the coal necessary t o produce one megawatt-year o f e l e c t r i c i t y f o r the base case ( f o r w h i c h coal i s
44
obtained from Northern Appalachian underground mines). coal obtained from Northwestern surface mines, o n l y
I89
A1 t e r n a t i v e l y , were t h e man-hours would be r e q u i r e d
t o do the mining, and over 1700 square meters o f land would be disrupted.
The cost
o f mtning coal c u r r e n t l y makes up around 2/3rds o f t h e p r i c e e l e c t r i c u t i l i t i e s pay for i t ( t h e remaining percentage being a t t r i b u t a b l e t o c l e a n i n g and t r a n s p o r t ) . As the cost of coal i s about 50% o f the c o s t of producing e l e c t r i c i t y from i t , e l e c t r i c i t y cost i s very s e n s i t i v e t o coal cost for these systems. For our base case o f Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
production, o i l e x t r a c t i o n
required a s i g n i f i c a n t committment of nonfuel resources such as s t e e l for p l a t form, piping, and manpower.
Residual f u e l o i l (RFO)
t h a t can be obtained from crude o i l .
i s o n l y one o f many products
T h i s complicates eny attempt t o assign par-
t i c u l a r resource u t i l i z a t i o n s t o s p e c i f i c r e f i n e r y products.
This problem was
d e a l t w i t h by c a l c u l a t i n g nonfuel resource u t i l i z a t i o n s as i f t h e e n t i r e r e f i n e r y output were RFO. The c o n t r i b u t i o n of the cost of raw f u e l m a t e r i a l t o t h e o v e r a l l cost o f e l e c t r i c i t y generation i s greatest f o r the r e s i d u a l fuel o i l system, l e s s f o r the coal s*'stems and l e a s t f o r the nuclear systems.
The land use f o r t h e e x t r a c t i o n o f
the three types o f n a t u r a l resources a r e a l s o orders o f magnitude d i f f e r e n t , w i t h o i l (from the OCS) r e q u i r i n g a n e g l i g i b l e amount o f land disturbance ( i f t h e i n d i r e c t impact
n the sea shore from s p i l l s and a e s t h e t i c s a r e ignored). Surface
mining o f uranium i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of the nuclear system land committment, but i s s t i l l o n l y about 5-10b o f t h a t d i s t u r b e d by the amount o f surface mining o f coa 1 required t o produce an equivalent amount of e l e c t r i c i t y . Although the c o n t r i b u t i o n of the cost o f uranium ore t o the cost o f nuclear powe
generation i s n o t , i n general, g r e a t r e a t i v e t o f o s s i l f u e l costs, i t i s
a c r t i c a l f a c t o r i n determining the r e l a t i v e economics o f the nuclear a l t e r n a -
t i v e s (see e.g.,
Derian and Bupp, (Ref. ( 1 7 7 ) ) .
further,^ nce the p r i c e s o f coal
and RFO are s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t o r s t o the cost o f operat ng the f o s s i 1-fueled
e l e c t r i c a l generation systems, an a n a l y s i s of t h e s e n s i t i v i t y o f a l l t h e systems t o t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e raw f u e l costs was performed and the r e s u l t s o f t h i s a n a l y s i s a r e tabulated i n Table i l l - A - I .
The base case U 0
3 8
b i n i n g curre1.t ERDA assessment o f U 0
3 8
p r i c e was determined by com-
a v a i l a b i l i t y , w i t h c u r r e n t estimates o f the
r a t e o f b u i l d u p of nuclear generating capactty.
The U 0
3 8
(yellowcake) i n i t i a l p r i c e
i s 14$/lb i n mid-1974 d o l l a r s , a n d escalated as shown i n Table E l (note i ) . low p r i c e case uses a more o p t i m i s t i c p r o j e c t i o n of U 0
3 8
availability,
The
while the
h i g h p r i c e case uses a l e s s o p t i m i s t i c p r o j e c t i o n . The base case coal and o i l p r i c e s a r e the c u r r e n t p r i c e s p a i d by e l e c t r i c u t i l i t i e s f o r these fuels.
The low coal case i s based on the cost of coal pro-
d u c t i o n from new mines estimated by t h e Bureau of Mines ( t h e so-called marginal c o s t o f mining c o a l ) , w h i l e the h i g h p r i c e case represents e s c a l a t i o n ( g r e a t e r than general i n f l a t i o n ) o f the p r i c e of coal by 3% per year.
The p r i c e of
coal doubled from mid-1973 t o 1974 and escalated over 20% d u r i n g the seconu h a l f o f 1974, a t r e n d t h a t simply cannot continue.
This e s c a l a t i o n i s based
on the cost o f coal i n a I ' i q u e f a c t i o n based economy toward the end of the cen t u r y
.
The $7.00/barrel f.0.b.
p r i c e o f RFO (which corresponds roughly t o a $5.50/barrel
Pers an Gu f p r i c e ) i s based on what i s thought by many t o be t h e eventual
OPEC c a r t e l world o i l p r i c e .
The base RFO i s $12/barrel and i s c u r r e n t OPEC
price.
46
Table I l l - A - 1 :
Sensitivity o f Electric Generation Costs t o Fuel Price Numbers given are e l e c t r i c generation costs i n levelized
-
mid-1974 rniIls/KwHe, but r e f l e c t projected conditions i n the 1990 e l e c t r i c power industry. nBtu million Btu
Fuel Price
RFP
Coal@
-
Sys tern
LOW
Base
SSentu
83.mBtu
Hi h S l d t u
Coal -Scrub
26.6
31 - 7
40.7
FlulditedBed
21 .g
27.1
36.1
Low-Btu/ Combined C y c l e
25.8
30.9
39.9
LOW
S1.177Fbtu
31.8
RFO
Base
Sl.937RRtu
Low -
Base
43.2
J
1UWR
20.6
22.7
26.7
LWR-PU
19.9
21.3
24.6
LWBR
21.9
21.7
21.1
HTGR
19.7
20.7
23.0
47
NOTES: a.
Table III - A - l
the base case coal p r i c e represents t h e December, 1974, average p a i o by the e l e c t r i c u t i l i t i e s i n mid-1974 d o l l a r s .
Ref.
(31)
The h i g h coal p r i c e repre-
sents e s c a l a t i o n greater than general i n f l a t i o n i n t h e base-case coal p r i c e a t 3% per year u n t i l 1990. the
3% e s c a l a t i o n
T h i s produces an increase o f 1.6 times t h e coal p r i c e when
i s maintained u n t i l 1990,and i s collapsed t o mid-1974 d o l l a r s .
p r i c e i s based on recent Bureau o f Mines estimates of the marginal
The low coa
cost o f min ng coal from
new n i n e s (Ref. (57) and (60)).
I t i s assumed t h a t
h a l f o f the coal i s mined i n underground mines a t $9.82/ton Adding t h e
( i n mid-1974 d o l l a r s ) .
o s t of t r a n s p o r t by improved methods (see Section I I I-A.4
for a
discussion o f cost of t r a n s p o r t ) and cleaning costs,
i t i. assumed t h a t t h i s
coal can be bought by power p l a n t s f o r $12.00 a ton.
The o t h e r h a l f of t h e
coal i s assumed t o come f r i m l a r g e Northwestern s t r i p mines a t $3.24/ton.
It
I s f u r t h e r assumed t n a t not 311 of t h i s coal can be consumed i n the West, so t h a t long haul t r a n s p o r t t o the East i s necessary.
The t o t a l average p r i c e
p a i d by u t i l i t i e s f o r t h f s Western coal i s , therefore,
assumed t o be $8.00/ton.
The deep mine coal (mostly Eastern) i s assumed t o have a h e a t i n g value of 12,00O/Btu/lb.,
8,000 Btu/lb.,
w h i l e t h e Western coal i s assumed t o have a h e a t i n g value which y i e l d s a n a t i o n a l average coal p r i c e o f 55c/M Btu.
0:
It
i s hard t o imagine a lower average coal p r i c e than t h i s i n 1990. b.
The base case RFO p r i c e represents the average December, 1974. p r i c e p a i d by The low p r i c e represents the
u t i l i t i e s f o r RFO adjusted t o mid-1974 " o l l a r s . estimated OPEC c a r t e l p r i c e o f about $7.00/barrel
(see e.g.,
R e f . (229) and
(230) c.
The cumulative demands f o r U 0
3 8
f o r a l l those U 0
3 8
p r i c e scenarios vere
derived from the case D scenario given on page 53 o f Ref.
48
(1 1), assuming
a t a i l s assay o f 0.25%. be the cvmulative U 0
3 8
For the LWR case i t was assumed t h a t these would denands.
Although delays and c a n c e l l a t i o n of nuclear
power p l a n t c o n s t r u c t i o n have occurred since the formulation of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r scenario, the LWR case does not assume PU recycle, which o f f s e t s the decreased demands due t o c a n c e l l a t i o n s .
For the LWR-Pu, LMFBR and
HTGR systems, however, the scenario 0 cumulative U 0
38
demand p r o j e c t i o n s
a r e d i - c .doted 20% due t o detays and c a n c e l l a t i o n s of nuclear power p l a n t construction. The U 0
3 8
a v a i l a b i l i t y scenarios assumed f o r the base case were d e r i v e d
from the U 0
3 8
a v a i l a b i l i t y data given on page
3 of
Ref.
(176).
I t was
assvmed t h a t a1 1 the k n o m reserves and estilnated a d d i t i o n a l r.?serves could be produced on a t i m e l y basis a t the p r i c e s yiven and f u r t h e r t h a t the p r i c e o f U 0
3 8
would s t a b i l i z e a t around the year 2000 due e i t h e r t o
the discovery o f considerable a d d i t i o n a l low c o s t resources, as Ref.
(145),
(159) and (232) imply may be p l a u s i b l e , o r t o the s i g n i f i c a n t commercializat i o n o f Breeder Reactors ( o f
CWI
s e , the non-exi stence of add i t i o w i
reserves would make the case f o r the Breeder stronger). were derived by i n t e r f a c i n g appropriate U 0
3 8
U 0
38
prices
demand and a v a i l a b i l i t y
scenarios f o r a modei r e a c t o r beginning commercial o p e r a t i o n i n 1990 operating f o r 30 years.
t..I.
A more d e t a i l e d c a l c u l a t i o n of t h e low, base and h i g h
nuclear e l e c t r i c costs a r e shown b e l o d f o r a 1000 MWe p l a n t f o r 30 yea; a I990 p l a n t s t a r t u p .
l i f e and
A l l costs a r e i n m i l l i o n s o f l e v e l i z e d mid-1974 d o l l a r s .
D e t a i l s on how the p r i c e data were incorporated i n t o t h e cost of e l e c t r i c generat i o n are included i n footnotes t o Tables E - l ,
*See page 49a.
49
F - l , G-l and H - l o f the Appendices.
Undiscounted Carrying Undlrcounted
Year of h n t ,f Unit Charge Cost of 1st Operation bterial(Elf/yr) W l b U.Oe Year lnterva
P
Time (Years)
0
Total cost of 1st Interval Year I n t e r v e p Cost
-
Low W E :
4b2 185 154 154
Initial Core 2.3 4.5 6-10 11-31
?U
IO
10 i2
16 16
1 9
-442
Fino1 Core
9.72 4.05 3.36 4.02 5. 32
-15.;
10.48 4.21 3- S I 4.19 5.53 -16.0
1.75 1.O 1 .o 1 .O 1 .o
1-75
Tota 1
10.48 7.9 6.06 17.2 54.6 -4.38 92
-
BaSE CASE:
27 45 45
12.6 5.7 4.74 9.14 15.2 -43.7
13.6 5.94 4.911 9.53 15.8 -45.6
I n i t i a l Core
18
17.4
"3
27
11.0
27 54
9. I S 18.28 33.8 -97.01
18.8 11.46 9- 53 19.06 35.32
13 14
I n i t i a l Core
2.3
4.5 6-10 11-31
14
SI
Final Core
13.6 11.16 8.53 39- 0 156.0 -12.5
Total
216
HIGH CASE:
4.5
I:
6-10
11-31
100 100
Final Core
I1
18.77 21.54
16.46 78.0 343 2 -27.75
-101.2 Total
SUMMARY:
-
Total Cost
Case
$106
Low Base High
216
92
450
-
NOTES :
1. 2.
No carrying charge Ipciudes carrying charge of 4.25%
Fuel Cost (mi 1 1 s/kWhe)
1-55 3.64 7.61
Total Fuel Cycle Cost (mi 11 s/kWhe)
5.61 7.7 11.67
450.2
I11-8-3:
Upgrading Fuels
I n the future,
the p r o p o - t i o n of p h y s i c a l l y cleaned coal used i n t h e e l e c t r i c
u t i l i t y i n d u s t r y i s l i k e l y to increase from i t s present l e v e l of between one-half
to t w o - t h i r d s as l o w s u l f u r coal i s used up and environmental standards become stricter.
However, t h e average c o n t r i b u t i o n o f the cost of cleaning coal to t h e
cost of e l e c t r i c generation by the coal-based systems i s c u r r e n t l y o n l y about 2%; thus, even i f a l l the coal used i n e l e c t r i c generation were to be cleaned, t h e r e s u l t a n t impact-on the c o s t of e l e c t r i c generation by coal would n o t be great. Advanced non-physical coal cleaning techniques such as benefaction and p y r o l y s i s (see
e.~-,Ref. (26)) may see widespread use i n the future.
These processes remove
a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of t h e s u l f u r i n t h e coal than physicai cleaning, but a r e a l s o more exsensive.
These approaches would be l e s s a t t r a c t i v e than f l u i d i z e d bed and
coal g a s i f i c a t i o n techniques, which a r e discussed i n s e c t i o n When crude o i l i s r e f i n e d , several products,
including
Ill-A-5.
RFO, are produced.
O i l r e f i n i n g i s a mature technology and i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t technological advances i n t h i s i n d u s t r y w i l l have a s i g n i f i c a n t impact on the p r i c e o f e l e c t r i c generation
from RFO.
RFO i s a c t u a l l y a by-product o f the r e f i n i n g process.
That i s , the
o t h e r products produced a t the r e f i n e r y a r e more valuable,and hence much e f f o r t i s devoted t o producing more o f them and less
RFO than obtained a f t e r atmospheric
d i s t i l l a t i o n . (This i s the f i r s t major step i n o i l r e f i n i n g and involves s p l i t t i n g crude i n t o i t s "natural"
constituents.)
a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e commitment
Refinery operations r e q u i r e
o f non-fuel resources, o f t e n as s i g n i f i c a n t as
t h a t a t the power p l a n t i t s e l f , and use about 92% o f the a n c i l l a r y energy requirements of the
RFO f u e l cycles.
The upgrading o f nuclear f u e l s i s q u i t e complex and t y p i c a l l y involves a number o f steps; most o f these a r e used i n the preparation of f u e l s f o r the d i f f e r e n t
r e a c t o r types.
O f the r e a c t o r systems considered, a l l b u t t h e LEOFBR system
r e q u i r e e n r i c h 4 uranium, and for these systems i t i s the enrichment step t h a t d m i n a t e s a l l t h e other upgrading steps i n t e r n of c o s t and resource u t i l i z a t i o n .
For an LWR, about 102 ?IT o f separative work Is r e q u i r e d for an annual reload. Both the LWR-Pu and HTGR (which requires less U 0
38
feed, b u t more separative
work per pound of fuel to produce) r e q u i r e about 80%of the separative work requirement of the LWi4 system.
For a n LWR, the c o s t of upgrading f u e l s i s tcljghly
equivalent to tha c o s t o f harvesting f u e l s and resource u t i l i z a t i o n s are t y p i c a l l y
w i t h i n an order of magnitude of those a t the power p l a n t i t s e l f .
About 95% of
the a n c i l l a r y energy required for t h e LWR system i s used f o r uranium enrichment. This amount o f energy represents about plant.
4.8% of
t h e energy output of t h e LWR power
The major cost component of the upgrading o f f u e l s f o r the LMFBR i s the
f a b r i c a t i o n o f mixed oxide (HOx) f u e l elements, but as the c o s t o f upgrading f u e l s f o r t h i s system c o n t r i b u t e s o n l y about
7% t o the c o s t of e l e c t r i c generation, the
s e n s i t i v i t y of generation c o s t s to f a b r i c a t i o n c o s t s i s not great.
The amount of U 0
feed t h a t i s required for a r e a c t o r t h a t u t i l i z e s enriched
38
uranium i s s e n s i t i v e t o the t a i l s assay used a t t h e enrichment p l a n t . the t a i l s assay the l e s s feed required.
The lower
However, a lower t a i l s assay r e q u i r e s a
greater amount of separative work to o b t a i n a s p e c i f i e d f r e s h f u e l assay. Consequently, f o r any U 0
3 8
minimizing t a i l s assay.
c o s t and separative work charge there e x i s t s a c o s t -
(See Ref ( 6 ) for some p l o t s of these r e l a t i o n s h i p s . )
I n t h i s r e p o r t a t a i l s assay of 0.25% i s assumed.
A t the present t i m e a move
f r o m the c u r r e n t l y p r e v a i l i n g 0.20% t a i l s assay to a t a i l s assay of 0.275% i s
being contemplated (see
2.s
Refs. (154) and (155));
i r r a t i o n a l i n view o f c u r r e n t U 0
3 8
p r i c e escalation.
t h i s change seems somewhat For the enriched-uranium
reactors considered here, a change i n t a i l s assay from 0.259: t o 0.30% r e q u i r e s t h a t about 10% more U 0
3 8
be mined and about 10% less separative work be performed, w h i l e
a decrease i n t a i l s assay from 0.25% t o 0.30% reverses these s e n s i t i v i t i e s .
51
The c u r r e n t l y employed method of i s o t o p i c separation gaseous d i f f u s i o n (Ref. (154)). c e n t r i f u g e (Ref.
(21) pg.
(1.5enrichment)
is
However, research i s under way on Both the
48) and
l a s e r (Ref (156)) methods.
Both of these
methods can p o t e n t i a l l y decrease enrichment power requirements by an o r d e r of magnitude or more, b u t i t i s conceivable t h a t the increased c a p i t a l expenditures t h a t may be associated w i t h these methods would wipe o u t a l l o r p a r t o f t h e i r opera t ing c o s t advantage. A c o s t parameter wh!ch can p o t e n t i a l y have a s i g n i f i c a n t impact on the
economics o f
t k LMFBR system i s the p r i c e of plutonium.
assumed to d e r i v e i t s value as a replacement f u e l i n LWRs.
Ire the case h p p (Ref.
, depending
This would probably
However, as pointed o u t by Derian and
n an i n f a n t breeder economy.
( 77))
In t h i s report, Pu i s
on t h e r e l a t i v e c a p i t a l c o s t s of LWRs and LMFBRs,
e i t h e r a LWR and LWR-Pu o r a LWR and LMFBR r e a c t o r economy would emerge as medium-term market e q u i l i b r i a , and the value o f Pu would a d j u s t so as to e q u i l ib r a t e the p r i c e of e l e c t r i c generation tor the two reactors i n the l e a s t - c o s t combination.
However i n t h e long run, i f LflFBR capacity i s expanded r a p i d l y , the
p r i c e o f Pu c o u l d be d r i v e n to zero, depending on the r a t e of growth of e l e c t r i c generation capacity.
However, i n comparing reactors i n the time frame selected
f o r t h i s study, we b e l i e v e our approach t o Pu v a l u a t i o n , t y i n g the value of Pu t o the p r i c e o f U 0
38
and separative work, i s j u s t i f i e d .
See Table l l l - A - 4
f o r a summary of nuclear fuel c y c l e costs.
52
II I-A-4:
t r a n s p o r t o f Fuel s
The c o s t o f e l e c t r i c generation by aoy of our study systems seems to be r e l a t i v e l y r n s e n s i t i v e t o the c o s t of fuel t r a n s - w t .
Even for the coal-based
systems where the c o n t r i b u t i o n o f the c o s t of fuel t r a n s p o r t to the c o s t of e l e c t r i c generation i s the greatest,
transport c o s t s represent o n l y about 10
o f the t o t a l c o s t of e l e c t r i c generation.
-
15%
Any move towards increased use o f wes-
t e r n coal to s a t i s f y eastern e l e c t r i c demands would, o f course,
increase t h e
average c o s t of coal transport (or perhaps o f e l e c t r i c transmission if t h i s turns o u t to be the m r e economical means of energy t r a n s p o r t over long distances). I t i s hard to imagine, however, t h a t the c o s t of coal t r a n s p o r t would more than
double on a n a t i o n a l average basis, e s p e c i a l l y i n view of some o f the newer methods f o r coal t r a n s p o r t (i.e.,
u n i t t r a i n s and coal
s l u r r y p i p e l ines).
Further, even i f the average cost of coal t r a n s p o r t doubled from i t s c u r r e n t l e v e l of $4.50/ton
t o $g.OO/ton,
the c o s t of e l e c t r i c generation for the c o a l -
based systems would increase by o n l y 10 Oil
-
12%.
transport i s even cheaper than coal t r a n s p o r t ; since the c u r r e n t t o t a l
c o s t o f o i l t o e l e c t r i c u t i l i t i e s i s more than double the c u r r e n t cost of coal and t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p
i s not l i k e l y t o change i n the near f u t u r e (see Section 2
above), the c o s t o f e l e c t r i c generation by RFO i s even l e s s s e n s i t i v e t o f u e l trafisport cost than f o r the coal -based systems. F i n a l l y , since transport o f nuclear f u e l s represents less than 10% o f the nuclear-fuel cost t o e l e c t r i c u t i l i t i e s , and since the cost o f these f u e l s represent a t most 30% of the cost o f e l e c t r i c generation by the nuclear s y s t e r , the s e n s i t i v i t y of generation costs t o the cost o f fuel t r a n s p o r t i s n e g l i g i b l e f o r nuc 1 ear power generation.
53
I11-8-5:
Conversion to E l e c t r i c i t y
The costs and resource U t i l i z a t i o n s associated w t t h the conversion to e l e c t r i c i t y step represent q u a n t i t i e s a t t r i b u t a b l e
to power p l a n t c o n s t r u c t i o n
and o p e r a t i o n and a r e s i g n i f i c a n t for a l l o f the systems studied.
I n fact,
for
the nuclear p l a n t s the non-fuel c o s t s o f e l e c t r i c generation (which occur p r i m a r i l y a t the power p l a n t ) range from about 67%of t o t a l generation c o s t s for the
LWR system to over 90% f o r the LMFBR system.
S i m i l a r l y , except f o r land use,
resource u t i 1 i t a t i o n s for the nuclear power generation systems are dominated by those occuring a t the power p l a n t . For the coal-based systems, about h a l f of the costs o f e l e c t r i c generation a r e non-fuel expenditures and, i n c o n t r a s t to the nuclear systems, non-fuel resource u t i l i z a t i o n necessary f o r the harvesting o f f u e l s and t r a n s p o r t of f u e l s are comparable w i t h those required a t the power p l a n t . Due to the h i g h r e l a t i v e cost of crude o i l , the c o n t r i b u t i o n o f non-fuel costs to e l e c t r i c generation cost i s l e a s t for the RFO system, a t o n l y about
20%. Further, resource requirements f o r the harvesting ( e x t r a c t i o n )
, upgrading
( r e f i n i n g ) and t r a n s p o r t o f these f u e l s a r e comparable w i t h those required a t the power p l a n t i t s e l f . I n view o f the above discussion i t i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g
t o f i n d t h a t the c o s t s
and resource u t i l i z a t i o n s f o r nuclear power p l a n t s are, i n general, g r e a t e r than those f o r coal-based power p l a n t s , which are more than those f o r o i l - f i r e d power plants.
I n f a c t , even the most expensive coal-based p l a n t ( t h e coal-gas/
combined-cycle p l a n t ) costs about 5% less than t h e cheapest nuclear p l a n t ( t h e LWR) t o bui 16, w h i l e the cheapest coal-based system (the f l u i d i z e d - b e d system) costs about 45% less than the most expensive nuclear system ( t h e LMFBR) t o b u i l d .
54
The fluidized-bed system
seems to i n v o l v e about 251% l e s s c a p i t a l expense than
the o t h e r two coal-bas4 systems, w h i l e among the nuclear systems, the LHFBR i s p r o j e c t e d to cost a b u t 30% more than e i t h e r an LWR or HTGR to bui Id.
As f a r as t o t a l e l e c t r i c generation c o s t s a r e concerned, the h i g h p r i c e of coal and R F O y i e l d e l e c t r i c generation c o s t s for these systems t h a t a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than for the nuclear systems.
I n f a c t , even for the coal-based
system w i t h the lowest p r o j e c t e d generation c o s t (the f l u i d i z e d - b e d system a t
27.1 mills/Kwtk),
the e l e c t r i c generation c o s t exceeds t h a t for the most expensive
nuclear system (the LWR a t 22.7 mills/KwHe),
by about 20%.
Further, the c u r r e n t
p r i c e of RFO makes the e l e c t r i c generation cost (42.5 milldKwHe), almost double t h a t f o r the LWR for the base case. I n the time f r m e s p e c i f i e d f o r t h i s study t h e f l u i d zed-bed system seems t o
be the cheapest coal-based e l e c t r i c generation scheme, wh l e the HTGR seems to be (marginally) the cheapest
nuclear generation scheme.
(These conlusions are,
however, s e n s i t i v e t o the assumptions made and could l i k e ’ v change as we move i n t o the next century, e.g.
h i g h e f f i c i e n c y combined-cycle systems, thought t o
be t e c h n i c a l l y f e a s i b l e , could make the coal-gadcombined-cycle system the best coal-based candidate a t about the t u r n o f the century. The coal-scrub system r e q u i r e s a temporarily d i s t u r b e d land commitment about
50 times greater than t h a t for a nuclear p l a n t , but the t o t a l temporarily committed area i s o n l y about twice as b i g , due t o the s i z a b l e e x c l u s i o n areas r e q u i r e d f o r the nuclear p l a n t s .
A d d i t i o n a l l y , a s i g n i f i c a n t permanent commitment o f land i s
l i k e l y to be a t t r i b u t e d t o the nuclear p l a n t s due t o r a d i o a c t i v e contamination. A l a r g e p a r t of the water consumption f o r each o f our study systems occurs a t the power p l a n t i t s e l f .
This water i s evaporzted i n n a t u r a l d r a f t cooling towers
(our assumed power p l a n t c o o l i n g technologyj.
55
f o r the f o s s i l systems a s u b s t a n t i a l
amount of waste heat i s discharged w i t h the f l u e gas, so t h a t less c o o l i n g water
i s required as a heat s i n k than for the nuclear systems.
For those nuclear systems
LMFBR and HTGR) the consumptive water
w i t h g r e a t e r thermal e f f i c i e n c i e s (e.g.
use i s somewhat less than f o r those w i t h lower thermal e f f i c i e n c i e s
(s LWR
and La-Pu). Since the non-fuel c o s t s o f e l e c t r i c generation (which a r e i n c u r r e d p r i m a r i l y a t the power p l a n t ) a r e s i g n i f i c a n t f o r a l l the systems studied and many o f the values w e have assumed f o r economic parameters a r e l i k e l y t o be q u i t e controvers i a l , we w i l l now describe a number o f economic s e n s i t i v i t y
analyses.
What the f u t u r e c a p i t a l c o s t for e l e c t r i c power p l a n t s w i l l be i s a most c o n t r o v e r s i a l issue.
A t the same time the AEC was p r o j e c t i n g l a r g e decreases i n
per k i l l o w a t - e l e c t r i c i n s t a l l e d cost f o r nuclear power p l a n t s due t o economies o f scale and l e a r n i n g e f f e c t s (see Bupp (Ref.
c.g.
References (6) and (3911, Derian and
(169)) were t a b u l a t i n g d a t a which seemed t o show t h a t the c o s t o f
b u i l d i n g nuclear power p l a n t s i n constant 1973 d o l l a r s has been increasing a t a r a t e o f about $20
-
$3O/Kwe per year above the r a t e o f increase i n the p r i c e
index f o r steam-electric power p l a n t c o n s t r u c t i o n , which has i t s e l f been i n creasing a t a g r e a t o r r a t e than the i n f l a t i o n r a t e i n the o v e r a l l economy (see Ref. and
Ref. (232) f o r a c r i t i q u e o f the AEC r e a c t o r c o n s t r u c t i o n cost p r o j e c t i o n ) .
The imp1 i c a t i o n s o f continued e s c a l a t i o n i n power p l a n t c o n s t r u c t i o n costs are explored i n l a b l e Ill-A-2. Recently, another f a c t o r besides increasing c a p i t a l costs has led people t o que t i o n the economic advantage t h a t i s u s u a l l y claimed f o r nuclear power. s em nal
d e t e c t i v e work o f Comey (see
e.g.R e f . ( 1 4 9 ) - ( 53))
The
has l e d t o the
rea i z a t i o n t h a t nuclear power p l a n t s are today 6 L s s re i a b l e than t h e i r c o s s i l -
f ue ed counterparts.
I n Table I l l - A - 3 we summarize the impact on f u t u r e genera-
56
(39)
111
c a P
-
0
c
c
-I
U
u (I)
w
Y
I
LI
3 3
-
0
Table III-A-3:
Sensl t i v i t y crf Electric Generation Costs t o
Caoac it y Factor The capacity f a c t o r i s defined (as i n Ref. (149)) as the a c t u a l output of the power p l a n t per year d i v i d e d by the output t h a t woJld o b t a i n i f the p l a n t were t o produce e l e c t r i c i t y a t i t s maximum r a t e d capacity throughout the Numbers given i n the body of the t a b l e are e l e c t r i c year. generation costs i n l e v e l i z e d mid-1974 mills/KwHe.
Capacity Factor Base
H i stor ica
75%
System
Fossi 1 = 62%
P
-
Nuclear = 55%
Coal -Scrub
31.7
35.2
--
Fluidized-Bed
27.1
29.6
--
Coal-Gas/C-C.
30.9
34.2
RFO
43.2
45.4
---
N U
LWR
22.7
--
28.2
C L E A R
LWR-Bu
21.3
LMFBR
21.7
---
HTGR
20.7
--
a.
From Ref.
F 0 S S
I L
(149).
58
26.8 28.6 26.2
t i o n c o s t s o f t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n o f h i s t o r i c a l annual load f a c t o r s ( a c t u a l l y Comey c a l l s these 'Slant capacity f a c t o r s
'I
which r e f e r to the a c t u a l output o f the p l a n t
for the year as a percentage of the o u t p u t t h a t w u l d be produced i f the system were to produce a t i t s maximum design c a p a c i t y throughout the year).
A t h i r d set of parameters which could w e l l e f f e c t r e l a t i v e power p l a n t The o n l y
economies i n the f u t u r e a r e the power p l a n t thermal e f f i c i e n c i e s .
system studied which has the p o t e n t i a 1 f o r s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n thermal e f f i c i e n c y i s the coal-gadcombined-cycle system.
I f advanced g a s i f i e r s such
as two-stage entrained f l o w g a s i f i e r s (see e.~. Ref. and improved
(105)) can be developed,
turbine-blade cool ing methods a r e developed (see e.g.
a ccal-gas/combined-cycle
thermal e f f i c i e n c y of perhaps
(as compared w i t h the base case assumption o f
53%
Ref.
(101)),
could be achieved
37%. The i m p l i c a t ! a n s o f t h i s
change would be a coal-gadcombined-cycle e l e c t r i c generation c o s t o f about
26.3 mills/KwHe as opposed t o the base case f i g u r e a t 30.9 mills/KwHe. have argued (e.g.
several papers i n Ref.
l e s s than Lu-yi-type g a s i f i e r s .
Many
(105)) t h a t advanced g a s i f i e r s w i l l c o s t
Thus i n view o f expected increases i n the p r i c e
o f coal, the increased e f f i c i e n c y (and lower c a p i t a l c o s t ) p o t e n t i a l l y achievable w i t h a coal-gadcombined-cycle make i t a strong contender f o r the cheapest method o f e l e c t r i c generation from coal around the t u r n of the century. One f i n a l p o i n t m e r i t s discussion here.
Although not much o f an attempt has
been made t o estimate the costs of dismantling nuclear r e a c t o r s a t the end of t h e i r useful service l i f e (see
e.g.Ref. (167)
f o r one attempt a t t h i s ) we have heard
estimates of dismantling costs as h i g h as the c o s t of c o n s t r u c t i o n .
When t h i s i s
collapsed t o present value and l e v e l i z e d t o average cost, the f o l l o w i n g increases i n generation c o s t s r e s u l t : about
HTCR and about
4.9
3.7 mills/kWhe f o r an LWR, about 3.9 mills/kWhe f o r an
nills/kWhe f o r an LMFBP.
The d e c i s i o n t o dismantle the p l a n t and
r e s t o r e the land t o other uses has not been made a t t h i s t i m e . f o r a comparison o f t h i s post t o o t h e r nuclear f u e l c y c l e costs. I I I-A-5
(note e)
59
Refer t o Table l l l - A - 4 See a l s o T a b l e
Table I l l - A - 4 :
LWR Fuel Cycle Cost:
FUEL COST:
Base Case
Undiscounted
ear o Oieratiln
Amount of M a t e r i a l (MT/yr)
I n i t i a l Core 2,3 495
6-10 11-31 F i n a l Core
Carrying
Unit Charge Cost of 1 s t Time $ / l b U& Year l n t e r v a f B (Years)
442 185 154
13 14 14 27
154 -442
45 45
154
i,.6 5.7 4.74 9. ' 4
IO. 48 7.9
1.o 1.o
10.48 4.21 3.51 4.19
5.53
54.6
1-75
-16.0
-4.38
1.75
1 .o
1 .o
15.2 -43.7
Undiscountsd Total cost o f 1 s t Year i n t e r v a P I n E : B 1
6.06 17.2
Total
UFL CONVERS ION : " I n i t i a l Core 2,3 4-3 1 F i n a l Core
S/kg
u
554
3.30
232
3.30
191
3.30
-554
216
3.30
1.24 0.52 0.43 -1.24
1-75
1.0
1.75 1.75
1*33 0.54 0.45 -1 -33
1.33 1.02
6.7 -0.37 Total
ENRICHMENT: l n t i a l Core 2-3 1 F i n a l Core
75 75 75
203 102 -203
15.2
1.5 0.75
7.65
1-5
-15.2
16.2 16.2 7.82 133.0 -16.2 -4.57 Total 1 44.6
FABRICATION: I n i t i a l Core 2-3 1 F i n a l Core
6.09 1.93 -6.09
87 27.5
-87
REPROCESSING WASTE MGT: I n i t i a l Core 2-29 F i n a l Core
1.25
6.42
0 -5
1.97
1.25
-6.42 Total
-120 --
0 26 0
Total SUMMARY:
k
Total o s t ($10 1 Fue 1 UF6 Enr ichmen e Fabrication Waste
216.0 8.66 144.6
37.59 50.0
(Dismantling)
Fuel Cost (mi 1 1 s/kWh) 3.64 0.14 2.44 0.64 0.84
7.7 (3.7)
(m
NOTES :
1 . 0 carrying 2.
3.
charge Includes c a r r y i n g charge of 4.25% SWU-superative work u n i t
59a
Total (Not normally included)
6.42 33.0 -1.8
37.59 50.0
III-A-6:
Management of F i n a l Wastes
For t h e f o s s i l systems, management o f f i n a l wastes c o n s i s t s of the disposal o f bottom ash, recovered f l y ash and sludge from t h e s u l f u r recovery system. The handling o f ash i s r e l a t i v e l y simple, so t h a t t h e c o s t s o f management of f i n a l wastes (which a r e n o t separated from conventlonal p l a n t 0 6 M c o s t s i n our Appendix data t a b l e s ) a r e small for t h e RFO and coal-gas/combined-cycle systems where no sludge i s produced. (see e.9.
Ref.
For the base case we have chosen ponding
(90)) f o r sludge disposal w i t h a p r o j e c t e d cost of $2.50/ton;
t h i s t r a n s l a t e s tQa sludge disposal cost o f about 0.5 mills/kWhe f o r t h e c o a l scrub system and about 0.33 mills/kWhe for t h e f l u i d i z e d - b e d system (which i s regenerative) and t h i s i s included i n power p l a n t 0 8 M costs.
The o n l y s i g -
n i f i c a n t non-fuel resource requirement for management of f i n a l wastes f o r the f o s s i l systems i s , or course, land use.
The requirement f o r ash disposal
2
i s about 27m /MWe-yr based on pond disposal for t h e t h r e e coal-based systems and about one-tenth o f t h i s amount for t h e RFO system. sludge disposal requires about
For t h e coal-scrub system,
3 times as lnuch land as ash d i s p o s a l , whereas
f o r the f l u i d ; ? . . .bed system o n l y about h a l f o f t h i s incremental land use i s required.
I f the upper bound on p r o j e c t e d sludge disposal c o s t s by ponding
given i n Ref.
( 9 0 ) o f $4.50/ton o b t a i n , e l e c t r i c generation costs f o r the c o a l -
scrub system would go up by about 0.4 mills/kwHe, system about 0.2 mills/KwHe.
and f o r the f l u i d i z e d - b e d
I f chemical f i x a t i o n of sludge i s the a l t e r n a t i v e
selected, sludge disposal costs of from 0.4 t o 1.8 mills/KwHe f o r the coal-scrub system and from 0 . 3 t o 1.2 mills/KwHe f o r the f l u i d i z e d - b e d system are p o s s i b l e . For the nuclear systems, management o f f i n a l wastes c o n s i s t s of reprocessing and shipment o f spent f u e l s a s w e l l as management o f the non-useable products of t h i s reprocessing.
The cost o f these a c t i v i t i e s i s g e n e r a l l y about 0.8 mills/KwHe,
60
which for a l l o f our r e a c t o r concepts represents l e s s than 5% of the e l e c t r i c a m e r a t i o n cost.
Ref.
( 6 ) , Table 11-2-15 p r o j e c t s about a h a l v i n g of a l l r e -
processing c o s t s by 2020, except those f o r the LMFBR (where o n l ) a 20% reduct ion i s projected).
This would lead t o about a 0.4 mills/kWhe reduction i n e l e c t r i c
generation costs.
For the base case a $lO/Kg cost o f h i g h l e v e l waste management
was assumed based on the weight o f the spent f u e l (not the f i n a l waste i t s e l f ) . The f i s s i o n products a r e
less than 3% by weight of the spent f u e l .
disposal costs per u n i t o f f i s s i o n products
30 times the costs indicated. given i n Ref. (20). Ref.
(e,s.,h i g h
Thus, t h e
l e v e l wastes) a r e o v e r
t h i s i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the g e o l o g i c a l concepts
Should the highest cost a l t e r n a t i v e ( s o l a r escape) given i n
(20) be chosen, the change would be abokt $gO/Kg and e l e c t r i c generation
costs would r i s e by about 9.5-0.6 mills/kWhe.
Social costs o f p o s s i b l e f u t u r e
releases o f stored wastes from coal o r nuclear p l a n t s have not been c a l c u l a t e d . See Table I l l - A - 4
f o r a summary o f nuclear f u e l c y c l e costs.
61
I I I-A-7:
Mu1 t i p l e Sensi t i v i t t e s
I n the previous sections of t h i s chapter we have explored the s e n s i t i v i t y
of the cost of e l e c t r i c generation t o changes i n several base-case parameters whose values could most p l a u s i b l y change i n the future.
Thus f a r , r e s u l t a n t
e l e c t r i c generation costs have been tabulated for v a r i a t i c n s i n one parameter a t a time.
As simultaneous v a r i a t i o n s i n several base-case parameters a r e equal I y
plausible, the major purpose o f the present s e c t i o n becomes t h a t o f t a b u l a t i n g e l e c t r i c generation costs for ceveral o f the most i n t e r e s t i n g mu1 t i p l e parameter v a r i a t i o n cases.
,Idditionally,
although a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s o f regional cost
d i f f e r e n c e s a r e beyond the scope o f t h i s work, we argue b r i e f l y t h a t such d i f f e r ences can indeed be a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n terms of the economic competitiveness of the a l t e r n a t i v e study systems. I n Table
Ill-A-S
we have simply tabuiated t h e impact o f varying some o f t h e
base case parameters discussed i n Section
Ill-A-6 simultaneously.
Note t h a t these
r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t no one system dominates any o t h e r on a c o s t basis f o r a l l p l a u s i b l e parameter value assumptions.
When high f u e l and h i g h c a p i t a l c o s t s
are considered which represent 3% and 5% e s c a l a t i o n t o 1990, along w i t h h i s t o r i c a l load f a c t o r , e l e c t r i c i t y costs f r o m coal double w h i l e nuclear c o s t s t r i p l e . reverses the energy cost advantage of nuclear po.
This
-. and i l l u s t r a t e s t h e f u t u r e
u n c e r t a i n t y of comparative energy costs of nuclear versus coal p l a n t s . Regional coal p r i c e s l a s t December v3ried from 16dMBtu to $l.OS/Njtu
1974 d o l l a r s according t o Ref. (31).
i n mid-
Usirlg base-case assumptions f o r o t h e r econ-
omic parameters, t h i s gives a range o f generation c o s t s f o r the coal-scrub system o f from about 19.5 t o 36.0 mills/KwHe, f o r the f l u i d i z e d - b e d system o f froln 14.9 t o 31.4 m i l l s / K w H c ? and f o r the coal-gadcombined mills/KwHe.
v c l e system o f from .8.7 t o 36.0
The high c u r r e n t p r i c e of o i l ha5 &,npened out the e f f e c t o f regional
d i f f e r e n c e s i n RFO p r i c e s t o the a o i n t where they are not s i g n i f i c a n t . f u e l costs have not shown, ;,nd reg ional d if f erences
Nuclear
probably w i l l continue not t o show, s i g n i f i c a n t
. 62
I t i s a s i g n i f i c a n t accomplishment of the AEC's (now ERDA's) c a p i t a l - c o s t
estimating computer program CONCEPT (see e.?. Ref.
(27)) t h a t r e g i o n a l c a p i t a l
cost d i f f e r e n c e s may be updated almost continuously. and
our d e f i n i t i o n f o r c a p i t a 1 costs,
system range from
Using t h i s program Ref.
(21)
regional c a p i t a l costs for t h e coal-scrub
$354/Kwe to $425/Kwe, which corresponds to e l e c t r i c generation
costs of from 30.1 mills/KwHe to 32.4 m i l l s / l W l e .
I n the same r e f e r e n l e regional
c a p i t a l costs for LWRs range from 2382/Kwe to $46O/t(we, which corresponds to a range of LWR e l e c t r i c zeneration costs o f from 21.4 miIIs/KwHe t o 23.8 mills/KwHe.
63
Table 111-A-5:
h n s t t i v l t y of Electrtc 6eneretlon Costs to llrlttple Parameter Yariationr
------ LaJ Lou Hist
Base Base Base
Base
High High Hist
52-7
55.2
61
ease
High
Base
LOW
Base
Hist
Hist
High Hist
44.2
High High
Cepit a l
------ -6 31.7 3s-2 30.1
24.4
27.1
29.6
1-6
42.9
47.1
51.9
29.1
3o.a
34.2
43.2
52.u
54.9a
61.4
45.4 34.0 43.2 45.4 53.2 57.4 57 -4 -23-7
22.7
25.8
30.3
32.:
53.5
68.7
23.0
21.3
24.4
28.7
29.1
51.4
66.6
23.2
21.7
23.1
27-9
28.0
52.4
70.8
28.5 50.4 66.1 -----22.4
20.7
23.4
27.4
a-
The high, low and base fuel costs correspond t o those given i n Table Ill-A-1 w i t h
b.
The high and low c a p i t a l costs correspond' to the right-most and left-most
the base RFO cost doubling as the high RFO cost. estimates provided i n Table Ill-A-2.
Ill-A-3.
c.
The h i s t o r i a l (Hist) capacity factors assumed are
d.
Rased on the improved coaI-gas/combined-cytie efficiency discussed i n Section Ill-A-6.the t o s t here would be 22.7 m i 1 ls/kWhe
these given i n Table
e. Note d , but 26.6 mills/kWhe f. Note d, but 38.5 mills/kWhe 9. I f dismantling costs of the power plant were 100% of o r i g i n a l costs, the following equivalent mills/kwh charges could be: Capital Costs (rnills/kWh) LMFBR HTGR
64
II 1-8-8:
Research and Development Costs
Projected R C D c o s t s were c o l l e c t e d for each of the e l e c t r i c generation systems selected for study and a r e suarnarired i n Tables I l I - A - 6 a n d I l l - A - 7 .
In the past,many agencies have been responsible for energy R 6 D programs (see,
e.g.,References (2191, (220).
etc.).
However, pursuant to i t s founding e a r l y
t h i s year, most o f the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of energy h 6 D programs and v i r t u a l l y a l l c o - o r d i n a t i o n of such programs have been made the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f the new Energy Research and Development A d m i n i s t r a t i o n (ERDA).
Consequently, v i r t u a l l y
a l l e x i s t e n t long-range p r o j e c t i o n s c f R 6 D expenditure scenarios were forml a t e d i n the pre-ERDA era.
I n t h i s study we have, i n p a r t i c u l a r , r e l i e d h e a v i l y
on an assessment of energy R 6 D programs and recommendations made i n a recent FPC r e p o r t (Ref.
(218;),
as i t takes i n t o account most previous energy R 6 D
reconmendations and i t focuses s p e c i f i c a l l y on the electric-power industry.
We
can add to t h i s the proposed FY '76 ERDA funding l e v e l s to g a i n some i n s i g h t
into l i k e l y R 8 D c o s t s required for emerging energy technologies. References (223) and (224).
(See e.g.,
For an i l l w n i n a t i n s discussion of issues involved
i n s e t t i n g energy R 6 D p r i o r i t i e s , see Ref.
(225).)
However, the genesis of
ERDA has, i n the words of several ERDA o f f i c i a l s we have spoken to,
I
beginning of a "whole new ballgame" i n energy R C D.
The new game pl.,
ERDA's proposed funding l e v e l s for energy R 6 D f o r 5
-
Further, as the emergence o f the "energy c r i s i s " ,
(&
Ref.
has k i n d l e d a l a r g e
amount of congressional i n t e r e s t i n and concern over energy R & D
(178)), e x a c t l y what t h i s proposed p l a n
the
IO years i n t o t h e f u t u r e )
i s due t o be d e l ivered t o Congress a t the end o f June, 1975 (see, e.g.
(226)).
-qt
(s Ref.
w i l l e n t a i l i s , a t the moment, not a t
a l l easy to surmise. With t h i s caveat i n mind, we r e t u r n t o Table I I I - A - ~ which , shows p r o j e c t e d (pre-ERDA) R t D expenditures and expected commerci;'
65
- a t i o n dates f o r e l e c t r i c
Table I11-8-6:
Projected R & 0 Costs f o r A1 t e r n a t i w e E l e c t r i c Power Generations Systems
Cost f i g u r e s given a r e i n mid-1974 d o l l a r s . The completion date r e f e r s t o the commercialization d a t e f o r developing technologies and to t h e end of the R S 0 programs f o r technologies t h a t a r e now commercial.
a.
From Ref. (218:; f a r c o r r o b o r a t i o n and some discrepancies see 5 2 . Refs. (215), (216), and (219).
b.
From Ref. ( 6 ) . This f i g u r e r e f e r s o n l y to the LMFBR program. Were we t o combine w i t h t h i s the expenditures on o t h e r breeder concepts and breeder "support technologies" as i s o f t e n done i n breeaer c o s t / b e n e f i t analyses, the f i g u r e would r i s e t o 9.5 b i l l i o n mid-1974 d o l l a r s . (See Refs. ( 6 ) , (176), (178), and (232) f o r more on the proposed Breeder budget )
.
c.
Much of the coal -scrubber research w i 1 1 apply t o o i I sys ems.
d.
The HTGR and LWR categories i n c l u d e a 50-50 s p l i t of the approximate $600 m i l l i o r LWR and HTGR s a f e t y category. This amount s included i n both the Lh and LWR-Pu t o t a l s .
66
Table I l l - A - 7 :
Support
R
b D Programs for A l t e r n a t i v e
E l e c t r i c Power Generation Systems
Cost f i g u r e s given a r e i n mid-1978 d o l l a r s and r e f e r to expenditures p r o j e c t e d t o be necessary from 1975-1984.
R
S 0
-~
Projected R s D cos@ (H'I I ions of DOI lars) COAL : Mining Improvement
278
Wining Health and Safety
366
Fuel Cycle Environmental Controls
336
Power Plant Environmental Controls
651
OIL: Stimulation of O i 1 Reserves Exploration Fuel Cycle Environmental Controls Power Plant Environmental Controls NUCLEAR :
49
Uranium Exploration and Mining Uranium Enrichment
397
Fuel Cycle Environmental Controls
479 21 13
Reactor Environmental Controls Rad ioac t ive Waste D isposa i
171
Other Breeders
140p
Breeder Support Technology
160@
a.
Unless otherwise noted, from Ref. (218), see also References ( 2 1 5 ) , (216). and (219).
b.
From Ref. (6).
67
generation system included f o r a n a l y s i s i n t h i s study.
This Table includes
those programs which can be d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o a p a r t i c u l a r e l e c t r i c - g e n e r a t i o n system (and, therefore,
p r i m a r i l y those programs d i r e c t l y r e ated t o a p a r t i c u -
l a r type o f power p l a n t ) .
of the LHFBR program.
One notes i t m e d i a t e l y i n t h i s tab e the predominance
F i n a l ly,
i n Table III-A-7,
we i n c l u d e estimates o f R 5 D
funds f o r some programs t h a t w i l l c o n t r i b u t e to the c o m e r c i a l i z a t i o n o r acceptance of a t l e a s t
one of the study systems, and to o t h e r p a r t s o f the energy
economy as w e l l , and where, therefore, systems i s not possible.
the a l l o c a t i o n o f funds among t o separate
I n t h i s table,
the l a r g e a l l o c a t i o n o f funds t o
( p r i m a r i l y ) breeder r e a c t o r support programs i s apparent, as w e l l as the s i g n i f i c a n t a1 l o c a t i o n o f funds t o environmental c o n t r o l research, especial l y those
thought t o be necessary t o secure widespread commercial acceptance o f nuclear reactors.
68
111-8:
Environmental and Health Impacts
II1-8-'1:
Harvesting Fuels
I n the d e t a i l e d tables i n Appendices A-H we have entered data for b o t h
the impacts of underground and s u r f a c t nined coal.
f o r uranium we have not
disaggregated the two types of mining b u t have taken the impacts d i r e c t l y from r e p o r t s which assume a c e r t a i n f r a c t i o n of the mining t o be o f each type.
At
present about 50% of coal and uranium i s surface mined and the trend i s toward more surface mining. (8,25,137).
I n the long term, however, t h i s trend must
I n a d d i t i o n , there
be reversed as p r o g r e s s i v e l y deeper deposits a r e u t i l i z e d .
i s a change o c c u r r i n g i n the geographic d i s t r i b u t i o n o f coal mining.
This
s h i f t i s toward a l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of western surface-mined coa1,in c o n t r a s t t o the present s i t u a t i o n i n which o n l y about 10% (by weight) i s mined i n the Rocky Mountain and P a c i f i c States.
r e l a t i o n s h i p between s u l f u r s t r i p p a b l e deposits.
L
I n addition,
there seems t o be an inverse
t e n t and the surface slope angle o f eastern
Thus the contemplated r e s t r i c t i o n on mining above a c e r -
t a i n angle i n combination w i t h continued s u l f u r r e s t r i c t i o n s w i l l lead to increased use o f western coals.
(53,135).
We have chosen eastern underground mined coal
and western surface-mined coal as t y p i c a l of t h e two types o f mining and the two regions.
For uranium mining we have used a "national average'' mlne and m i l l
t o i l l u s t r a t e the impacts.
(9).
Coal mining has t r a d i t i o n a l l v been considered one o f the most hazardous and i l l - p a i d of occupations.
However, since the passage o f the Federal Coal Mine
Act of 1969 and the Occupational Safety and Health Act o f been s t e a d i l y improving.
I970 c o n d i t i o n s have
Dust l e v e l s , exposures t o which i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d
t o the prevalence o f coal workers pneumoconiosis (CWP), and accident r a t e s are falling.
*
I n a d d i t i o n , the miners' wages and o t h e r b e n e f i t s
*
are beginning t o r i s e
For example, i n 1972 the Black Lung B e n e f i t s Act relaxed the c r i t e r i a f o r awarding compensation t o miners.
69
However, there s t i l l i s a serious question of
i n r e l a t i o n t o other industries.
s o c i a l e q u i t y r e l a t e d to coal mining.
The e n t i r e s o c i e t y i s r e c e i v i n g the
b e n e f i t o f coal miming w h i l e a small but s i g n i f i c a n t m i n o r i t y i s undergoing much
of the damage. (24,25,59,133-139) The occupational r i s k o f accidental death o r i n j u r y per m i l l i o n miner-hours
i s very s i m i l a r for coal and uranium mining.
However, many fewer miner-hours
are needed i n the uranium c y c l e f o r a comparable energy output (
4, 5, 7 1.
the i n d i v i d u a l miners undergo s i m i l a r r i s k s but the o v e r a l l s o c i a l impact
Tfus,
i s approximately 20 times greater i n coal mining.
A t the present time, coal miners have about 150 times g r e a t e r r i s k o f developing lung disease from t h e i r occupation than do uranium miners.
The impact of t h i s d i f -
ference i s a c t u a l l y smaller than t h i s f a c t o r , because, i n general, CWP i s less damaging and more amenable t o treatment than lung cancer.
If the dust l e v e l s a r e maintained r i g o r o u s l y a t the present standard (2 mg/m 3 ) , t h e r a t e o f CWP/MWe-yr should begin t o drop as t h e t o t a l average dose t o the miners i s reduced.
Table 111-8-1 s p e c i f i e s what t h i s r a t e would be under several d i f f e r e n t assump-
t i o n s (5,25,137).
Miner output/day has reduced from 14.2 MT (1969) to 10.2 (14??)
mainly due t o new mining l e g i s l a t i o n t o improve miner working conditior,s. increased because o f the longer time and exposure t o produce a ton o f coal.
The CWP/MWe-yr The expo-
n e n t i a l n o t a t i o n i s used extensively i n t h e appendix, but i s a l s o used f o r the f i r s t time i n Table 111-8-1.
Please note nomenclature i n the table.
Table I l l - E - 1 :
Possible Future Black Lung Disease
Power Plant E f f i c i e n c y
MT/M iner- day output
@
37%
10.2 (1973) 14.2 (1969)
@ MT
- metric
45%
41%
8.2
-4
7.4
5.9
-
5.3
4
~~
ton a t 11600 BTU/lb
70
-
4
6.7
4
4.9
-
4
4
These r a t e s a r e 50-100 times lower than t h e present t o t a l CWP estlmate and correspond t o an i n d i v i d u a l r i s k w i t h i n a f a c t o r of 2 higher than t h e median lung cancer r i s k for t h e underground uranium miner.*
CWP
It should be pointed out t h a t simple-
i s a much less serious disease than lung cancer and t h a t t h e r e i s u n l i k e l y to be a
r i s k of the more severe forms of CWP a t t h i s dust l e v e l .
In a d d i t i o n , however, o t h e r
types o f lung disease a r e associated w i t h both coal and uranium mining. The m i l l i n g of uranium a l s o creates an a c i d waste aiong w i t h BOD, suspended s o l i d s , t o t a l d i s s o l v e d s o l i d s , etc., t a i l i n g s i n a waste pond.
whicharedisposed o f along w i t h t h e s o l i d m i l l
The l e v e l s of Th and Ra probably preclude t h e use o f t h e
t a i l i n g s as c o n s t r u c t i o n f i l l o r i n s i m i l a r a p p l i c a t i o n s near human h a b i t a t i o n (3,157,
158).
Over a very long p e r i o d o f time, t h e r e may be a s i g n i f i c a n t human r a d i a t i o n
dose from the Radon gas released from these t a i l i n g s of l e f t uncovered, but a 2 0 f t . l a y e r of d i r t would reduce t h e Radon emission by a f a c t o r o f 10 (Ref. 157).
The
uranium t a i l i n g could produce 0.5 deaths/MWe-yr over 80,000 years if n o t sealed (P.ef
233).
This i s p o t e n t i a l l y an enormous e f f e c t , but a c t s over a very long time p e r i o d compared t o the p l a n t l i f e t i m e .
This e f f e c t i s excluded i n c a l c u l a t i n g h e a l t h e f f e c t s .
Various types o f o i l s p i l l s produce the most damaging o f the environmental impacts from o i l production.
Both the import o f f o r e i g n o i l and the production
o f off-shore or o u t e r c o n t i n e n t a l s h e l f o i l have the p o t e n t i a l f o r a c c i d e n t l y releasing very large amounts o f o i l i n t o the ocean.
Several recent studies
(115-118) have looked i n t o t h i s problem i n some depth and have t r i e d t o determine the kinds o f p r o b a b i l i t i e s , q u a n t i t i e s , e f f e c t s and c o n t r o l techniques t h a t are Large storms, hurricanes, earthquakes,
appropriate f o r various types o f s p i l l s .
and ship c o l l i s i o n s are the kinds o f i n i t i a t i n g events which cou d t r i g g e r such a release.
In addition,
the "routine" s p i l l from tankers, o i l p atforms and
p i p e l i n e s may be important i n some areas.
A I though there i s apparently 1 i t t l e o r no human h e a l t h r i s k from the
9:
9 i s k per miner-year
Present
Future
Uranium:
3 (lor4 4.5 ( l o r 2
7
Cancer r a t e
Coal : CWP r a t e
71
4.9
t o x i c i t y o f oil s p i l l s (114) there can be considerable impect on the ecology, economy and r e c r e a t i o n a l p o t e n t i a l of an area.
I n a d d i t i o n , there i s a safety
r i s k because o f the p o t e n t i a l for large-scale f i r e i f , f o r example, an o i l tanker should break a p a r t and burn near a populated area. I n both uranium and coal e x t r a c t i o n , surface mining i s d i s t i n c t l y s a f e r both i n terms imately
3
of accidents and lung disease.
*
Surface mining d i s r u p t s approx-
times more land by s t r i p p i n g than underground mining does by subsidence.
Coal mining b; the longwall method causes m r e subsidence but the amount and l o c a t i o n o f the subsidence i s more p r e d i c t a b l e than i n room-and-pillar method. The a c i d waste produced by underground coal mining i n the east has no counterp a r t i n western surface mining because there i s l i t t l e or no p y r i t e s u l f u r i n There may be some problems w i t h a k a l i n e
the western coal t o form s u l f u r i c acid.
and o t h e r discharges, however. Reclamation o f surface mined land i s a d i f f i c u l t 3nd sometimes lengthy procedure i n areas w i t h low r a i n f a l l and shallow t o p s o i l as, for example, i n the western range states.
It seems l i k e l y , however, t h a t
some type of l e g i s l a t i o n w i l l be enacted soon to enforce reclamation o f land d i s t u r b e d by surface mining.
*
(58-62)
There i s some evidence t h a t dust l e v e l s a t c e r t a i n surface coal mines may be h i g h enough t o produce CWP.
(25 ) .
Surface coal miners have about 50% o f the
accident r a t e o f deep miners per m i l l i o n miner-hours. output per man hour i s about
3
t i m e s higher
72
(137).
And,in a d d i t i o n , the
II1-8-2 Upgrad ing Fue 1s The Fossi 1 systems have much l e s s complicated fuel-upgrading steps than the nuclear systems.
I n f a c t , western coal i s n o t prepared a t a l l p r i o r t o
t r a n s p o r t t o the power p l a n t .
Eastern underground coal i s p h y s i c a l l y cleaned
i n order t o lower the s u l f u r content by removal o f p a r t o f the inorganic p y r i t e .
Also, t h i s process removes some ash and consequently r a i s e s the B t u content per pound s l i g h t l y .
F o r t y t o f i f t y percent o f the s u l f u r i n most c o a l s can
be removed by t h i s cleaning.
(63, 64)
There i s a wide range i n the m i x t u r e o f petroleum produced a t o i l r e f i n e r i e s . The amount o f r e s i d u a l f u e l o i l (RFO), the f u e l i n our reference o i 1 system, can vary from 5 t o 90%o f r e f i n e r y output, depending on the type o f crude o i l , I
the k i n d of r e f i n i n g process u t i l i z e d , and the requirements o f the company. Consequently, the a l l o c a t i o n o f impacts a t the r e f i n e r y t o a u n i t o f RFO i s n o t a simple process.
We have used the impacts tabulated by several s t u d i e s
t h a t have t r i e d t o c a l c u l a t e the p r o p o r t i o n of impacts t o be ascribed t o RFO using average r e f i n e r y o u t p u t percentages. (1,
5, 7,
119)
Upgrading o f nuclear f u e l c o n s i s t s o f several q u i t e d i f f e r e n t steps.
Enrich-
ment i n the LWR, LWR-Pu end HTGR cycles r e q u i r e s r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e amounts o f electricity.
The emissions o f the coal f i r e d p l a n t s which operate the enrichment
p l a n t s are o f t e n assigned t o the nuclear f u e l cycle.
This i s u s u a l l y j u s t i f i e d
by the f a c t t h a t the enrichment p l a n t s a c t u a l l y , a t present, have t h e i r own c a ? t i v e power p l a n t s .
However, t h i s c a l c u l a t i o n a l procedure i s not e n t i r e l y
consistent, i n t h a t there i s e l e c t r i c i t y r e q u i r e d f o r most i f not a l l steps i n a l l the f u e l cycles, and no
assignment i s made o f the emissions which r e s u l t from
the production o f t h a t e l e c t r i c i t y .
Furthermore, i n the f u t u r e , enrichment
73
p l a n t s may n o t operate w i t h c a p t i v e p l a n t s o r may operate w i t h non-coal p l a n t s . Just as i n energy accounting, t h e r e i s no obvious end t o t h i s secondary-impact accounting.
Should one, f o r example, count the emissio IS
which occur i n the manufacture o f the s t e e l used i n the power p l a n t ?
We have
n o t attempted t o do t h i s k i n d o f accounting and would urge t h a t the conceptua questions be resolved before i t i s undertaken.
(9)
The LMFBR system r e q u i r e s no enrichment c a p a c i t y . The f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s f o r each o f the f o u r nuclear systems a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from one another. o f r e l a t i v e l y non-toxic uranium.
LWR f a b r i c a t i o n r e q u i r e s the processing
The loss o f approximately 0.8% of the through-
p u t i s o f l i t t l e concern and leads t o l i t t l e or no h e a l t h and environmental impacts.
LWR-Pu p l a n t s use uranium and plutonium (mixed oxide, abbreviated :lox)
fuels, and consequently the p o t e n t i a l hazard i s much g r e a t e r .
(3)
e x i s t s f o r both the workers i n the p l a n t s and the p u b l i c outside.
T h i s hazard The t a b l e s
i n appendix F and G i n d i c a t e a m x h higher l e v e l of containment than the 99.2% common i n cranium f a b r i c a t i o n p l a n t s . The c o s t s o f f a b r i c a t i o n are a l s o expected t o be much g r e a t e r because the l e v e l o f care, accounting, p r o t e c t i o n , maintainance and containment must be orders o f magnitude more r i g o r o u s .
Table I 11-8-2
indi-
cates the releases o f plutonium under various assumptions and i l l u s t r a t e s t h a t t h i s problem i s p o t e n t i a l l y serious.
74
Table 111-8-2:
D i l u t i o n Volumes Required for F a b r i c a t i o n P l a n t Releases The d i l u t i o n volumes i n a i r a r e l i s t e d i n u n i t s o f m i l l i o n cubic meters. The l o s s i s l i s t e d i n Ci/Mwe-yr. The d i l u t i o n volumes were c a l c u l a t e d by d i v i d i n g the l o s s i n C i by the MPCa standards f o r n a t u r a l uranium and plutonium-239. The d i l u t i o n volumes have been corrected t o account f o r the mix o f isotopes i n r e a c t o r grade plutonium.
The LMFBR f a b r i c a t i o n p l a n t s a l s o use MOx and exacerbate the problem even There i s about 4 times as much plutonium
f u r t h e r as indicated i n Table 111-8-2.
processed i n a LMFBR f a b r i c a t i o n f a c i l i t y because a f a s t breeder i s fueled s o l e l y w i t h plutonium.
HTCR's have very complicated f a b r i c a t i o n processes and f a c i l i t i e s . d i f f e r e n t types of f u e l p a r t i c l e s a r e f a b r i c a t e d .
Several
There i s no plutoniun: i n
these f u e l s although the hazards o f d i r e c t r a d i a t i o n are h i g h because of U-233 i n the f u e l .
The U-233 w i l l be contaminated w i t h U-232 which decays i n t o sever-
a l very dangerous daughter products.
qemote o r semi-remote handling w i l l be
required f o r the f a b r i c a t i o n o f U-233 f u e l p a r t i c l e s . Maximum Permisible Concentration i n a i r .
75
(189)
(180, 183, 184)
See Section I 1 1 - 6 - 6 .
I 11-8-3:
T ransportat ion
Transportation accidents are a s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t o f the p u b l i c h e a l t h impacts
from coal plants.
An increased use of coal s l u r r y p i p e l i n e s (53.621,
unit trains
and mine-mouth power p l a n t s w i l l reduce t h i s impact by reducing the average d:stance coal i s transported and decreasing the accldsnt r a t e per ton-mile. impacts of
The
RFO transport -re s i m i l a r to those t h a t r e s u l t from crude transport;
these are discussed i n s e c t i o n 111-8-1. The transport o f nuclear fuels has very small accidental death and injury impact because o f the small amount of m a t e r t a l a c t u a l l y transported.
The r o u t i n e
emissions and r a d i a t i o n dosages are a l s o small compared t o those from o t h e r p a r t s o f the nuclear f u e l cycles. accidental releases
Oi
iherL
concern however, about the p o s s i b i l i t y o?
radionuclides, e s p e c l e l l y from accidents i n v o l v i n g the
transport of i.radiated f u e l and high-level waste.
Estimates have been made o f
the m a x i m possible releases i n such accidents and the associated p r o b a b i l i t i e s (9,14,18,19).
The expected values are low but there are low p r o b a b i l i t y j h i g h
consequence events which have been i d e n t i f i e d .
(See s e c t i o n I l l - 8 - 7 f o r a d i s -
cussion o f the imp1 i c a t i o n s o f d i f f e r e n t r i s k d i s t r i b u t i o n s . )
There are s t r i a g e n t
regulations i n v o l v i n g the transport o f h i g h l y r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l s , and s t r i c t adherence t o these regulations should keep the l e v e l o f emissions from accidents and routine operations t o a minimum, compared t o o t h e r p a r t s o f the nuclear f u e l cycles.
I t should be pointed out, however, t h a t there have been no s i g n i f i c a n t
shipments of high l e v e l waste, t o date.
I n f a c t , the Final design o f h i g h l e v e l
waste- 9ipment ca .:s has not beer! qelected.
I t i s impossible t o assess the t o t a l
impacts of a fuel cycle which i s not yet complete arc! f o r which no f i n a l designs and plans are available.
76
The potential for diversion of fissile material by unauthorized groups i s a further concern during the transport of nuclear fuels.
This problem i s
discussed in the context of the entire nuclear fuel cycle in section 111-8-7.
77
I 11-8-4: Can\tetsion
The conversion of f o s s i l fuels i n t o e l e c t r i c i t y produces t h e l a r g e s t amunt o f emissions i n these fuel sycles.
SOX, NOx and p a r t i c u l a t e s a r e the p o l l u t a n t s
which have been i d e n t i f i e d as being most critica1,although very important f o r
some types of coal and o i l d c s t i o n .
There has been a great deal of standards f o r f o s s i l plants.
t o x i c metals may be
(5,81-82)
debate r e c e n t l y about t h e SOX emission
Not o n l y i s there u n c e r t a i n t y about t h e r e l a t i o n -
s h i p between emissions and ambient l e v e l s but t h e r e i s t h e g r e a t u n c e r t a i n t y about t h e dose-response r e l a t i o n s h i p s .
Furthernore, t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s are
clouded by t h e great u n c e r t a i n t y about e x a c t l y which p o l l u t a n t s are causing t h e observed e f f e c t s .
SOX, for example, may e x e r t i t s e f f e c t through sone or a l l
o f the various s u l f a t e s which are formed from i t .
NOx a l s o i n t e r a c t s i n the
environment and seems t o e x e r t an impact through intermediary substances.
Thus
a l l the p o l l u t a n t s have t o be considered i n r e l a t i o n t o the environmental cond i t i o n s such as temperature, humidity, s u n l i g h t and the presence of o t h e r chemi c a l s
.
The technical r , - i i a b i l i t y
as w e l l as the need o f SOX contro
heatedly contested i n recent years.
It seems, however, t h a t the
has been ime (and pos-
s i b l y 1 imestone) scrubbers can operate re1 i a b i l y and w i t h removal e f f i c i e n c i e s
o f up t o about 9C5 on c m v e n t i o n a l co31 and o i l b o i l e r s w i t h a thermal e f f i c i e n c y penalty as w e l l as increased c a p i t a l and operating costs. (15) cation/combined-cycle
Low-Btu g a s i f i -
combustion seems t o o f f r - p o t e n t i a l s u l f u r removals o f 99%
o r more i n the combination w i t h thermal e f f i c i e n c i e s o f 45%.
There have been
some claims t h a t the thermal e f f i c i e n c i e s o f g a s i f i c a t i s n and cunbustion might t o t a l as much as 50% o r more.
j,28)
I n t h i s case the l i m i t i n g f a c t o r may not
be ?mission regulations but the need t o provic'e a very clean gas f o r t u r b i n e
78
fluidized-bed combustion seems
c . rbustion to a v o i d t u r b i n e blade darnage. (30)
t o have the p o t e n t i a l to remove up t o 95% of t h e s u l f u r contained i n t h e fuels.
(13) The present SOX emission standards w i l l not o n l y have t o be maintained but strengthened i n the f u t u r e i f t o t a l SOX emissions burdens a r e n o t t o r i s e considerably.
(2)
Table 111-8-3 i n d i c a t e s the removal e f f i c i e n c i e s which would be
needed f o r d i f f e r e n t kinds o f f u e l s and more s t r i n g e n t emission r e g u l a t i o n s .
I f the standard were t e n times more c r r i n g e n t than a t present, both r e s i d u a l f u e l o i l and western coal could be b u m d w i t h 95% removal o f s u l f u r .
Hwver,
if the standard were t o be 100 times nore s t r i n g e n t , SOX removal would have t o be greater than 99%for a l l the fuels and o n l y low-Btu g a s i f i c a t i o d c o m b i n e d c y c l e combustion might be able t o meet the requirement. Table 111-8-4
i l l u s t r a t e s the l e v e l o f premature deaths t h a t would be
associated w i t h emissions of SOX a t the ‘ates by more s t r i n g e n t standards i n the future.
allowed both by present standards and
The reader i s warned t h a t these
numbers, which a r e extrapolated on a 1 inear basis from reference (151, are subject t o a wide band o f uncertainty.
The upper and lower estimates i n each box of the
t a b l e r e f e r t o the range between remote and urban power p l a n t s i t e s i n reference
(15). I n order t o provide a very rough comparison w i t h the r i s k from nuclear power accidents the r e s u l t s o f the f o l l o w i n g c a l c u l a t i o n s are presented.
100 1000-Mwe power p l a n t s o p e r a t i n g a t
754
capacity f o r 30 years
Emission r a t e of 0.06 I b . SOx/million Btu (S? of - - - s e n t standard(100))
* 412 average thermal e f f i c i e n c y Uncertainty f a c t o r o f 1/10 t o 2 t i m e s i n the dose-response r e l a t i o n s h i p suggested by reference ( 1 5 ) . gives 72
- 4320
premature deaths i n 30 yea,.
This c a l c u l a t i o n i s very approximate and leaves out many a d d i t i o n a l impacts
79
.
such as nonfatal respiratory diseases, materials damage and e f f e c t s of other pollutants such as NO4, CO, solid particulate, etc. Table I 11-8-3:
Sulfur Removal Efficiency Reauired t o Heet Standards ~
I F u l f u r Standards ( I b SO2/ m i l l i o n BTU input)
10% 0.12
Eastern Coal 3.3% S 2/3 o f which has beem cleaned t o remove 40% of the SUI fur. 12,000 Btu/lb
70.2%
Western Coal 0.8% s 9000 B t d l b
32.5%
Residual Fuel O i l 1.0% s 6 6.3(10) Btu/bbl
Present ST 0.012 coal
- coal
-
i
-
0
80
97.0%
99 7%
93 3%
99.3%
88.5%
98 9%
-
f a b l e 111-6-4:
Health Effects of Sox: Premature dea t h s / h -y r The low number i n each box represents a remotely s i t e d p l a n t , the h i g h number an urban p l a n t as d e f i n e d by r e f . (15)
Sulfur Standards (Ib SO2 / m
-_____ _ - - .
.
--
Present emission standards for NOx are 0.7
I b / m i l l i o n B t u for s o l i d
fuelsand 0.3 l b / m i l l l o n B t u for l i q u i d fuels,which best a v a i l a b l e emibsion r a t e s f o r new b o i l e r s .
roughly corresponds t o the
By combustion m o d i f i c a t i o n I n
b o i l e r s these r a t e s can be lowered by a f a c t o r o f 1.5 o r 2.
Fluidized-bed
conbustion should be able t o meet o r exceed t h e 0.14 l b / m i l l i o n B t u r e g u l a t i o n p r o j e c t e d for 1985.
(13,15,91-98)
Although the removal of p a r t i c u l a t e s by weight i s very e f f i c i e n t , t h e smaller p a r t i c l e s which are not removed may have a s i g n i f cant h e a l t h impact. Nuclear power p l a n t s release r e 1 a t ; v c l y smal normal operations compared t o f o s s i l plants.
(129)
amounts of t o x i c m a t e r i a l d u r i n g
The concern and u n c e r t a i n t y 1 i e s i ~ t ti h
the possible release o f very l a r g e amounts o f rad oact i v e m a t e r i a l as the r e s u l t
o f accidents.
Since the beginning o f the nuclear power i n d u s t r y the p r o b a b i l i t y
81
and consequence o f such accidents has been subject t o considerable debate. l a t e 1971 the AEC issued i n d r a f t form a d e t a i l e d study (WASH-1400-Draft)
In that
attempted t o i d e n t i f y a l l p o s s i b l e accident sequences and t o estimate the prob a b i l i t y and s e v e r i t y associated w i t h each sequence. (17)
T h i s study examined
LWR's without plutonium r e c y c l e and d i d not consider accident sequences which could r e s u l t from sabotage or attempted d i v e r s i o n o f nuclear m a t e r i a l s .
Nothing
of comparable d e t a i l has been done on t h e o t h e r reactors or on o t h e r p a r t s o f the f u e l cycles.
Recognizing t h a t t h e other r e a c t o r s have very d i f f e r e n t
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and may have very d i f f e r e n t accident p r o b a b i l i t i e s and s e v e r i t i e s ,
we s h a l l concentrate on LWR accident r i s k s i n t h e f o l l o w i n g discussion. Table 111-6-5
l i s t s the r i s k s of deathlMwe-year f o r LWR's as determined
by Wash-?400 (17) and also l i s t s the range i n u n c e r t a i n t y i n both s e v e r i t i e s and p r o b a b i l i t i e s as i n d i c a t e d by t h e r e p o r t end by c r i t i c s of the r e p o r t . t o t a l range o f estimates i s very large.
The r i s k s range f r o m
5.9 x 10-5 deatt- 'MWe-yr based s o l e l y on W1400.
3.7
The
to
We b a v t added a f a c t o r of 20
t o t h e h i q h e n d based on the American Physical Society c r i t i q u e .
This was due t o
d i f f e r e n c e i n considering evacuation p,-ocedures, as w e l l as t o t a l population dose. I t should be m n t i o n e d t h a t o t h e r estimates made i n the past,
i f included, would
extend t h i s range appreciably i n both d i r e c t i o n s .
I f there was one sabotage o r d i v e r s i o n i n c i d e n t i n the 30 year o p e r a t i o n o f 100-1000 MWe power p l a n t s which caused 11000 somatic deaths, the r i s k from these causes would be 80x t h e r i s k s from the h i g h end of the range o f W1400 (Rasmussen).
This i s 4x the h i g h end o f W1400 a f t e r the f a c t o r o f 20 derived from
the American Physical Society c r i t i q u e has been a p p l i e d throughout (see Table 1 1 1 -
B-5).
Recently a very p r e l i m i n a r y attempt has been made t o u t i l i z e d e c i s i o n
tree
methodology t o q u a n t i f y the s o c i a l c o s t s o f nuclear and f o s s i l power s y s t e m s (Ref.
234).
A t e n t a t i v e f a c t o r of about 90 between the t o t a l s o c i a l cost o f nuclear
sabotage and d i v e r s i o n compared t o accidents was derived from t h i s study.
a'* 5: t';
Thus,
~ t h 0 - 5 of t h i s study are v e r y i n s i s t e n t that t h e i r numbers are not . (
.t
L I c l i i ~ i v e ,the t o t a l r i s k from sabotage may be very w c h more ' 1 . 1
f r o m accidents, as w e l l a s b e i n g more d i f f i c u l t
82
t o determine.
Table 111-8-5:
S o c i e t a l Dangers from LWR Accidents
@
Somatic death/Plwe-yr W-1400 r e f e r s to probabi 1i t l e s and s e v e r i t les In AEC d r a f t r e p o r t Wash-1400 (17). Pmbabi 1it y
-
I
Severity
W-1400
I
w-1400
)Il,x-6x@ W- 1400
3.3
W- 1400 1/3x-3x
Q
W- 1400 60x
@
-6
1.1-10.0
1.1-20.0
1 Haximum Accident Thousand Deaths
-6
5.0
-6 3.7-590.0
-7
1.7-15.0
6.6-120.0
-5
300.0
2.0 -4
I
J
a. b.
Factor of 20x a p p l i e d t o h i g h end (Ref.
c.
i.e., Somatic e f f e c t s are i n same generation of people, . .
Ranges i n Wash-1400
197) nG aenetic e f f e c t s .
If there was 1 a c t o f sabotage i n 1 0 0 p l a n t s o v e r 30 y r expected operation, which k i 1 led 11000, the r i s k o f sabotage would be 4x l a r g e r ?hac t h e h i g h end o f the range shown (1.2 x 10'3)
The table a l s o l i s t s t h e maximum s i z e accident t h a t would be associated w i t h each set of assumptions about s e v e r i t y .
I n order t o very r o u q h l y compare these r i s k s t o those o f a f o s s i l system the r e s u l t s of the f o l l o w i n g c a l c u l a t i o n a r e presented:
Total deaths = acute deaths a f .
accident p l u s f a t a l i t i e s from c h r o n i c e f f e c t s (50% of l a t = n t cancer and IS c f t h y r o i d cases assumed t o be f a t a l )
Range of genetic e f f e c t s from 0 t o 100% o f somatic e f f e c t s i s included,to b u t tne e f f e c t of l o n g - l i v e d radionL*clides i n the environment on f u t u r e generations i s excluded.
Range o f expected values:
1
-
540C deaths ;n 30 y e a r s .
83
I t should be remembered t h a t t h i s does not account f o r somatic and genetic ill-
nesses, property damage and contamination expenses, which w w l d a l s o be t h e r e s u l t o f accidents a t nuclear power plants.
I n a d d i t i o n , t h i s expected value i s
the average number o f deaths per 30 years which would be expected over a very long
period i f the a c t u a l r i s k s are as indicated.
Sabotage and long-term e f f e c t s of waste
storage are a l s o excluded from t h i s sample c a l c u l a t i o n .
The number o f deaths i n any
p a r t i c u l a r 30 year period o f operation o f 100 p l a n t s would most l i k e l y be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t and could range from zero t o m u l t i p l e s of 300,000 deaths.
The reader
i s r e f e r r e d to s e c t i o n 111-8-7 f o r a more d e t a i l e d discussion o f r i s k d i s t r i b u t i o n s .
111-8-5: Management of F i n a l Waste
Both coa! and nuclear systems c r e a t e considerable waste management and disposal problems.
However, the length o f time over which the waste i s o f
concern v a r i e s considerably between coal and nuclear systems.
See s e c t i o n
I11-6-7 for a b r i e f discussion of the imp1 i c a t i o n s o f these v a r i a t i o n s .
Coal p l a n t s w i t h scrubbers c r e a t e a l a r g e volume o f messy m a t e r i a l known as sludge.
Sludge i s composed o f about SO% water and 50% suspended s o l i d s md
various dissolved substances. The exact composition of the sol i d s and dissoived substances depends on the technology o f scrubbing and t h e k i n d of coal.
There
a r e s i g n i f i c a n t concentrations o f t o x i c elements i n the sludge from most coals. The most important elements,
i n terms of human health, seem to be mercury and
arsenic, and the sludge must be managed t o minimize the release o f these elements (87-90). Depending on the technology employed, f l y ash can be c o l l e c t e d along w i t h the s u l f u r and be a p a r t of the sludge or i t can be then added to the sludge o r disposed of
* separately.
c o l l e c t e d separately and This m i x t u r e of sludge
and ash can be piped o r otherwise transported t o ponds which are u n l i n e d or l i n e d t o reduce permeability.
I t can be dewatered and/or compacted by various
techniques t o a l e v e l of about 70% s o l i d s so t h a t i t can be used as f i l l .
The
best and most expensive methods are various p h y s i c a l and chemical treatments which f i x the t o x i c metals and make the sludge s u i t a b l e for f i l l w i t h o u t worry
*
Fluidized-bed systems create a smaller amount o f sludge and ash m i x t u r e w i t h a much higher p r o p o r t i o n o f ash. In a d d i t i o n , elemental s u l f u r i s produced f o r sale o r disposal. The g a s i f i e r a t a low-Btu gas/combined-cycle p l a n t creates mostly ash and elemental s u l f u r . A RFO p l a n t w i t h sLrubber would create a much smaller amount o f s i m i l a r mixture o f sludge and ash,
85
about r e w t t i n g .
I n a l l these cases the aim i s to reduce or e l iminate the
amount o f d i s s o l v e d s o l i d s and t o x i c elements t h a t e n t e r t h e hydrosphere.
I n our reference
coal scrubber system (wet
Iim)
i n Appendix A we have
assumed t h a t the ash and sludge a r e disposed o f together i n a l i n e d pond.
This
reduces the chance o f water p o l l u t i o n b u t i s n o t optimal i n terms of land use. Eventually some reclamation techniques w i l l have t o be a p p l i e d t o the ponds,
i f the land i s t o be reused. Nuclear waste presents a very d i f f e r e n t s e t o f problems.
There are three
types of nuclear waste described i n the tables i n Appendices E-H: mediate and low l e v e l waste.
high, i n t e r -
The volume o f h i g h l e v e l waste ( c o n t a i n i n g most
o f the f i s s i o n products and most o f the r a d i a t i o n a c t i v i t y i n a l l the wastes) is
very small compared t o scrubber sludge, f o r example.
rlowever, the t o x i c i t y
i s very h i g h and the m a t e r i a l reieases enough heat d u r i n g i t s i n i t i a l years o f decay t o r e q u i r e some s o r t o f p r o v i s i o n f o r heat removal. There are two philosophies about h i g h l e v e l waste management. "Storage",
&.
One i s
place the m a t e r i a l i n a l o c a t i o n where i t w i l l be i s o l a t e d from
the environmcnt and can be watched and r e t r i e v e d i f i t s t a r t s t o leak o r i e t t e r means of management are developed l a t e r .
The second i s "Oisposa
'I,
put
the m a t e r i a l i n some remote, s t a b l e geologic o r e x t r a - t e r r e s t r i a
l c c a t i o n where,
although i t would be d i f f i c u t o r impossible t o r e t r i e v e , i t woul
remain out o f
the e a r t h ' s biosphere f o r a s u f f i c i e n t time t o a l l o w the l o n g - l i v e d isotopes t o decay.
No permanent wabte disposal o r storage p l a n
i s i n o p e r a t i o n now,
8
although many are being i n v e s t i g a t e d .
(l9,zO).
Waste i s now temporarily stored
a t Nuclear Fuel Services f a c i l i t i e s (21) and u n t i l there i s a reprocessing p l a n t operating again, spent fuel rods are being stored a t the i n d i v i d u a l pover p l a n t s . (143).
86
The wastes c l a s s i f i e d as intermediate and l o w l e v e l have a very small f r a c t i o n of the t o t a l o r i g i n a l a c t i v i t y .
However, a f t e r a few hundred years most
of the f i s s i o n products i n the h i g h l e v e l wastes w i l l have decayed away, leaving the long-l ived transuranium
isotopes.
(193)
A t t h i s p o i n t the transuranium
c o n t a i n i n g intermediate and l o w l e v e l wastes w i l l be e q u a l l y as dangerous as h i g h l e v e l wastes.
Only about 50% of t h e transuranium waste ( i n the LWR c y c l e ) The r e s t of these wastes a r e a t low l e v e l which,
i s i n the h i g h l e v e l waste.
u n l i k e s o l i d i f i e d high l e v e l waste,
i s very heterogeneous and con-
s i s t s of l i q u i d s , pieces o f machinery, t o o l s , c l o t h i n g ,
i n c i n e r a t e d paper,
=.
Disposal methods for these m a t e r i a l s have not been i n v e s t i g a t e d n e a r l y as w e l l as have ?be means
of disposing of the h i q h l e v e l wastes, althouqh i n the long-term
the l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y may be g r e a t e r because o f a s i m i l a r trans-uranium cont e n t and a very much l a r g e r and more heterogeneous amount of m a t e r i a l . F i n a l l y , the f a c i l i t i e s themselves can present considerable long-term waste disposal problems.
Strip-mined or otherwise damaged land, t a i l i n g s p i l e s
and ponds, sludge ponds and refuse banks,if
not p r o p e r l y reclaimed,can be an
aesthet c , economic, e c o l o g i c a l and h e a l t h d e f i c i t s f o r many years.
Retired
nuc 1ear f a c i l i t i e s can be the source of c o n t i n u i n g hazard unless p r o p e r l y decommiss oned and dismantled o r otherwise made safe. s i v e (see Section 111-4-5) o r storage. (165
This may be q u i t e expen-
and be the source o f a d d i t i o n a l waste f o r disposal
- 167).
No consideration i s given t o long-term h e a l t h e f f e c t s of nuclear waster r x e
they are deposited i n t o r e t r i e v a b l e storage o r permanently disposed i n t o c e o i ? g i c a l formations, ejected i n t o the sun, e t c . has been chosen a t t h i s time,
Since no long-term waste management olan
i t i s impossible t o properly evaluate the p o t e n t i a l
h e a l t h impacts.
a7
I11-6-6: Ind ices In comparing one system to another i t is u c c a l l y necessary t o make judgements about the r e l a t i v e weights t o be given t o completely d i f f e r e n t kinds o f impacts and emissions.
This i s a very d i f f i c u l t task
unpleasant choices.
There have been many attempts t o q u a n t i f y t h e Impacts and
m environmental q u a l i t y u n i t o r nore
emissions i n t o a s i n g l e unit-sometimes usually, d o l l a r s .
(4,15,206-214,
234)
Developing and u t i l i z i n g such an index t h i s study.
and always involves a r b i t r a r y and
system was not one of the tasks of
However, i t seems appropriate t o comment on possible methods t o
weigh the various impacts and emissions. When cornparins the emissions from a coal power system and a nuclear power system, f o r example, one
Is faced w i t h the problem of cornparing chemical and
radiological pollutants.
One method o f doing t h i s i s t o c a l c u l a t e d i l u t i o n
vuvumes. (208-212)
Most a i r and water pollutants, whether r a d i o l o g i c a l o r
chemical, have a maximum a1 lowable ambient concentration set by government standards. The d i l u t i o n volume i s the amount o f a i r or water t h a t vould be necessary t o d i l u t e a p a r t f c u l a r amount o f emissions t o the concentration set i n the standard.
Below arc some examples o f d i l u t i o n volumes i n a i r .
1.0 Curie o f H-3
---
---
1.0 Curie o f PU-239
1.0 kilogram o i SO2
1.0 k i logram o f NO2
5.0 m i l l i o n cubic meters
-----
1.7 ( 10 ) 7 m i l l i o n cubic meters 12.5 r i l l i o n cubic meters 10.4
nli
11 i o n cubic meters
There a r e several problems w i t h t h i s method.
F i r s t l y , i t i s not a t a l l
c l e a r that the d i f f e r e n t standards have been set w i t h e i t h e r accurate information o r w i t h the same c r i t e r i a .
A d d i t f o n a l l y , these standards do n c t consider thc
88
l i f e t i m e of the substances i n the environment. ambhnt l e v e l s acd t
--IS
They are only designed t o regulate
do not r e f l e c t how long the m a t e r i a l w i l l be i n the environ-
ment and for. what length o f time the d i l u t i o n w i l l be necessary. This may be very important when comparing radiosotopes w i t h chemicals.
A
kg o f S s f o r example w i l l r e q u i r e a d i l u t i o n volume o f 12.5 m l l l i o n cubic meters
a t f i r s t , b u t a f t e r a few nours o r days w i l l be completely degraded.
C i o f plu-
tonturn, gn the o t h e r hand, would r e q u i r e l . 7 ( l O ) 7 m i l l i o n cubic meters, but
I t does not degrade appreci-bly I n any memingful time span.
Thus, should i t
remain i r l -,,e a i r , the plutonium w i l l i n d e f i n i t e l y r e q u i r e t h i s volume f o r
Of course i t i s u r t l i k e l y t o remain suspended i n the a i r , b u t
dilution.
the impor-
t a n t p o i n t i s t h a t radioisotopes degrade a t the r a t e o f t h e i r r a d i a t i o n h a l f - l i f e and no f a s t e r w h i l e many chemical p o l l u t a n t s degrade q u i t e q u i c k l y i n the environment.
Some chemical p o l l u t a n t s , such as t o x i c metals, may a l s o have long environ-
mental residencetimes.
A f u r t h e r problem i n using d i l u t i o n volumes i s t h a t both
radioisotopes and chemical pollutants o f t e n degrade i c t o substances of equal o r greater t o x i c i t y ti1.m the o r i g i n a l substance.
F i n a l l y , d i l u t i o n volumes do not
account f o r synergisms i.e. - substances can a c t i n cbacert t o cause an e f f e c t much l a r g e r than the sum o f the e f f e c t s o f each substance a c t i n g s i n g l y .
The u l t i m a t e
absurdity would be t o have a l i t e r of a i r i n which a l l the thousands o f possible p o l l u t a n t s are contained a t t h e i r legal concentrations.
The p o l l u t a n t s would e f f e c t i v e l y be
d i l u t i n g each other and the t o t a l environmental and h e a l t h impact would be very unce r t a in
.
Cautioning the reader t o keep i n mind the problems o f using d i l u t i o n volumes, we have compared the r o u t i n e emissions o f systems i n t a b l e 111-6-6.
i
wedloloot' -
Ia.
'-
b226.228
@
H-3, K r - 6 . Pu@
rgs
rnlutian kbluntes
0.02
Assumes 40% Ra-228,
- 0.7 60%
65.0
- 7,000
Ra-226.
b.
Assumes a1 1 release
c.
These values should be considered only as gross approximations (see text). Only considers routine emissions. Does irot account for enwironmental lifetfme of these materials.
label led frans-Uranium i s plutonfum-239.
90
We have p m i d e d a person-day loss figure for health impacts.
This i s
eftm used to weigh the relatiwe m o r t a l i t y and morbidity rates and t o account
few the awerage severity of the d i s a b i l i t i e s .
Many studies convert person-
&ys l o s t into a dollar figure as a method of comparing health impacts w i t h other iqmcts. t we
This may be a severe case o f not seeing the forest because of the trees.
should t r y t o maximize i s the q u a l i t y of human l i f e , not one p a r t i c u l a r
msource. In many cases
loso
i t i s d i f f i c u l t to assess the impact of a p a r t i c u l a r
or gain on the q u a l i t y o f l i f e , e.g.
the e x t i n c t i o n of an animal species,
but very few would argue that I l l - h e a l t h i s not a debit under almost a l l situations.
This should not be forgotten when i l l - h e a l t h costs are calculated.
The
days l o s t to a m C m r who has been k i l l e d cannot be returned t o h i m by a goernn m t Benefit check, even though accounted for i n the overall economic tabulation.
Wealth
Is not completely a buyable or salable commodity.
The development o f accurate, relevant and usatle indices should have a high p r i o r i t y .
This report and others l i k e i t should be o f value as input t o
the formulation o f these indices.
91
I 11-8-7:
Glebal and Social Effects There are a multitude of environmental e f f e c t s associated w i t h energy use and underst&
w i t h varying degrees ob inexactitude.
Some of these effects
m y be important and, may owersttadow the b e t t e r understood e f f e c t s l i s t e d i n
the tables i n Appedices A
- H.
k a l , reqianal and global changes i n climate hawe been associated w i t h I
emissions of particulates, C02 and heat. nature can be s a i d about
#mevet, l i t t l e of a q u a n t i t a t i v e
the Qose-response
tants &ad c l i m a t i c change.
relationships linking these p o l l u -
(48)
Acid r a i n and long-term build-up of a c i d s o i l frm a i r p o l l u t a n t s creates
ecological and economic impacts o f a magnitude yet t o be precisely determined. Atmospheric bui Id-up and food-chain concentration o f radionuclides and other
toxic materials may besom a problem.
(Some beliewe, for example, t h a t the
ircinogenic potential of tobacco i s due to nuclear weapons fallout.)
(Ref.235) Energy
systems cause local changes i n ecological relationships which may iead t o undes i rable perturbations o f important b i o l o g i c a l systems.
(49)
The impact o f an increased environmental load of chemical and radionuclide mutagens on genetic disease and evolution i s not understood.
In addition,
synergistic e f f e c t s o f pollutants may lead t o more carcinogenesis and other diseases than would be estimated by examining each p o l l u t a n t separately.
A l l of the above e f f e c t s e x i s t but the data are much too preliminary and scanty t o make any d e f i n i t e conclusions about t h e i r magnitudes. close scrutiny
SO
A l l deserve
that we w i l l be able t o perceive any adverse e f f e c t s before
an over-dependence on a p a r t i c u l a r offending system makes orderly change d i ff i c u l t. I n addition, there i s a v a r i e t y o f social e f f e c l s associated w i t h energy
92
twtearr.
Stme of these effects am be predicted eRQ observed and,with
planning
end allocatien of resources, m i t i g a t e d to a great extent.
not -11
understood or
are
proper
Others am
not subject t o obvious solution.
tke constructfon and operation o f power plants, mines and other f a c l l l t i e s
-
kes an impact on local economics, soda1 services, hwsing etc. especially i n areas suth as the western range states where there has been l i t t l e developnwtnt. There is also a competition for scarce resources (e.$.
for devslapment. mnsiderable 1-1
land
workers and water) needed
use and s i t i n g pmblerss can be sewere and be the cause of
disruption and unrest.
The existence of f i s s l e material i n nuclear fuel cycles creates another type of social problem.
The esttent t o which such material can be safeguarded
against diversion attempts by criminal o r t e r r o r i s t groups i s unknown, as i s the l i k l i h o o d o f any group attempting such an anti-social act.
In Appendices E
-H
we have l i s t e d the amounts a f material suitable for making nuclear explosives. The d i f f i c u l t y o f stealing material or using i t to fabricate a nuclear explosive
(or dispersal device) varies considerably between fuel cycle steps and cycles. We have not t r i e d t o d e t a i l these d i f f i c u l t i e s but only t o l i s t the amounts a t each fuel cycle step. I n addition, t o some extent, the use o f nuclear power changes the likelihood o f international nuclear c o n f l i c t because of the ease i n which nuclear reactor fuel and by-products can be used t o make weapons. divided neatly i n t o e l e c t r i c power and weapons. have the other.
Nuclear energy cannot be Having one capability i s t o
However, the extent t o which unilateral decisions about nuclear
power taken by the U.S.A.
might influence other countries i s not a t e l l certain.
Altering the international demand f o r energy commodities such as petroleum, uranium and scarce metals f o r reactor construction might also push world p o l i t i c a l and economic patterns toward less stabi 1 ity.
93
These kinds of social, p o l i t i c a l and economic problems are p o t e n t i a l l y severe and a consideration o f them should be brought into any f u l l a c c m n t i n g
o f the impacts and costs of energy systems. F i n a l l y , there are two more s u b t l e s o c i a l issues which need t o be addressed. The f i r s t , mentioned ' b r i e f l y i n section I l l - B - 4 ,
i s r i s k distribution.
comparing a l t e r n a t i v e means t o reach the same objective,as
In
i n the case o f
choosing between d i f f e r e n t e l e c t r i c power systems, the d i s t r l b u t i o n o f impacts over time, distance and population may be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t i n d i f f e r e n t systems. To merely t o t a l the impacts for each system does not provide enough information about when, where and t o whom the impacts w i l l occur. Consider the choice between b u i l d i n g a nuclear o r c o a l - f i r e d power p l a n t .
I f one t r i e s t o compare the h e a l t h impacts, the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r i s k s and impacts i s so d i f f e r e n t i n each system t h a t i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o understand the s i g n i f i cance o f the d i f f e r e n c e i n the magnitude of impacts.
Coal e l e c t r i c systems
seem t o have a r e l a t i v e l y constant impact due t o a i r p o l l u t i o n , mine cave-ins, etc.
Nuclear power systems have r e l a t i v e l y low r o u t i n e impact but have a small
chance of very large accidents which could k i l l and i n j u r e a large number o f people.
Should we b u i l d a system t h a t w i l l k i l l 30x persons ( f o r example) i n
i t s l i f e t i m e w i t h r e l a t i v e c e r t a i n t y or the o t h e r which might k i l l lOOx but more l i k e l y w i l l k i l l o n l y x over i t s l i f e t i m e ?
(This i s an o v e r - s i m p l i f i c a t i o n ,
for there i s a c t u a l l v a series of possible nuclear power p l a n t accidents ranging from very s l i g h t t o very catastrophic.)
The decision i s not easy.
Most i n d i v i d u a l s who are asked t o make decisions i n v o l v i n g high s e v e r i t y / low probabi 1 i t y outcomes are r i s k averse, i .e. they w i ! 1 not choose any a1 ternat i v e that has an appreciable chance o f a b i g loss unless the chance o f possible benefits i s very much larger.
Large i n s t i t u t i o n s , s u c h as governments,tend t o
be less r i s k averse,although there i s evidence t o show that they a r e a l s o r i s k
94
averse when faced w i t h p o s s i b l e s e v e r i t i e s which would be as c a t a s t r o p h i c t o them as a much smaller l o s s would be t o an I n d i v i d u a l . such a s i t u a t i o n .
Nuclear power may be
Thus, although t h e average (expected value) impact o f coal
systems may be greater, the amount of s o c i a l , economic and p o l i t i c a l d i s r u p t i o n t h a t would accompany the h e a l t h damzges i n c u r r e d from a nuclear power p l a n t accident may be a t such a l e v e l t h a t even governments w i l l a c t i n a r i s k averse The u n c e r t a i n t i e s and stakes may be t o o h i g h for
manner and choose coal.
i n d i v i d u a l a c t i n g i n groups t o undertake.
I n a d d i t i o n , although such d e c i s i o n s
are made by the group,the a c t u a l r i s k s and b e n e f i t s a r e not spread e q u a l l y throughout the population.
The coal miner and t h e person l i v i n g near a nuclear
o r coal power p l a n t have a much d i f f e r e n t r i s k than the c i t y d w e l l e r l i v i n g upwind from a l l the p l a n t s .
I t i s not c l e a r t h a t using the average r i s k i s com-
p l e t e l y equitable. Cost/benefi t and r i s k j a n a l y s i s approaches have been attempted over and over again (15,191,199-203)
f o r these questions, b u t the b a s i c questions o f r i s k d i s t r i
b u t i o n and e q u i t y have n o t been solved. The l a s t s o c i a l issue t o be discussed here i s a g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of the r i s k d i s t r i b u t i o n issues discussed above.
This i s the problem o f time.
Just as the
t i m e d i s t r ; b u t i o n o f accident r i s k v a r i e s f o r d i f f e r e n t systems, the t i m e d i s t r i -
b u t i o n o f o t h e r costs and impacts can have s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s .
Str:p-mined
land, nuclear waste, released radioisotopes and t o x i c metals a1 1 continue t o e x e r t costs and impacts well beyond the t i m e the power systems t h a t created them have been shut down.
I r r e v e r s i b l e cwnmmi h e : - 1 t 5 and J e p l e L i u i i cif resources
a l s o create impacts on the f u t u r e .
The use o f economic d i s c o u n t i n g ( t o account
f o r the o p p o r t u n i t y cost o f c a p i t a l ) does not always seem an e q u i t a b l e way t o deal w i t h :3ese problems.
Our r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o the f u t u r e , o r ,
the problems o f inter-temporal e q u i t y , should be confronted.
95
i n o t h e r words,
References Abbreviations Used i n References
AEC ANL 8AT BNL BOM CEQ 00 I €PA EPP- Ford
ERDA EPR I FEA FEA-P I FPC HW JPL NAE tJAS NASA NRC ORNL 0ST UARL CEP
Atomic Energy Conmission Argonne Na t ional Laborator ies , Argonne , I 11ino is Battel l e Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio and Richland, Washington Brooklxaven National Laboratory, Upton. New York Bureau o f Mines Counc i 1 on Envi ronmental Qual it y Department of the I n t e r i o r Environmental Protection Agency Energy Policy Project of the Ford Foundation Energy Research and DeveloqInent A4ministration E l e c t r i c Power Research I n s t i t u t e , Palo A l t o , California Federa 1 Energy Admi n ist r at ion Federal Energy Administration, Project Independence Task Force Re:- I r t Federal Power Commission Department o f Health, Educatim and Welfare Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, C a l i f o r n i a National Academy of Engineering Mat iona 1 Academy o f Sc iences (NRCo: Na t iona 1 Research Counc i 1) National Aeronautics and Space Admi n i s t r a t Ion Nuc 1ear Regu1a tory Comniss ion Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee O f f ice o f Science b Techno1ogy United A i r c r a f t Research Laboratories, East Hartford, Connecticut Cornel Energy Project, I t h l c a , New York Format Used i n References
"Title",
Jourqal
, Volume:
Article:
Author,,
Book :
Author, T i t l e , Pub1 isher, Date.
Report:
Author, "Title",
page
(or only page), Date.
-
Agency or Laboratory o r Project, Report #, Date.
1.
"Environmental Impacts, E f f i c i e n c y and Cost of Energy Supply and End Use," Hittman Associates, Inc., Columbia, Maryland, HIT-593, prepared for CEQ, NSf, and EPA, vot. 1: 11/74, vol. 2: 1/75.
2.
"Energy and the Environment:
3.
"Fuel Cycles f o r E l e c t r i c Power Generation, Parts I and I I , Towards Comprehensive Standards: The E l e c t r i c Power Case," Teknekron, Inc., Berkeley, Ca., prepared for EPA, EEEO-103-106, 11/74.
4.
"Environmental EPA, 4/73.
5.
"Social Costs for A l t e r n a t i v e Means of E l e c t r i c a l Power Generation for 1980 and 1990," ANL-8093 (vol. 1-41, 3/73.
6.
"Proposed F i n a l Environmental Statement: 1535 (vol. 1-7), 12/74.
7.
"Comparative Risk-Cos:-Benef it Study of A l t e r n a t i v e rources of E l e c t r i c a l Energy," AEC, Wash-1224 (plus appendix), 12/74.
8.
"Path t o Self-Suff iciency: D;rections and Constrzints," F i n a l Report-Phase I, Bechtel Corp., San Francisco, Ca., prepared for WSF, 8174 !See r e f . 36).
9.
"Environmental
E l e c t r i c Power,''
CEQ, 8/73.
Considerations i n Future Energy Growth,"
BAT, prepared for
The CMFBR Program,"
Survey o f che Uranium Fuel Cycle,"
AEC, Wash-
AEC, Wash-1248, 4/74.
10.
Hamilton, L. O., ( e d i t o r ) , "The Health and Environmental E f f e c t s of Elect r i c a l Generation--a Prel iminary Report," BNL-BEAG-HE/EE, 7/74.
11.
"Mucl ear Power Growth, 1974-2000 ,'I AEC , Wash-1 139 (74)
12.
"Generic Environmental Statement Mixed Oxide Fuel ,I' D r a f t , AEC, Wash-1327, (Volumes 1-41. 8/74.
13.
Kearns, P. L., e t a l . , "Evaluation o f the F l u i d i z e d Bed Combustion Process," (vol 1-4) E P A - m - 7 3 - 0 4 8 , 12/73 (updates r e f . 63)
14.
"Safety o f Nuclear Power Reactor.
, 2/74.
.
and Related F a c i l i t i e s , "
AEC, Wash-1250,
7/73.
15.
" A i r Q u a l i t y and Stationary Source Emission Control ,'I A Report by the Conmission an Natural Resources NAS, NAE & NRCo., prepared f o r the Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, 3/75.
16.
Carnow, 8. W. e t a t . , "Health E f f e c t s of F o s s i l Fuel Combustion: a QuantiAmerican Pub1 i c Health Association, EPP-Ford, 9/74. t a t i v e Appropch,"
97
17
"Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accidental Risks i n U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, Draft," AEC, Wash-1400 ( t h e Rasmussen Report), volumes 1-10, 8/74.
18.
"Environmental Survey of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f Radioactive M a t e r i a l s AEC, Wash-1238, 12/72. from Nuclear Power Plants,"
19
"Environmental Statement: Management o f Comnercial High Level and Transuran i um-Contami nated Radioactive Waste , Oraf t ,"AEC , Wash-1539, 9/74.
20.
"High-level
21.
"The Nuclear Industry ,I' AEC, Wash-1 174 (73) : 2/74,
22.
'The E f f e c t s on Populations of Exposures to Low Levels of lonirlnq Radiation." Report of t h e Advisory Comnittee on t h e B i o l c w i c a l Effects o f lonizlncl Radiations (BEIR Report), NAS, NRCo.; 11/72.
23
H o t t e l , H. C., and 3. B. Howard, New Enerqy Technoloyy: Assessments, M I 1 Press, Cambridge, 1971
24.
A Time t o Choose:
25
"M inera I Resources and the Env i ronment ,I'
26.
"Evaluation of Coal Conversion Processes to Provide Clean Fuels,'' o f Michigan, College of Engineering, EPRI-206-0-0, 2/74.
27.
Bowers, H. I . , e t a l . , "Concept--Computerized Cost Estimates for Steam ElecSee a l s o t r i c Power Plants; Phase I I User's Manual," ORNL-4809, 4/73. "Concept I I I Supplemental U s e r ' s I n s t r u c t i o n s , " ORNL, 2S/Mar/74.
28.
"Progress Report No. 3 , Comparative Assessment of O r b i t a l and T e r r e s t r i a l Central Power Stations, JPL, 28/Feb/75.
29.
Phan, R . , "Prel iminar.1 Data on Conventional Power P l a n t C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , " JPL, 6/74.
39.
Giramonti, H. J.,
31
-
Radioactive Waste Management A1 ternatives,"
To and
AEC, Wash-1297,
5/74.
Wash-1 174 (74) : 2/75.
Same Facts and
America's Enerqy Future, EPP-Ford, B a l l inger, Cambridge, 1974.
NAS , 1975. University
-
e t al.,
"Advanced E l e c t r i c Power Systems,'' UffRL, 1017' 4.
"Monthly Fuel Cost and O u a l i t y Information f o r December, 1974," Release No. 21257, 26/Mar/75.
FPC,
Nw.5
32.
"Projections of Cabbr Requirements f o r E l e c t r i c a l Power P l a n t Construction," AEC, Wash-1332, 8,174.
33.
"Analysis o f Requirements and Constraints on the Transport o f Energy Mate*r;als, 4 0 1 . 1 , ' ' F E A - P I , 11/74.
34.
"Labor Report , ' I
FEA-PI
,
11/74.
35.
" A v a i l a b i l i t i e s , Requirements, and Constraints on M a t e r i a l s , Equipment, and Construct i o n ,I' FEA-PI , 11/74. "Path t o S e l f - S u f f i c i e n c y : D i r e c t i o n s and Constraints, Phase I I ,'I Bechtel, San Francisco, Ca., f o r O f f i c e o f Energy R t D P o l i c y , NSF, Contract No. C869, due t o be released i n June, 1975. (See r e f . 8).
37.
"Cost Studies o f Steam-Electric Power Plants," AEC, Wash-1230, v o l . 1-4: 1572, v o l . 5: 1974.
38.
"Construction Review,'' U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2/75.
39.
"Power P l a n t C a p i t a l Costs: Current Trends and S e n s i t i v i t y t o Economic Parameters," AEC, Wash-1345, l O / i h .
40.
'Isteam-Electric P l a n t Construction Cost and Annual Production Expenses-1972," FPC, S-237, 4/74.
41.
"Annual Report o f the Council o f Economic Advisors t o the President o f t h e U. S . , " 2/75.
42.
"Energy Conversion A1 t e r n a t i v e Systems (ECAS) Study," Ohio, being prepared f o r NASA, NSF, and ERDA.
43.
"Engineering f o r Resolution o f the Energy-Ewironment Dilemma,"
44.
"U.S.
45.
"Report o f the Cornell Wcrkshop on the Major Issues o f a National Energv Research and Developnent Program," Cornel1 Univ. * College of Engineering, T I 0-26528, 12/73.
46.
"Energy Technology t o the Year 2000," Review October 1971-January, 1972.
47.
"Envi ronmental Qual i ty,"
48.
Man's Impact on the Global Environmmt, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1970. and Inadvertent Climate M o d i f i c a t i o r , M I T Press, Cambridge, 1971.
49.
Holdren, J. P., P . R. f h r l i c h , "Human Population and the Global Environment," American S c i e n t i s t , b2:282, May-!une, 1974.
50.
Dole, S . H., e t a l . , "Environmental Factors i n the Producticn and Use o f Electr;city," Rand Corp., San:: Monica, Ca., H , 9 9 2 - R F , 1/73.
5;.
Metz, W. D . , "Energy Conservation: B e t t e r L i v i n g through Thermodynawics," Science, 188:820, 2j/May/75 !a r e p o r t on :he 1974 American Physics S o c i e t v ' s s t u c y , " E f f i c i e n t Use o f Energy: A Physics Perspective.")
Energy Prospects:
An Engineering Viehpoint
,"
NASA-Lswis, Cleveland,
NAE, 1974.
a Special Symposiur,
Annual Report o f the CEO.,
NAE, 1972.
Technolcgy
12/74.
-
99
52.
"Practices and Standards: Opportunities for Energy Conservation ,I' National Power Survey, 12/73.
53.
Levine, M. D., "Evaluation o f Environmental Impacts o f Options for DevelStanford Research I n s t i t u t e , Palo A l t o , opment and Use o f Western Coal," Ca., 12/74.
54.
G i l b e r t , R., " E l e c t r i c i t y Generating Options for t h e Northeast U t i l i z i n g Western Low-sul f u r Coal ,I' CEP-#73-10, 12/73.
55.
Lock1 i n , 0. W., gram, 9/74.
56.
Mai 11, R., e t al., "Transition t o Coal, Research Program on Technology and P u b l i c 'poT.fi," Thayer School o f Engineering, Dartmouth, DSD-18, 11/74.
57.
"Basic Estimated Capital Investment and Operating Costs for Coal S t r i p BOM IC-8661, 1974. Mines,"
58
Stacks, J. F.,
59
Beslin, J. J., e t al., Energy Program
60.
"Basic Estimated Capital Investment and Operating Costs for Coal S t r i p Mines," BOM, IC-8661, 1974.
e t al.,
"Power Plant U t ? li t a t i o n of Coal ,I' BAT Energy Pro-
Stripping, S i e r r a Clcb, San Francisco, 1972. "Observations ,m.
600. "Coal
,It
FPC,
on the Surface Mining o f Coal,"
BAT
FEA-PI, 11/74.
61.
S m i t h , R. M., "Mine Spoil P o t e n t i a l for S o i l and Water Quality," 74-070 10/74.
62.
Kube, W.,
63.
" I n t e r p r e t a t i v e Compilation of EPA Studies Related Hoffman, L., e t al., t o Coal Qual i t y and Clzanabi 1 it y ,I' EPA-650/2-74-030, 5/74.
64.
Osborn, E. F., 8/Feb/74.
65
"Report o f the Status o f Lime/lirnestone Wet Scrubber Systems," EPA-450/3-74-014, 1/74.
66.
McSorley, J. A., " A p p l i c a b i l i t y o f SO2 Control Processes t o Power Plants," EPA-R2-72-? 20, 11/72.
67.
"Evaluhtion o f C o n t r o l a b i l i t y o f Power Plants baving a S i g n i f i c a n t Impact on A i r Quality Standards ,I' EPA-450/3-74-001, 2/74.
68.
"Proceedings o 12/73.
69.
"Flue Gas Desu f u r i z a t i o n :
e t al.,
"Technology and Use o f Lignite,''
BOM-IC-8543,
"Coal and the Present Energy Situation,"
EPA-650121972.
Scienze, 183:477 Radian Corp.,
the Flue Gas D e s u l f u r i z a t i o n Symposium, 1973, EPA-650/2-73-038, Answers t o P n r i c Questions,"
100
EPA-450/9-73-001,
8/73.
70.
"Evaluation o f SO2 Control Processes,"
71
ltFinal Report o f the SOX Control Technology Assessment Panel, Project( j U t i 1 i t a t i o n of Stack Gas Cleaning Systems by Steam E l e c t r i c Plants," A p r i l 15, I973 (SOCTAP Report), Federal Interagency Committee Evaluation of State A i r Plans, EPA-APTO-1569, 1973.
72
Weaver, P. H.,
73 74.
EPA-APTD-1087,
"Behind the Great Scrubber Fracas,"
10/71
Fortune, p. 106, 2/75.
Papay, L. T., "An E l e c t r i c U t i 1 i t y Strategy o f Responses t o Varying Sulfur Standards,'' 9 t h World Energy Conference, Oetroi t, 1974. "Flue Gas Desulfurization:
I n s t a l l a t i o n s and Operations,"
EPA, 9/74.
, 2/75.
75.
"Report t o Congress on Control o f Sulfur Oxides ,)I
76.
"Final Report o f the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Control techno1ogy f o r Energy Sys tems ,I' CEQ, 11/74.
77
McCann, C., "Combustion Control o f P o l l u t a n t s from Multi-Burner CoalF i red Sys tems ," EPA-650/2-74-039, May, 1974.
78. 0
80.
81.
,
"Proceed ings o f the Coa i Combus c Ion Semi nar ,Ib June, 1973, EPA-650/2-73-021
.
9/73.
79
EPA-450/1-75-001
Jaln, L. K., e t al., "State of the A r t for C o n t r o l l i n g NOx Em\sslons, P a r t 1: U t i 1 i t y Bo1 l e v EPA-R2-72-0728, 9/72. Bedrosian, P. H., "Radiological Survey Around Power Plants Using F o s s i l Fuels ,I' Eastern Environmental Radiation Lab., Montgomery , Ala. , EERL-71-3. Available from €PA, 7/70. Magee, E. M.,
e t al.,
"Potential P o l l u t a n t s i n Fossil Fuels,"
EPA-R2-73-249,
6/73. and Controls f o r Hazardous and Other
82.
Goldberg, A. J., "Survey o f Emissions Pol lutants," EPA-Rh-73-kO21, 2/73.
83.
Gouldin, F. C., "The Impact o f Federal Amtient A i r Q u a l i t y Standards on Coal-Fired Power Plants," CEP #73-12, 12/73.
84.
Aleta, C. R., ary Sources,''
85
"A C r i t i q u e o f the New EPA Emission Standards for New StationAleta, C. R., 3ry Sources ," CEP #71-11, 1 0 m .
86.
''Cornpi l a t i o n of A i r P o l l u t a n t Emission Factors,"
87
"Evaluation o f Sludge Disposal Options:
"A C r i t i q u e o f the New €PA Emission Standards f o r New StationCEP #71-11, 10/7l.
101
EPA-AP-42,
4/73.
Lime/l imestone, EPA-450/3-74-016,
11/73.
88.
"Evaluation o f Dewatering o f Limestone Wet Scrubbing Process Sludge,'' EPA-R2-73-262, 5/73.
89.
P h i l l i p s , N. D . , e t a l . ,
90
Rossoff, J., Rossi, R.C.,"Disposal o f By-products from Non-regenerable Flue Gas D e s u l f u r i z a t i o n Systems: I n i t i a l Report ," EPA-650/2-74-037a, 5/74. A l s o see Status Report o f t h e same p r o j e c t dated 11/74 and a v a i l a b l e from Aerospace Corp., E l Segundo, Ca.
91
"Reduction of Atmospheric Pol lution,"vol. 1 , National peal Board, F l u i d i z e d Bed Group, London, Avai l a b l e from €PA, 9/71.
92
"Proceedings o f 3rd I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference on F l u i d i z e d Bed Combustion," Oct , 1973, €PA-650/2-73-053, 12/73.
93
Hoke, R. C., -.e t al., "Regenerative Limestone Process f o r F l u i d i z e d Bed Coal Combustion and Desul f u r i z a t ion," EPA-650/2-74-0Cl, 1/74
94.
Archer, D., e t a l . , "Evaluation o f the F l u i d i z e d Bed Combustion Process,'' Volumes 1 - 3 , ~ ~ P f D - 1 1 6 5 , 1 1 6 6 , 1167, 11/71, (see reference 13).
95.
Vogel, G., "Reduction o f Atmospheric P o l l u t i o n by A p p l i c a t i o n o f F l u i d i z e d EPA-R2-73-253, 6/73. Bed Combustion and Regeneration,''
96.
Keairns. D. L., "Design o f a Pressurized F l u i d i z e d Bed B o i l e r Power Plant," American l n s t i t u t e o f Chemical Engineers Sympr,;,m Series, No. 126, v o l . 68, 1972
97.
"Fevelopment o f Coal F i r e d F l u i d i z e d Bed t a i l e r s , F i n a l Report," v o l . I I , Research and Development Report No. 36, Dol, O f f i c e o f Coal Research, 2/72.
98. 99.
"Sol i d Waste Dispcsal ,I'
EPA-650/2-74-033,
5/74.
.
' F l u i d i z e d Bed B o i l e r Cuts P o l l u t a n t 'Toal Gasification Coal , I ' FEA-PI , 1
I'
E l e c t r i c a l World, 15/Jan/73.
- 1 Combined-Cycle r,ombustion Synthetic Fuels from
w.1.
100.
Review o f Developments i n Coal G a s i f i c e t i o n , Hearings before the Senate Committee on Minerals, M a t e r i a l s , and Fuel o f the Committee on I n t e r n a l and I n s u l a r A f f a i r s , U.S. Congress, 18/Nov/71.
101.
Robson, F., "Technology and Economic Feasibi 1 i t y o f Advanced Power Cycles EPA-APTDend Methods o f Producing Non-pol l u t i n g Fuels f c r Power Plants," 0661, 12/70.
102.
Linden, H. R., "Prospects and Problems o f Coal G a s i f i c a t i o n , " on P r o j e c t Independence, Denver, 8/74.
103.
Metz, W. D., "Power Gas and Combined Cycles: Science, 173:54, 5/Jan/73.
FEA Hearings
Clean Power from Fossi: F u e l s , "
l O 3 A . Armstrong, C. ti., "Technology Advances Raising Combined C y c l e E f f i c i e n c y , " Gas Turbine I n t e r n a t i o n a l , p. 38, Sept-Oct, 1974.
102
-
104.
Robson, F. L., e t al., "Environmental Impact of Coal-based Advanced Power Generating Sys term ,'I UARL 5/74.
10s.
H i 11, G. R. (chai man) , Conference Proceedings: Fuels Today, April, 1974, EPRI-SR-1, 1974.
106.
"Evaluation o f Coal-Gasification Technology: Part I t , Low and Intermede a t e - l t u Fuel Cases," NAE, O f f f c e o f Coal Research R b D Report No. 74 I n t e r i m Report No. 2, 1973.
107.
Perry, H.
108.
Squires, A. fl.,
,
Power Generation-Clean
-
-
"The G a s i f i c a t i o n o f Coal ," S c i e n t i f i c American, "Clean Fuels f r o m Coal Gasification,"
3/74.
Science, 184:340,
19/Ap/74.
log.
Loeding, J. W. , e t a l . * "Low-Btu Gas from Coal , I t paper presented a t the Symposium on E f f i c i e n t Use of Fuels, I n s t i t u t e of Gas Technology, Chicago, I l l i n o i s , A p r i l 16-19, 1974.
110.
Robson, F. L . , "Fuel G a s i f i c a t i o n and Advanced Power Cycles A Rcute t o Clean Power," paper presented a t the T h i r d I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference on Fluidized-Bed Combustion, Heuston Woods, Ohio, 8/72. ( r e f . 13).
111.
Rudolph, P. , "New Fossi I-Fueled Power Plant Process Based ori L u r g i Pressure Paper presented a t the J o i n t Conference of the G a s i f i c a t i o n of Coal," Chemical I n s t i t u t e of Canada w i t h the American Chemical Society, 26/May/70.
112.
"Clean Fuel., f r o m Coal Today,'' Division, 3/73.
--
Lurgi Mineraloltechnik GMBH, Fuel Technology
Rudoloh, F. * "Processing o f American Coals i n a Lurgi G a s i f i e r (Evaluation ll?. o f the g a s i f i c a t i o n t e s t s a t Westfield and a t Sasolburg)," paper presented a t the 6 t h SyzSietic Pipeline Gas Symposium, Chicago, October 28-39, 1974. 113a.
Mudge, L. K.,
e t al. *
"The Gasification o f Coal , I '
114.
Calhoun, J. C., "The O i l S p i l l Problem,'' Panel on O i l S p t l l s , OST, 1969.
115.
"Petroleum i n the Marine Environmelit
116.
Baesch, P. E., e t a ] . , " O i l B a l l inger, Cambridge, 1974.
117.
"Oil:
118.
"OCS O i l and Gas by CEQ, vol 1-5,
119.
,'I
F i r s t Report o f the President's
NAS, 1975.
S p i l l s and the Marine Environmcnt,"
Possible Trends o f Future Production,''
.
--
BAT Energy Program, 7/74.
FEA-PI,
An Environme.ita1 Assessnent,"
EPP-Ford,
11/74.
Report t o the President
4/,4.
Laster, L. L., Atmospheric Emissions from the Petroleum Refinin? I n d u s t r j , EPA-650/2-73-017, 8/73.
103
120.
"Transport S t a t i s t i c s i n the U. S., 1970, Part 6, O i l Pipe Lines," I n t e r s t a t e Conrnerce Conmission, Bureau o f Accounts, 1971.
121.
"Cargo Handling i s one man j o b on new Esso Tanker," 75: 46, 2/70.
122.
U t l i d j i a n , M. M. D., e t al., "A C r i t i c a l Evaluation o f Current Research prepared for FEA by Tabemhaw/ Regarding Health C r i t x f o r Sulfur Oxides," Cooper Associates, Rockvi l l e , Maryland, 2/75.
123.
"Human Responses t o Sulfur Pollutants: Conference ,I' BNL , 11/74.
124.
Lave, L. B., Seskin, E. P., " A i r P o l l u t i o n and Human Health," Science, 169; 723 21/Atig/70; and "An Analysis o f the Association Between U.S. M o r t a l i t y and A i r Pollution," J. Am. S t a t i s t i c a l ASSOC., 68:284, 6/73. Lave, L. B., Freeburg, L. C., "Health Effects of E l e c t r i c i t y Generation from Coal O i l and Nuclear Fuel," Nuclear Safety , 14: 409, Sept -Oct/73.
125.
Hamilton, L. D., e t al., BNL-19265, l0/74.
126.
"Sulfates Background Paper,"
127.
"Review o f the Health of Sulfur Oxides," Rall, 0. P., PersDectfveg, 8:97, 8/74.
128.
"Health Consequences o f SOX, A Report from CHESS (1970-1971)" 1-74-004, 5/74.
129.
"Toxic Trace Elements: Preferential ConcentraNatusch, D. F. S s e t a1 t i o n i n Respirable Particles, Science, 183: 202, 18/Jan/75.
130.
Carnow, Health 27:207,-.
131.
Freudenc,,dI, R. I . , e t el., "Carcinogenic Potential o f Coal and Coal Conversion Products,'' BAT Energy Project, 2/75.
132.
" A i r Q u a l i t y Criteria";AP-49:
133.
Morris, S.C.,
et al.,
Proceedings o f a Computer Based
"Health E f f e c t s o f Fossil Fuel Power Plants,"
0
B. W.,
Marine E;tg./Log.,
NSF O f f i c e o f Energy R 6 D Policy, 10/74. Environment Health
EPA-650/
,
" A i r P o l l u t i o n and Pulmonary Cancer,"
Particulates, AP-50:
Arch. Envzr.
SOX, AP-84:
"Accidental Death i n Energy Supply and Use,"
NOx, €PA
BNL, 10/74.
134. "Proceedings o f the National Conference cn Medicine and the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act o f 1969,"Division o f Environmental Health Sciences, University of Cal i f o r n i a , Berkeley, 1970. 135.
Bohm, R. A., e t al., "Progress Report on NSF/RANN Funded Research Related Appalachian t o Environmental and Economic Aspects of Coal Production," Resources Project, Univ. o f Tenn., Knoxvi 1 l e , 12/74.
104
136. 137.
'The Federal Coal Mine Health Program i n 1972,"
Coal fa 'cts
HEW, 1973.
National Coal Association, Washington, D.C.,
1975.
138. "The President's Report on Occupational Safety and Heal th,"12/73. 139.
Roe, 0. A.,
140. "Water Hardness and Human Health,"Sequoia 141.
CEP #72-7, 3/72.
"Health Hazards of the Coal and Uranium Niner," Group,
Berkeley, Ca.,
"NRC Asks P u b l i c Comments on Approach for Deciding Use o f Recycled Plutonlun Press Release NRC- V-1075, 8/Hay/75. i n Water Reactors,"
42.
"NRC Issues Decision i n 'As Law as Practicable' Rulemaking," NRC-V-0875 , 3O/Apr i1/75.
43.
"Ten Reactors Currently Do Not Have Enough Fuel Storage Space," News, 18: 64A, Mid-Apri 1/75.
44.
"Nuclear Reactors B u i l t , Being B u i l t or Planned i n the U.S. 1974,Il ERDA, TID-8200-R31, 4/75.
145.
9/73.
"Forum Fuel Cycle Conference Sees Everything Going UP,"
Press Release, Nuclear
31,
as of Dec.,
Nuclear Industry,
3/75.
46.
" U t i l i t y S t a f f i n g- and T r a i n i n g for Nuclear Power,"
AEC, Wash-1130,
(Rev)
6/73.
47.
Dentsch, R. W.,
"NUC ear Manpower C r i s i s Ahead,''
48. "Land Use and Nuclear Power Plants: AEC, Wash-1319,
Nuclear News, 5/74.
Case Studies of
S i t i n g Problems,"
1974. Bul l e t i n o f the Atomic
149.
Cuney, D., " W i l l I d l e Capacity K i 11 Nuclear Power?" S c i e n t i s t , p. 23, 11/74.
150.
"Clouding the Nuclear Reactor Debate," Chase, J., S c i e n t i s t , p. 39, 2/75.
151.
"Chasing Down the Facts,'' Comey, D., p. 40, 2/75.
152.
"Nuclear Power Plant Re1 i a b i 1 i t y : The 1973-74 Record," Caney, D., and Professional People f o r the Pub1 i c I n t e r e s t , BPI-7507, 1975.
153.
Coney, D.,
"Elastic Statistics,"
B u l l e t i n o f the Atomic
B u l l e t i n o f the Atomic S c i e n t i s t ,
B u l l e t i n o f the Atomic S c i e n t i s t ,
5/75. Nuclear Engineerinq, p. 5, 2/75.
154.
"ERDA D i f f i s i o n Plants,"
155.
"Propose Higher T a i l s Assay,"
Nuclear News, p. 31, 2/75.
105
Business
31:3,
156.
"Laser Separation of Isotopes:
157.
Clark, D. A., "State-of-the-Art. Uranium Yining, M i l l i n g and R e f i n i n g Indus t r y ,I' EPA-660/2-74-038 , 6/74.
158.
" D i s p o s i t i o n and Control o f Uranium M i l l T a i l i n g s P i l e s i n the Colorado River Basin," HEW, A v a i l a b l e from EPA, 3/66.
159.
"Report o f the L i q u i d Metal Fast Breeder Reactcr Program Review Croup," ERDA-1, 1/75.
160.
Sear1 , M. F., "Uranium Resources to Meet Long Term Uranium Requirements," EPRl Special Report No.5, 11/74.
561.
"U.S. Uranium Supply and Demand, Near Term and Long Hagerton, J. F., Range ,'I Nuclear News, 5/75.
162.
Holdren, J. P., "Uranium A v a i l a b i l i t y and the Breeder Decision," Environmental Qual it y Laboratory, Cal i f o r n i a l n s t i t u t e of Technology, Memorandum No. 8, 1/74.
163.
" E f f e c t s o f Plutonium U t i i i z a t i o n on the Performance o f L i g h t Water Reactors," AEC, Wash-1303, 4/74.
164.
Speth, J. G., Tamplin, A. R., Cochran, T. B., "Plutonium Recycle: t h e Fc-efui Step,)' B u l l e t i n of t h e Atomic S c i e n t i s t s , 11/74.
165.
Franco, J. A., e t al., Reprocessing Plants,"
166.
Franco, J. A., e t a l . , LWRs ,It CE? #71-l0,8/71.
"Review and Analysis o f Radwaste Management f o r
167.
"Elk River Dismantling:
Environmental Statement
168.
Bryan, R. H., e t ai., "Estimated Q u a n t i t i e s o f M a t e r i d l s Contained i n a lOOO-Mw(e) PWR Power P l a n t , ' I ORNL-TM-4515, 6/74.
169.
Bupp, l r v i n C., 2/75
173.
"Westinghouse Recommendations f o r a National Plan f o r Commercial I n t r o d u c t i o n o f the Breeder Reactor i n the Late 1 9 8 0 % , ~ ~Westinghouse Advanced Reactors D i v i s i o n , P i t t s b u r g , no date.
171.
'TIinch
e t al.,
B i g Step,"
Science News, 107:284,
3/May/75.
"Radioactive Waste Management a t Nuclear Fuel CEP 672-2, 2/72.
,I'
AEC, Wash-1516, 5/72.
"The Economics o f Nuclear Power,''
River Breeder Reactor Project,''
Technology Review,
Nuclear Enqineering I n t e r n a t i o n a l ,
10/74.
172.
Cochran, T. B., The LMFBR: An Environmental and Economic C r i t i q u e , Resources f o r the Futuye, Washington, D.C., 1974.
106
173.
-
ANL-7657, 2/70.
Kelber, C. N . , et al., "Safety Problems of LMFBR's"
174. Erdman, C.
P..
from LMFBP's University
, et
,I'
1 . f
al., "Radionuclide Production, Transport and Release Research Laboratories for the Engineering Sciences, Virginia, NE-4146-102-73, 9/73.
'.
6. , et al., "Calculation of Doses Due To Accidentally Released ORNL-NSIC-74 , 11/74. Plutonium from a n LMFBR,"
175. Fish, 176.
77.
Stauffrtr. 7 . R. , it. F. Palmer, H. I. Wycoff, "An Assessment o f Economic Incentives for the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor," report presented to the Breeder Reactor Corporation, Chicago, I I I . , 7/Mar/75. Bupp, l r v i
-Tecirnolwl
78. "Con!:ress 79 -
1
A New Economic Analysis,"
C., "The Breeder Reactor in the U . S . : Review, p. 26, Jul-Aug/74.
'lay Balk,"
Nuclear Engineering, p . 3,
3/75.
"Top ica I Nee t i ng o n Gas-cool ed Reactors ,'I Amer i can Nuc lea r Soc i ety , AEC-CCINF-7~+0501, 5/74.
80. "HTGR Refabrication Filot Plant:
Environmental Statement
,I'
AEC, Wash-1534,
8/74. 81.
"HTGR Fuels Reprocessing Faci! ities:
Environmental Statement,"
AEC
8/74. 182.
Brooks, L . H. , "Environmental Effects of Irradiated HTGR Fuel Reprocessing," General A t m i c Co. , San Dieyo, Ca., GA-Al3363, 3/75.
-
13. C. , et al. , "HTGR Fuel and Fuel Cycle Summary Description,'' General Atomic Co., San Diego. Ca., GA-G12801 (qev.), 1/74.
183. Dahlberg,
184. "Environmer\tal Survey
o f the HTGR Fuel Cycle,"
AEC, Draft Repoi-t, 3/74.
181.
Appl i cant ' s Environmental Report
186.
"The Potential RadiolL lical Implications o f Nuclear Facilities in the Upper Missir,sippi 'iger Basin in the Year 2000," AEC,Wash 1209, 1/73.
,'I Fort St. Vr: i n Nuclear Gene rat i ng Star.ion, P i . b l ic Service Cr. , of Colorado, Denver, 12/70.
187. Murphy,
T.D. "A Compilation of Occupational Radiation Exposure :/i-om LWR Power r'ants 1369-1973,'' AEC, Wash-1311 , 5/74.
188. "Envirvmental Radiation Dose Commitment: An Powel
,
,idus1ry
)I'
Heal tb. Handbook, 189. Radiological -190.
Appl
icat ion
to the Nuclear
EPA-520/4-73-002, 2/74. HEW,
Pub1 ic H e a l t h
Sagan, L. A , "Human Costs of Nuclear Power,"
Service, 1/70.
Science, 17/:487, ll/Aug/72.
191.
Pub1 i c Health Risks of Thermal Power Plants, Cniv. Starr, C., e t al., o f Ca., Los Angeles, School of Engineering, UCLA-ENG-7242, 5/72 Append ices : I Background Radiation II P o l l u t a n t Pathways I I I Probabil i s t i c Safety Analysis o f a Hypothetical 1000 Mwe LHFBR I V Seismic Safety of Power Plants V Transportation o f Nuclear V I Approximate H o r t e l i t y Risk from SO2 and P a r t i c u l ates.
192.
"Stochastic Decision Making Applied to Nuclear Reactor Schel icher, R. W., Safety," CEP 172-20, 8/72. and CEP 172-12, "An Estimate of the Risk o f Accidental Exposure from a BUR," 4/72.
193.
K u b , A. S = , and D. Rose,
"OIsposeI of Nuclear Wastes,"
Science,
182:1205,
Pl/Oec/73. An Estimate of the Cost of the
194.
Schleicher, f?. W., "Nuclear Insurance: Nuclear Hazard,'' CEP 171-13, 10/71.
195.
"ACRA-Motel for Estimation of Rediation Doses Caused Stallmann, F., e t al., By a Hypothe t ica 1 Reactor Acc iden t , I ' ORNL-TM-4082, 4/,73.
196.
Cave, "Some Reflections on the Rasmussen Report and I t s Imp1 i c a t i o n s for Reactor Design," Nuclear Engineering I n t e r n a t i o n a l , p. 1012, 12/74.
197.
"Light-Water Reactor Safety Study," American Physical Society, Reviews Modern Physics, Vol. 47, Summer Supplement, 1975.
198.
Green, H. P. "Internal i z i n g the Costs Associated w i t h Catastrophic Acc dents in Energy Sys terns ,'I EPP-Ford , 1974.
199-
Orway, H. J., (ed.), "Risk vb. Benefit: Sc ien t if ic Laboratory, LA-4860-MS, 2/74.
200.
Otway, H. J., e t a l . , "A Risk Estimate f o r An Urban-Sited Reactor,'' Technology, 12:173, 10/71.
201.
Meleis, M., e t a l . , Risk ProbaLi 1 ity,"
202.
Papp, R., e t al., "A New Concept i n Risk Analysis f o r Nuclear F a c i l i t i e s , " Nuclear News, 11/74.
203.
II
S o l u t i o n o r Dream,''
of
AEC Los A a m 5 Nuclear
"The Development of Reactor S i t i n g C r i t e r i a Based Upon Nuclear Safety, 13:22, Jan-Feb/72.
II
Judgements about Risks and Benefits, Chapter 14 of Report o f the Panel on Chemicals and Health o f the President's Science Advisory Committee, NSF, 9/73.
108
204. von Hippel, F.,
"Background Paper on L i g h t Water Reactor Safety," Princeton U n i v e r s i t y , 4/74.
author
a t Engineering b p t . , 205.
Forbes, 1. A., e t a l . , "The Nuclear Debate: A C a l l to Reason," paper, author a t Mec. Eng. Dept., Lowell Tech. I n s t i t u t e , Mass.,
a position
6/74.
206.
Reiquam, H., e t al., "Development o f Cross-Media Evaluation Methodology," volumes 1 6 2, B a t t e l l e Columbus Labs, 1/74.
207.
" C i t i z e n s ' Views cbout the Proposed H a r t s v i l l e Schuller, C. R., e t al., Nuclear Power P l a n t : P r e l i m i n a r y Report o f P o t e n t i a l Social Impacts," QRNL-RUS-3, 5/75.
208.
Sawyer,R.F. , L.S.C retto:'Air and Technology, 4:6, 6/70
209.
-
H u l l , A. P.,
P o l l u t i o n Sources Reevaluated,"
Environ. Science
"Some Comparisons o f the Environmental Risks from Nuclear and BNL-14412 (Rev.), 1972.
Fossi 1 Fueled Power Plants,"
NAS, 1975.
210.
P r i n c i p l e s for Evaluating Chemicals i n the Environment,
211.
"Environmental Q u a l i t y , "
212.
Comar, C. L. , "Technology Assessment w i t h Special Reference t o Energ," CEP #70-1 , 10/70.
213.
"Envi ronmental Mutagen1c Hazards ,'I
214.
Denis, S., Rand Corp.,
215.
S u l l i v a n , F. P., ( e d i t o r ) , "Energy R & D: Present and Future," proceedings o f the 1 s t annual Energy R f D Conference, published by Government I n s t i t u t e s , Inc., June 20 and 21, 1974.
216.
Ray, D. L.,
217.
"Gas Industry Research Plan 1974-2000,''
218.
"Research and Development f o r the E l e c t r i c U t i 1 i t y Industry," Technical Advisory Comn:i t t e e on Research and Development," National Power Survey, FPC,
Annual Report o f the CEQ, 1972.
Science , 187 :503 , 14/Feb. /75.
"Some Aspects o f Environment and E l e c t r i c Power Seneration," Santa Monica, Ca., P-4772, 2/72.
"The Nation's Energy Future,"
AEC, Wash-1281, 1/0ec/73.
American Gas Associaticn,
1/74.
7/74 219.
"Energy Research Program o f the Department o f the Inter;or," R & 0 , D o l , 3/74.
220.
"Coal Technology:
Key t o Clean Energy,"
O f f i c e o f Coal Research, D o l ,
1973-74. 221.
"EPRI Research Progress Keport,"
E P R I , 5/74.
109
Office of
222.
Anderson, C. J., e t al., "An Assessment of U. S. Energy Options f o r P r o j e c t Independence," Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, Ca., UCRL-51638, 9/74.
223.
Seamans, R. C., statement made d u r i n g the "FY 1976 A u t h o r i z a t i o n Hearings ERDA, 4/Feb/75. Before the J o i n t Committee on Atomic Energy,"
224.
"ERDA's FY 1976 Budget ,'I
225.
"An Analysis I d e n t i f y i n g Issues i n the F i s c a l Year 1976 ERDA Budget," O f f i c e o f Technology Assessment, 3/75.
226.
Legassie, R., "ERDA Organization and Plans," paper presented t o the 12/May/75. Second Annual Energy Technology Conference, Washington, D.C., A v a i l a b l e from author a t ERDA.
227.
"Reactor Research and Development ,I' paper presented t o Nemzeck, T. M., the Second Annual Energy Technology Conference, Washington, 0. C., 12/May/75. ( a l s o a v a i l a b l e from the author a t ERDA Headquarters.)
228.
M a - z r i a l s Technology i n the Year Term Energy Program, NAS, 1974.
229.
Kennedy, M., "An Economic Model o f the World O i l Market," o f Economics and Management Science, Autumn, 1974.
230.
F r i e d , E. R., e t a l . , Energy and U.S. Foreign P o l i c y , Brookings I n s t i t u t e , EPP-Ford, B a l l lnger, Cambrldge, Mass., 197%.
231.
"Nuclear Energy,''
232.
Cochran, T. J., J. G. Speth and A. P.'Tamplin, "Bypassing the Breeder: A Report on Misplaced Federal Energy P r i o r i t i e s , " National Resources Defense Council, Washington, 0. C., 3/75.
233
Pohl, R. D., "Nuclear Energy: H e a l t h E f f e c t s o f Thorium 230," Physics Dept., Cornel1 U n i v e r s i t y , Ithaca, New York, 1975.
234.
dcrnardi, R., and 8. Borko, " Q u a n t i t a t i v e Environmental Comparison o f Coal and NI.,C,# q r Generation Workshop," Summary Volume and Volumes 1 and 2 o f Proceedings, MTR-;304, MTR-7010, Sept. 75, M i t r e , McLean, V i r .
235.
M a r t e l l , E. A., July-Aug. 75.
234.
"Energy A l t e r n a t i v e s ; Comparative Analysis,'' Science and Pub1 i c Pol i c y Program, U n i v e r s i t y o f Oklahoma, f o r CEQ, ERDA, EPA, FEA, FPC, DO1 and NSF, May 1975.
Nuclear Newz, 3/75.
@ lJournal
-
FEA-PI,
11/74.
"Tobacco R a d i o a c t i v i t y and Cancer i n Smokers," Am. Scien. 63:404,
110
Appendices R
-H
The b u l k of the data c o l l e c t e d i n t r r i s study i s presented i n t h e f o l l o w i n g
24 tables.
Unless otherwise stated, t h e costs, resource requirements, and impacts
are s t a t e d per e l e c t r i c a l magewatt-year (MWe-yr) n e t output a t the power p l a n t . Therefore, t o c a l c u l a t e t h e impacts for a 1000-MWe p l a n t o p e r a t i n g a t 75% capac i t y for one year, f o r example, t h e i n d i v i d u a l impacts l i s t e d i n a t a b l e should be m u l t i p l i e d by 750. scaling.)
(See i n t r o d u c t i o n to Chapter 1 1 1 for a d i s c u s s i o n of
For one t i m e items such a; c o n s t r u c t i o n labor o r m a t e r i a l s , o r power
p l a n t land, the q u a n t i t y should be m u l t i p l i e d by 750 x l i f e t i m e which i s u s u a l l y
30 years unless noted otherwise.
Power p l a n t 0 5 M cost i s based on r a t e d
capacity and i s i n $/MWe each year.
T h i s annual cost i s $/MWe-yr x MWe r a t e d
capaci t y o f IO3 MWe. The range i n d i c a t e d f o r some costs and impacts r e s u l t s from the s c a t t e r o f values i n the l i t e r a t u r e .
We have t r i e d t o a d j u s t the values when p o s s i b l e t o
account f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s due t o d i f f e r e n t assumptions.
I n many cases there
was n o t enough i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o evaluate a l l the assumptions and,in those cases where a l a r g e discrepancy s t i l l e x i s t e d between sources,we have noted I t i s tempting t o assign a p r o b a b i l i t y d i s -
the o r i g i n a l references d i r e c t l y . t r i b u t i o n t o the ranges.
This would be improper, however, because i n most cases
the ranges are composed o f a very few separate values which a r e not a l l independent.
(The studies a l l quote each o t h e r . )
Unless otherwise noted, the data and most o f t e n from references 1
-
(See Ref.
236
f o r another recent review.)
have been compiled from references I
- 40
9.
The costs and impacts have been categorized i n the t a b l e by f u e l c y c l e step.
-_
The footnotes t o the f i r s t t a b l e f o r each system ( i ,e. Tables A - 1 ,
-
B-1,
e t c . ) contain d e s c r i p t i o n s o f e x a c t l y which f a c i l i t i e s and operations are i n -
eluded i n each f u e l c y c l e step. 111
Explanation o f Symbols and U n i t s Yost of the values are presented i n exponen+ial form: For example, 2.9 5.9 -4 = 0.00029 0.00059 1 . 6 8.0 +4 = 16,000 80,000 A dash indicates t h a t t h i s box i s not relevant t o t h i s system. 0 A zero indicates i.,at there i s an unknown but n e g l i b l e Impact or cost. ? A Question mark indicates t h a t the iinpact or cost may be important b u t i t s value i s uncertain.
-
--
-
-
t a b l e s 1:
be Mwe KwHe MH Eksth-yr
MT 2
m
k i lowatt e l e c t r i c megawatt e l e c t r i c k i l o w a t t e l e c t r i c hour man hour megawatt thermal year m e t r i c ton square lneter
M2MT
m i l l i o n m e t r i c ton
2 m
square meter
Primary Efficiency
Anci 1 l a r y Net E f f i c i e n c y
Energy contained i n the fuel i n MWth-y: so t h a t 1 MWe-yr i s produced a t the generating p l a n t Simple thermal of fuel e f f i c i e n c y (See Ref. 51-52 for a discussion of more sophisticated e f f i c i e n c y measures.) Energy needed cxterna 1 t o primary f u e l (MWth-yr/MWe-yr) Primary energy e f f i c i e n c y corrected for a n c i l l a r y energy use assuming a n c i l l a r y energy could be converted t o e l e c t r i c i t y a t t o t a l primary e f f i c i e n c y o f s p e c i f i c approach
Tables 2: NOx sox HC Other Sol id. Radioactive
Tables
nitrogen oxides s u l f u r oxides hydrocarbons (includes aldehydes) mostly carbon monoxide except where noted High l e v e l = grea’er than 106 x MPC Intermediate + 10 t o IO4 x MPC Low = l o 4 t o 10 x MPC (see Refs. 3 and 189)
b
3:
Person-days l o s t :
Societal r i s k : Maximum Size:
Calculated as 6000 days per death (premature as w e l l a s acute deaths) (Ref. 1),-50 days per i n j u r y o r i l l n e s s & 100 days per cancer (except where noted).
Total number o f deaths o r d i s a b i l i t i e s expected per Mwe-yr i n the e n t i r e country (except where noted). Estimated maximum f o r a f a c i l i t y , not i n u n i t s o f h e - y r .
F i s s i l e material:
Uranium 235 o r 253 enriched t o 20% o r more and a l l plutonium 239 and 241.
112
The category marked " I n Storage" r e f e r s t o an assumed two month supply of f f s s i l e material a t f a b r i c a t f o n and reprocessing plants. The amount a t reactors is the a v e r a g e f i s s i l e c o n t e n t over the f u e l exposure period. To t h i s could be added the f i s s i l e material i n cooling ponds a t reactor s i t e s . The t o t a l material I n storage is a measure of the f i s s i l e material which a c t u a l l y leaves the fuel cycle for t h i s reactor and i s sent t o storage o r ss?d t o supply another reactor. The category, "In Transi t" refers t o f i s s i l e material which passes through f a b r i c a t i o n and reprocessing plants. The t o t a l t r a n s i t amount r e f e r s t o the m a t e r i a l which leaves the reprocessing p l a n t for a l l destinations. A l l f i g u r e s have the u n i t s o f kilograms per Mwe-yr.
112a
REPRODUCIBILI!lY OF THE ORIGINAL PAGE IS POOR
Table P-1 a.
Footnotes
Except for " f u e l cost", deep-mined c o a l .
q i m t i t i e s g i v e n a r e f o r N o r t h e r n Appalachian
Northwester-n s u r f a c e mines were considered as an a l t e r n a -
t i v e source of coal, and resource u t i l i z a t i o n f o r t h i s type o f m i n i n g i s included i n the a p p r o p r i a t e f o o t n o t e s below. i l i n e l i f e b.
i s assumed t o be 20 years.
Only about 2 / 3 ' s o f the N o r t h e r n Appalachian c o a l p r o d u c t i o n i s cleaned: q u a n t i t i e s g i v e n r e p r e s e n t average q u a n t i t i e s for t h e sum o f the cleaned and uncleaned p o r t i o n s . cleaned.
c.
Northwest surface-mined c o a l i s t y p i c a l l y n o t
F x i l i t y l i f e t i m e assumed i s 20 years.
Although some c o a l i s t r a n s p o r t e d by water ( b a r g e ) , about 70% i s shipped by r a i l :
q u a n t i t i e s g i v e n here assume a l l c o a l i s shipped by r a i l , w i t h
a 50-50 s p l i t between the u n i t t r a i n and ? o n - u n i t t r a i n modes, r e f l e c t i n g c u r r e n t trends toward the u n i t t r a i n concept. g) i s considered a t t h i s and subsequent stages. d.
N a t i o n a l average coal (Table A-2,
note
T r a i n l i f e t i m e assumed i s 30 years.
Q u a n t i t i e s g i v e n a r e f o r a coal-steam power p l a n t w i t h s u l f u r removal Cram the s t a c k gas by wet l i m e scrubbing and n a t u r a l d r a f t e v a p o r a t i v e c o o l i n g tower f o r n a t i o n a l average cob:.
e.
Represents q u a n t i t ' 2 s a t t r i b u t a b l e (where a v a i l a b l e ) t o on-s: t e d i s p o s a l o f bottom ash, recovered f l y ash and l i m e sludge f o r n a t i o n a l aveiage c o a l .
f.
From Reference (211, which uses methodology g i v e n i n Reference ( 2 7 ) . T h i s f i g u r e i n c l u d e s i n t e r e s t d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n a t 10.5% as d e l l as The n e t o r r e a l i n t e r e s t r a t e i s 4.259
(1.105/1.06)
6'1. i n f l a t i o n r a t e .
f o r 3.5 y r s ,
i.e.,
$349/k\.i
x
1 . 0 4 2 5 ' ' ~ = $404/kW. T h i s expresses c o s t s p r i o r t o p l a n t s t a r t u p i n mid-1974 (1974s). g.
I n accordance w i t h economicgroundrules developed by 1PL ( 2 8 ) , t h e c o n t r i b u t i m
o f f u e l c o s t t o t h e c c s t o f g e n e r a t i n g e l e c t r i c i t y i s eqJal t o t h e presen: i.aIue o f t h e c o s t o f f u e l purchased over the. l i f e o f t h e p l a n t m d l t i p l i e d by the annual c a p i t a l i z a t i o n f a c t o r .
I14
The most current data on the cost o f coal to e l e c t r i c u t i l i t i e s from Reference (31), Is 8 8 . 9 ~ / m i l l i o n Btu for December, 1974.
To a d j u s t t h i s
to mid-1974 d o l l a r s , the increase from the June 1974 p r i c e (69.5c/million Btu) was d e f l a t e d by the increase i n the Consumer's p r i c e index (6%) from June through December, 1974, g i v i n g a mid-19'4
83.9c/mi 11 ion Btu.
The general expression f o r e l e c t r i c i t y c o s t given i n
Reference (28) is:
1 E l e c t r i c 1t y
-
Cost
,'I
KwHe
-
EC
CRF x I T
EC CRF
-
-
+
CRF
' I
- -
KwHe
8.76 PL where :
d o l l a r c o s t of coal of
(.os
PVF
- -
KwHe
IT
+ N)
+
I
KwHe
CRF x ?VF
(29.:
G?L)
8.76 PL
8.76 PL
e l e c t r i c i t y c o s t i n Mills/KwHe c a p i t a l recovery f a c t o r
-
r (I+rI
"-
r =
( I+r 1 the annual r e t u r n on borrowed c a p i t a l
n =
the number o f years f o r pay back (usually equals expected p l a n t l i f e )
IT
-
O-OSIT =
p l a n t c a p i t a l cost i n d c l l a r s , including i n t e r e s t during construction Factor accounts f o r ani - 1 operating cost due t o insurance, depreciat i o n , p r o f i t , taxes, etc.
G = f u e l cost i n $ / l o 6
BTU
P =
p l a n t peak power i n KW
L =
annual load f a c t o r
rl =
e f f i c i e n c y o f power p l a n t = (output e l e c t r i c a l energy/input thermal energy)
N =
PVF =
.
p l a n t 0 5 M costs i n $/year. the present value f a c t o r = the present value o f a s t r e a m or costs growing a t an annual r a t e o f (1
115
+
i ) , w i t h the f i r s t payment o f
-
one dol l a r made today = 9-i
i
= Long-term annual i n f l a t i o n r a t e (0.06).
9
=
the annual discount rate.
I n t h i s r e p o r t i t i s assumd for the coal systems that: ( w i t h 75% debt financing
0.105
n = p
=
30 years 6 :O
Kw,
PVF = 17.5
CRF = 0.1105
L = 0.75,
rl
a t 9% and 25% e q u i t y f i n a n c i n g a t 15%)
= 0.37
g = r = 0.105
Therefore the e l e c t r i c i t y c o s t equation may be w r i t t e n as:
0 6 M Cost
Equation A-1: Capital Cost
EC = 1.69 x lo'*
x IT
+ 2.97
x
Fuel Cost
loe7 x
(0.05 I T + N) +
G
17.9
In the present case: IT *
4.04
G = and
:.
8 (from f i r s t row of table: 404WkWe x IO6kWe)
x 10
0-839$/MBtu (from second paragraph of t h e footnote). 7 4
N = 1.31
x 10 $/yr (fn? second row of tcble:
cac t a l EC
=
6-83
06M
+
9.89
+
1.31~10$/MWe/yr x 1dMWe)
fuel
15.0
=
31.70 m i 1 Is/KwHe
Therefore the t o t a l c o n t r i b u t i o n o f the c o s t of f u e l to the c o s t o f e l e c t r i c i t y for the coal-scrub
system i s 15 mills/KwHe.
The p o r t i o n o f t h i s
cost a t t r i b u t a b l e t o transport was c a l c u l a t e d from Reference (21), and the p o r t i o n due to coal cleaning from Reference h.
From Reference
(4).
(571, assuming 1-03 MMT/yr miner. From Peference (60) the
fu-1 cycle c a p i t a i cost f o r a Northwestern surface m;ae i s
4
0 g M cost $1.26 x 10 / M e - v r , (based on a
2
9.2 MMT/yr northwestern surface mine).
From Reference
104/~,,,~-,,r,
and 0 S M labor requirement, 1.84 x 10 MW/Mwe-vr.
investments were discounted a t 12% per annum
i.
$2.41
(4).
116
Deferred wipe caoi tal
per source documents.
From References (1) S throughout. using
k.
(7).
Energy numbers a r e for n a t i o n a l average coal
E l e c t r i c i t y requirements are converted to thermal energy requirements
37% power
F r m Reference
p l a n t thermal e f f i c i e n c y and 90% transmission thermal e f f i c i e n c y .
(8).
Construction m a t e r i a l s and c o n s t r u c t i o n labor
rzquirements f o r coal cleaning a r e included i n the corresponding mining totals.
For surface mining the c o n s t r u c t i o n l a b o r requirements are:
Engineering = 1.13 MH/Mbleyr,Fiela S k i l l e d Manual =
for a t o t a l o f would be:
Supervision =
3.76 MH/MWeyr, F i e l d
1.90 MH/HWeyr and F i e l d U n s k i l l e d Manual = 16.9 MH/MWeyr
23.7
Structural =
MH/Mwe-yr.
4.47
-2
10
Construction m a t e r i a l s r e q u i r e d MT/MWeyr, Major Equipment =
0.3
a t o t a l metals requirement of
MT/Mwe-yr.
and
‘37).
MT/MWeyr f o r
Those d e s i r i n g a more d e t a i l e d
breakdown o f these requirements a r e r e f e r r e d t o References
(351,
0.26
(321, (33), (34)
However, the most complete d e t a i l e d breakdown o f con-
s t r u c t i o n labor and m a t e r i a l s , as w e l l as 0 & M c o s t s and labor requirements
for a l l our study systems except t h e f l u i d i z e d - b e d system,
i s i n Ref.
c u l a t e t o t a l m a t e r i a l or manhours, m u l t i p l y d a t a i n t a b l e by
1.
from Reference
(33).
m.
from Reference
(7).
n.
included i n power p l a n t 0 E. M cost.
0.
included i n corresponding power p l a n t quanti t i e s .
P*
lime requirement f o r scrubber.
q*
derived from References (11,
r.
Refers t o land undermined/Hwe-yr, by subsidence.
3 m2 /Mwe-yr.
x 10
750
(36). To
MWe x 30 years.
(31, (41, (7) 2nd (8).
(21,
approximately
1/3
t o a l l o f which i s a f f e c t e d
For s t r i p mining o f Northwestern Coal approximately (1.4 are d i s t u r b e d by s t r i p mining.
-
This impact i s , however,
very dependent on the thickness o f the coal seams mined (they a r e t y p i c a l l y q u i t e t h i c k i n the Northwest cp t o
100 f t and about 10 times t h i c k e r than
Eastern c o a l ) ; f o r the n a t i o n a l average s t r i p mine about 2.5 x 1O’MWe-yr a r e d i s t r i b u t e d , w i t h some regions (e.g.,
Appalachian)
cal-
2.1)
4 2
averaging as h i g h as 3.2 x 10 m /Elre-yr.
Northwestern s u r f a c e mined
c o a l i s t y p i c a l l y not cleaned due t o r e l a t i v e l y l o w s u l f u r c o n t e n t . Deep mine openings a r e assumed t o be b a c k f i l l e d to prevent permanent land committment.
For s u r f a c e mines
some ( r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l ) permanent
land use i s l i k e l y t o be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e p i t .
I f t h e mines a r e n o t
revegetated p r o p e r l y , a d u s t bowl can be c r e a t e d and t h e t e m p o r a r i l y d i s t r i buted l a n d c o u l d be considered more i n t h e permanently committed category.
s.
A c t u a l l y some l a n d i s p r o b a b l y t e m p o r a r i l y committed and not d i s t u r b e d , i t i s assumed here t h a t t h e only such l a n d i s for f u t u r e waste s t o r a g e
( i.e. eventual l y d i s t u r b e d ) . t.
This f i g u r e assumes a r a i l r i g h t o f way o f 50 f t ; we assume about l / 3 o f t h i s i s a c t u a l l y occupied by the r a i 1 bed.
u.
A c t u a l l y some o f the p l a n t s i t e i s undoubtedly u n d i s t u r b e d , b u t the und i s t u r b e d p o r t i o n of the t o t a l i s l i k e l y much l e s s than for n u c l e a r f a c i l i t i e s , which r e q u i r e s i z a b l e e x c l u s i o n zones and f o r which the comm i t t e d , b u t u n d i s t u r b e d l a n d use category i s more r e l e v a n t .
(3)
P r i m a r i l y from --ferences
w.
Net e f f i c i e n c y equals t o t a l primary e f f i c i e n c y c o r r e c t e d f o r a n c i l l a r y energy use.
x.
and
(7).
v.
For example, n e t e f f i c i e n c y = 1 MWe/(2.85 + 0.063) =
0.344.
Power p l a n t 0 + M c o s t i s based on i n s t a l l e d c a p a c i t y and i s i n $ / y r . l a b e l i s $/MWe-yr.
Thus, t h e
To f i n d 0 t M c o s t per year, m u l t i p l y by nameplate r a t i n g i n
MWe. y.
The t o t a l c a p i t a l charge can be found by adding the p l a n t and f u e l c a p i t a l charges.
The t o t a l f u e l c a p i t a l charge i s m u l t i p l i e d by the p l a n t l o a d
factor, 0.75, since the data i n the t a b l e i s based on c o s t p e r kWe i n s t a l l e d c a p a c i t y . The t o t a l c a p i t a : charge for both the c o a l and u t i l i t y i n d u s t r y i s :
404 + 0.75 x 119
-
493S/kWe.
1 I8
(S/kWe)TOTAL=
e
e
e e
e e
e
e
I
e e
1
-
e
I
l
e
l I
I I
e
e
e
e
I I
I
8
I
n
I
ub
0
-
Ew
.
Table A-2:
a.
Footnotes
These values are for eastern underground coal mining.
For western surface mining:
Air:
NOX
1.1 -1 MT/Mk-yr
sox
8.1 -3
Part.
7.3 -2
HC
1.3 -2
Other
7.0 -3
Western coal i s or: cleaned.
Water: S i l t Other
Solid:
1.Cg
- 4.0
3.7 8.6
-
MT/MWe-yr
60.0 +2 (high end includes
-
o w rburdcn? ' iT/MWe y r See references 58, 59, 61.
See note c.
b.
High end of range includes no a c i d control.
C.
High end of range includes s o l i d s from a c i d control.
d.
Two t h i r d s o f the coal Is p h y s i c a l l y cleaned t o remove 40% o f the t o t a l s u l f u r .
See note b.
A t the cleaning p l a n t a 90% removal e f f i c i e n c y i s assumed for coal burned on
(4).
site e.
High values are f o r releases without environmental c o n t r o l s .
(3,4)
Over 958
of t h i s release i s composed of suspended coal i n "black water" f r o m the cleaning plant.
f.
0.1
-
1.0% loss i n transport.
I f the higher number i s more accurate, t h i s i s
the source of the l a r g e s t amount o f p a r t i c u l a t e s by weight i n a l l the coai cycles.
However, because o f the differences i n size d i s t r i b u t i o n s i t may not
be the most important i n terms of h e a l t h e f f e c t s . 9-
(129)
The ranges o f emissions f o r the power p l a n t correspond t o the f o l l o w i n g ranges ot c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r "national average coal":
2.5 1d
-
3.0% s u l f u r
- 125 ash
11,600
-
12,500 Btu/lb.
120
The range i n power p l a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :
80
- 90% removal o f s u l f u r
99
37% 0
- 99.5% removal
(65-86)
i n scrubber
of p a r t i c u l a t e s by weight
thermal e f f i c i e n c y
- 67% of
the coal i s cleaned to remove 40% of the t o t a l s u l f u r .
NOx emissions
correspond t o the emissions from the best a v a i l a b l e new b o i l e r s ( 0 . " I b / m i l l i o n Btu) t o new b o i l e r s w i t h combusion modifications (0.35
I b / m i l l i o n Btu) (15.77-79,
85). h.
See ref.
5.
i. From power p l a n t and cooling tower.
j.
65% sludge and 35% ash.
k.
There could be a i r p o l l u t i o n from burning coal mine refuse banks (see t a b l e
A-3).
There could a l s o be a i r p o l l u t i o n (mostly p a r t i c u l a t e s ) from ash and
sludge transport and disposal.
1.
The sludge has a pH o f about
9, 0.3
-
1.4 ppm t o x i c metals,
3555%
and would g r e a t l y exceed most water q u a l i t y standards i f released.
III-B-5.
m.
solids See section
(65, 87-30)
The t o t a l volume o f waste could be reduced by one t h i r d t o one h a l f i f the sludge were t o be dewatered and compacted. ma:erial
I t could a l s o be used as a f i l l
f o r open space o r construction depending on the degree of compaction
and dewatering.
(88, 90)
n.
See references 5, 80, 209.
0.
Primary CO except where noted.
P.
B i o l o g i c o x i d a t i o n demand, dissolved s o l i d s and a l k a l i n i t y are not noted, but suspended sol i d s , and a c i d i t y are included. Dissolved s o l i d s from cooling tower d r i f t could be added and i s approximately
0.3 MT/MWe-yr.
121
0
f cub
a a o
w
ub(L
n *
U
L V Y
W
5
c
-d I22
Table A-3:
a.
Footnotes
Underground eastern coal mining. For western surface mining:
Accidental deaths:
2.2
- 4.1
Inj ur 1es
3.4
-
( 10)-4/Hbleyr
15.0
(10)-3/MWe-yr
There i s a l a r g e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e s a f e s t and most dangerous mines and a g r e a t p o s s i b i l i t y for improvement i n t h e average r a t e .
A t present t h e
best mines have accident r a t e s o f 10% of t h e n a t i o n a l average rates. i s 50.2
injuries/lO
6
miner hours w h i l e l o w i s 5.3
injuries/lO
6
(Average
miner hours.)
Thus, i f t h e average were to approach t h e best now a v a i l a b l e , t h e i n j u r i e s
would be s u b s t a n t i a l l y reduced. For trends i n underground accident r a t e s : (24,25,137)
b.
T h i s assumes the present dust l e v e l s a r e i n f o r c e d (see Section 111-8-1). Other assumptions:
11600
-
10.2
-
12500 BTU/lo coal 14.2 MT/miner-day
220 miner day/yr Dose Response
- Ref.
Low End Range
-
High End Range
(25)
no complicated CWP (coal workers pneumoconcosis) or death
-
r a t i o o f 1 t o 14 death t o disease as i n present r a t e s
A t present the r a t e s a r e as f o l l o w s based on Reference 10 and used a; an upper l i m i t :
2.7 [ 1.4 0.5 -
(
Mper Wey r
plant in
{
0
9.3
-3
12.9
62.3
-2
death disability person-days lost for death and disability
7.0 PMF (progressive massive f i b r o s i s o r complicated CWP)
20.0
CWP (coal workers pneumoconcosis)
0-70
Other e f f e c t s ( e . g i n m i n e r ' s f a m i l i e s )
(0-7
Death
123
Based on Reference 2 and used as a lower l i m i t :
2.9 simple CWP for 1000 MWe p l a n t i n 1 year
1.3 cc)rtipI i c a t e d CUP 1.8 suspected CWP
See Section 111-8-1 f o r a discussion of the f u t u r e r a t e s i f present dust l e v e l standards are maintained. c.
(25).
10-3 chance of 25+ persons k i l l e d i n a mine accident.
(10)
One 1000-Mwe p l a n t
uses about 5(10)-3 of the present coal production. d.
93 d a y d i n j u r y (1)
e.
From r a i l t r a n s p o r t o f c o a l .
f.
SOX p o l l u t i o n o n l y (15).
Other p o l l u t a n t s such as NOx, ozone and CO a l s o
have an e f f e c t , but a r e n o t included, but h e a l t h e f f e c t s a r e based on SOX i n presence of a i r b o r n e p a r t i c u l a t e s . MT Sox/yr
I
Remote S i t e
I
Urban S i t e
This range i n t h e t a b l e includes a f a c t o r of 20 u n c e r t a i n t y i n dose response r e 1 a t iocs h ip. Illness:
Chronic r e s p i r a t o r y diseases = S days l o s t Asthma a t t a c k s
= 1 day l o s t
Respiratory diseases i n c h i l d r e n = 1 day l o s t Aggravated person-days o f heart-lung disease counted o n l y as person-days l o s t .
123a
These numbers were c a l c u l a t e d d i r e c t l y from the values i n r e f . 15 which a r e subject to much debate.
Please see references (10, 122-128,
132).
There may a l s o be carcinogens (130, 131). g.
There does n o t seem t o be any large-scale accident which might occur i n a c o a l - f i r e d power p l a n t although many kinds of f i r e s , explosion e t c . could cause severe damage t o the p l a n t and many c a s u a l t i e s among workers.
h.
(205)
There would be sone occupational accidents involved i n the handling o f sludge and ash.
i. A i r p o l l u t i o n from burning coal mine t a i l i n g s banks (10). p o l l u t i o n from sludge ponds c o u l d have an e f f e c t
I n a d d i t i o n , water
e.g_. on cardiovascular disease
and i n f a n t m o r t a l i t y rates, i f d r i n k i n g water s u p p l i e s were a f f e c t e d .
(140).
See Table A-2 notes k-m.
j.
There i s evidence t h a t some chemical emissions from f o s s i l f u e l e d power systems may have a mutagenic p o t e n t i a l .
f'?
s p e c i f i c compounds, t1.e routes o f exposure
and the dose/response r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e not understood.
I d e a l l y i t would be
des rable t o be a b l e t o measure b o t h tt.e g e n e t i c e f f e c t s o f chemicals and radi a t on i n a common u n i t such as the persan-rem equivalent we1 1 beyond our c u r r e n t a b i 1 it y
~
k,
6000 PDL/death from Ref. ( I ) .
1.
2/3 of coal i s processed (Ref. 1 , 2,
10).
124
(213).
This i s
>
P L
a.
Table 6-1: a.
Footnotes
Since a 37% power p l a n t thermal e f f i c i e n c y and a
75% power p l a n t c a p a c i t y
f a c t o r a r e assumed here as f o r the coal-scrub system, t h e h a r v e s t i n s fuels, upgrading f u e l s and t r a n s p o r t i n g f u e l s q u a n t i t i e s a r e p r e c i s e l y the same as those g i v e n i n Table A-1. b.
Q u a n t i t i e s given are for a coal f l u i d i z e d - b e d b o i l e r power p l a n t w i t h s u l f u r removal by regenerative d o l m i t e a b s o r p t i o n and a n a t u r a l d r a f t evaporative c o o l i n g tower, burning n a t i o n a l average c o a l . Assumed p l a n t
thermal e f f i c i e n c y
i s 37%, capacity f a c t o r , 75% and p l a n t l i f e , 30 years. C.
Represents quanti t i e s a t t r i b u t a b l e (where a v a i l a b l e ) to o n - s i t e disposal o f bottom ash, recovered f l y ash and dolomite sludge.
d.
I n Reference (13), the c o s t o f a f l u i d i z e d - b e d b o i l e r power p l a n t was estimated a t $192/hw i n January, 1970 d o l l a r s , excluding i n t e r e s t during construction
and escalation; assuming i n t e r e s t d u r i n g construct;on f o r 2 years
at. 10.5%/year as w e l l as 6% long-term i n f l a t i o n .
The net i n t e r e s t r a t e
i s 4.25%/year and we get $209/kW i n January 1970 d o l l a r s .
Adjustiig t o
1974 d o l l a r s u s i n g t h e Handy-Whi tman index f o r s t e a m - e l e c t r i c power p l a n t c o n s t r u c t i o n (Ref.
(3811, we get $302/kW.
\lestinghouse i s updating i t s
cost estimates f o r t h e i r f l u i d i z e d - b e d b o i l e r design as p a r t o f the NASA-
ERDA-NSF Energy Conversion A1 t e r n a t i v e Systems (ECAS) study and the r e s u l t s of t h i s work w i 11 be pub1 ished i n due course (42). e.
i n Reference (1) conventional 0 & M costs o f 1.28 mills/kWHe i n 1974 d o l l a r s a r e implied.
This corresponds t o $8.41 x 103 /MWe-yr.
126
f.
Coal c o s t s a r e the same as g i v e n i n Table A-1 and expanded upon i n footnote 9. of t h a t table.
We may a l s o use equation (A-1) i n t h a t footnote to calcu-
l a t e e l e c t r i c i t y costs. I T = 3.02 x 10
G = .839 and e'.
N =
EC
(from the f i r s t l i n e o f Table B-1) (from Table A-1, f o o t n o t e 9.)
8.41 x 10 capital 5.10
For t h e present system:
( f r o m the second l i n e of Table B-1)
O t M +
6.98
fuel +
15.00
m i 11s KwHe
27.10
g.
These c o s t s a r e incorporated i n t o the power p l a n t 0 t M cost.
h.
Although power p l a n t c o n s t r u c t i o n m a t e r i a l and labor requirements were n o t round f o r t h i s system, the b o i l e r i t s e l f i s conslderably smaller than a conventional steam b o i l e r because i t operates a t h i g h e r pressure.
Based on
the r e l a t i v e d i r e c t c a p i t a l costs a 20% r e d u c t i o n i n c o n s t r u c t i o n m a t e r i a l s seems p l a u s i b l e .
The s h o r t e r c o n s t r u c t i o c lead time and use o f a p r e f a b r i -
cated b o i l e r cou?d imply c o n s t r u c t i o n manpower up
TO
25% l e s s than f o r the
coal -scrub system.
i. Power p l a n t 0 & M labor requirements assumed i d e n t i c a l t o those f o r the coal scrub system. and include personnel r e q u i r e d f o r waste disposal.
j.
Fr-r a regenerative d e s u l f u r i z a t i o n system o n l y 17% o f the absorbent m a t e r i a l
required f o r the once-through system i s necessary (Ref. ( 1 ) ) .
k.
La:,;
and water requirements a r e assumed t o be i d e n t i c a l to those for the
coal scrub system except
83% l e s s land i s required f o r sludye disposal because
a regenerative d e s u l f u r i z a t i o n system i s employed. and
:3)
See a l s o References (1)
f o r land use, where smaller numbers a r e given, but l i k e l y exclude
b b i f f e r zones.
127
128
fable 8-2:
See notes a - f i n Table A-2.
a-f. g.
Footnotes
Ranges of emissions correspond t o coal o f :
2.5
-
10
- 3.0% s u l f d r 12% tsh
-
11,600
12,500 Btu/lb.
Pouer plapts w i t h :
- 95% removal of s u l f u r (91-98) - 99.8% r e m a 1 of p a r t i c u l a t e s by weight (4, 1 3 ,
90 99
32 )
37% thermal e f f i c i e n c y
7% of 0
-
the coal goes t o regeneration system, 93% t o b o i l e r (equivalent t o
39.8% e f f i c i e n c y of fluidized-bed b o i l e r . ) 67% of the coal i s p h y s i c a l l y cleaned to remove 40% o f tha s u l f u r .
HC from r e f . 1.
Toxic metals and radioactive emissions assumed t o be c o n t r o l l e d t o the same extent as p a r t i c u l a t e s .
80% of SOX from b o i l e r and the r e s t from the dolomite regeneration and s u l f u r recovery plants.
(1 )
The range i n NOx emissions i s taken from refs. uses a range o f 3.7
- 6.3
4, 13, 92
Ref. 1s
MT/Mwe-yr.
The p o t e n t i a l thermal e f f i c i e n c y i s much higher. well as ref.13 and
.
See chapters I I and 1 1 1 as
92.
An additional 0.3 MT of dissolved s o l i d s from cooling tower d r i f t could be added. h.
300 160
-
380 MT ash
- 190 MT dolomite
(1)
Sulfur recovered i s not included.
I f 704 of the s u l f u r i s recovered, uncleaned
3% s u l f u r coal could produce about 60 MT/Mwe-yr. i-k.
See notes k-m of Table A-2.
I-n.
See 0-q of Tab!e A-2.
I
+
c
T I-
In
?
I
I
0
0
0
C
c
c
Y cp
C
0
2 u
Y
Table
e-3:
a-e.
See notes a-e i n Table A-3.
f.
Footnotes
From r e f . 4:
40 men per 500 ton/hour f l u i d i z e d bed plant
8.1 i n j u r i e d m i 1 1 ion worker hours death r a t e = 5% i n j u r y r a t e and mid-point values of coal b o i l e r w i t h scrubber, Table A-3. g.
SOX only.
See Table A-3,
h.
Table A-3,
note 9.
i. Table A-3,
note h.
note f.
.
j.
Table A-3,
note i
k.
Table A-3,
note j .
1.
Table A-3,
note 1
131
L
A
P S n u .
132
Table C-1:
a.
Footnotes
With an assumed o\rerall power p l a n t e f f i c i e n c y of factor o f
37% and an assumed c a p a c i t y
75%, the coal fuel c y c l e stages for the coal-C.C.
system a r e pre-
c i s e l y the same as those for the c o a l scrub system given i n Table A-1.
b.
The conversion step for t h i s system includes a L u r g i type fixed-bed g a s l f i e r which provides Iow-Btu gas which i s then input t o a combii.,J-cycle
power system.
The g a s i f i e r i s assumed t o have a 79% thermal e f f i c i e n c y and the combined c y c l e a 47% thermal e f f i c i e n c y (Ref. lO3a), f o r an o v e r a l l c o a l - e l e c t r i c i t y efficiency o f
thermal
37%. The c a p a c i t y f a c t o r i s assumed to be 75% and the p l a n t
l i f e , 30 years. c.
Includes disposal of ash o n l y , as the recovered s u l f u r i s considered t o be sold.
d.
The c a p i t a l cost f o r the L u r g i g a s i f i e r i s taken from Reference (26) as $17O/Kwe i n e a r l y 1974 d o l l a r s i n c l u d i n g i n t e r e s t d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n . i s considerably higher than o t h e r estimates we have seen (e.g., (1).
(5)).
(8). (991, and (101), but not i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h a t g i v e n
This
i n References i n Reference
b u t i s thought t o r e f l e c t the considerable scale-up and i n t e r f a c i n g
problems l i k e l y t o be encountered i n t r y i n g t o i n t e r f a c e a g a s i f i e r w i t h a combined c y c l e power system.
A r e p o r t by t h e F l u o r
Corporation (being prepared f o r E P R l t o help evaluate the choice between a i r and oxygen as a g a s i f y i n g agent f o r u t i l i t y a p p l i c a t i o n 3nd due f o r p u b l i c a t i o n d u r i n g June o f 1975) should y i e l d more up-to-date estimates on both c a p i t a l and conventional 0 & M c o s t s f o r a Lurgi g a s i f i e r o f the type required f o r t h i s type of a p p l i c a t i o n . combined-cycle
The o r i g i n a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Lurgi
system may be found i n Ref. ( 1 1 1 ) and those i n t e r e s t e d i n the
a p p l i c a b i l i t y of Lurgi g a s i f i c a t i o n t o o t h e r than non-taking c o a l s r e f e r r e d t o Ref.
(113).
are
The g a s i f i e r c o s t o f $ 1 7 5 / K w was adjusted t o mid-
133
I974 d o l l a r s by m u l t i p l y i n g by 1.14 to r e f l e c t the e a r l y 1974 increase i n the i n d r s t r i a l wholesale p r i c e inde:,
$194/Kwe.
(see e.g.
Ref. ( 4 1 ) ) y i e l d i n g
A eornbined-cycle power system c a p i t a l c o s t of $174/Kwe was
derived from Ref. (8) and adjusted to mid-1974 d o l l a r s by n u l t i p l y i n g by 1.14 r e f l e c t i n g the increase i n the Hardy-Whitman Steam E l e c t r i c Construction index (Ref.
(38)) during e a r l y 1974.
To the $198/KWe
estimate so obtained, was added 1.5 years o f i n t e r e s t during construc-
tion a t 10.5% as w e l l as 6% i n f l a t i o n . The net i n t e r e s t r a t e i s 4.25%, which gave a combined-cycle system cost of $ZIl/kWe.
Therefore, the t o t a l coal C-C
power 6 l a n t c a p i t a l cost was taken as $409/kWe. e.
A conventional 0 6 fl cost o f $9.86 x 1 0 3 / ~ y ri s assumed to r e f l e c t the e l i m i n a t i o n of sludge disposal problems inherent i n the coal-scrub and fluidized-bed systems considered i n Tables A-1 and 8-1, respectively.
AI-
though less dolomite i s required for t h i s coal based system than f o r the other t w o and although elemental s u l f u r may be sold f o r about $lO?ton, the
0 & M cost here i s n o t reduced below 75% of t h a t for the o t h e r t w o systems because of a d d i t i o n a l 0 & M costs necessary t o run the g a s i f i e r . f.
The e l e c t r i c i t y cost equation,@-I),
given i n note g o f Table A-1 applies i n
the present case w i t h :
8
I T = 4.09 x 10 G =
.839
(from note g . , Table A-1)
6
N = 9.86 x 10
capital
EC = 6.91 g.
Capital and 0 &
(from the f i r s t row of t h i s table)
(from the second row of t h s table) 0 & M
+ 9.00
fuel
+ 15.0 = 30.Ql
m Ils/KwHe
M costs f o r ash disposal are included i n the corresponding
power p l ant e n t r i e s . h.
Power p l a n t construction labor and materials data was derived from Ref. (8) and are annualized over the appropriate f a c i l i t y l i f e t i m e .
134
i. Waste disposal construction manpower and m a t e r i a l s (which are q u i t e small anyway) a r e included i n the ccrresponding power p l a n t e n t r i e s .
j.
0 L H labor requirements a t the power p l a n t are taken as approximately equal to those for the coal-scrub system.
k.
A n c i l l a r y energy requirements a t the power p l a n t a r e from Ref.
(1).
It i s
i r r e l e v a n t whether or not some or a l l o f t h i s a n c i l l a r y energy requirement may be a c t u a l l y s a t i s f i e d i n t e r n a l l y by using the combined c y c l e output energy because o f the u n c e r t a i n t y of our assumed p l a n t e f f i c i e n c y .
‘3).
I.
Dolomite required for s u l f u r cleanup o f the low-Btu gas i s from Ref.
m.
Power p l a n t land use i s assumed equal t o t h a t f o r the coal-scrub system (although Ref.
(1) gives o n l y
14.4
2
m /Mwe-yr,
f a c i l i t i e s f o r coal
storage and u n i t t r a i n unloading are s t i l l required as w e l l as a b u f f e r zone, which leads
us to believe the power p l a n t land requirement (excepting
waste disposal requirements) f o r the two systems would be q u i t e s i m i l a r ) . I t i s again assumed here that the power p l a n t land requirement i s a l l disturbed (but not permanently) although i n r e a l i t y p a r t o f i t i s probably a b u f f e r zone. For waste disposal, however, the coal C-C. (Ref.
system uses o n l y one-fourth
( 1 ) ) as much land as the coal-scrub system, as there i s no sludge
d isposa 1 problem. n.
Water requirements a t the power p l a n t were derived from Ref.
135
(3).
.
I
0
CI I I
l l
l l
I
I
I
I
I I
Q I
I l
I l
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
.-
I
I
I
O
0
I
I
l
l
I
I
l
l
I I
I I
I I
l I
l I
1 I
I I
I I
I I
l
l
l
l
1
I I
I I
I
I 1
I I
I I
I I
--
I
t
.
?
-
o
j 0
Table C-2:
See notes a - f , Table A-2.
a-f. 9.
Footnotes
Coal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :
2.5
-
10
- 3.0% s u l f u r 12% ash
11,600
-
12,500 Btu/lb.
Power p l a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :
(100-110, 1
98 - 99.7% s u l f u r removal 99 - 99.98 p a r t i c u l a t e removal by weight 37% thermal e f f i c i e n c y = 79% g a s i f i e r e f f c i z n c y x 47% combined-cycle combustion efficiency
0
-
HC:
.
67% of t h e coal i s p h y s i c a l l y cleaned t o remove 40% of the s u l f u r . High end from r e f .
4
and low end from r e f . 1 .
Toxic metals and r a d i o a c t i v e emissions assumed t o be c o n t r o l l e d t o the same extent as p a r t icui ates.
NOx:
High end from r e f . 15 (10% o f n a t u r a l gas emission r a t e which, from r e f . 8 6 i s 0.4 l b / m i l l i o n Btu) and l o w end from r e f . 1 .
The p o t e n t i a l thermal e f f i c i e n c y i s much higher. ref.
See chapters I I and I1 I and
23, 28, 103.
An a d d i t i o n a l 0.3 MT/Mwe-yr o f d i s s o l v e d s o l i d s i n c o o l i n g water d r i f t c o u l d be added. h.
Based on new source performance standards ( 1 ) .
i.
From g a s i f i e r o n l y ( 1 1 . .
j.
There would be some impact o f handling the ash and s u l f u r produced i n the gasifier.
k.
See note q i n Table A-2.
1.
See Reference I .
Approximately 0.2 MT/MWe-yr.
137
r za -c
Table C-3: a-e.
Footnotes.
See notes a-e i n Table A-3.
f.
Combined-cyc',- combustion ( l ) , Lurgi g a s i f i c a t i o n
g.
SOX only.
h-k. I.
See Tbble A - 3 ,
See Table A-3, See Table A-3,
note f .
notes g - j . note 1 .
139
(4).
REPRODUCIBm OF TIIE ORIGINAL PAGE IS POOR
c
0
3
LL
(P ¶ 'I)
e a .. Y)
c
I
n
u c D
8
140
Table
a.
D-1:
Footnotes
For t h e base case, t h e h a r v e s t i n g f u e l s s t a g e c o n s i s t s o f o f f s h o r e o i l ext r a c t i o n and t r a n s p o r t o f t h e crude to a r e f i n e r y by p i p e l i n e .
An a l t e r n a t i v e
case o f imported m i d d l e e a s t e r n crude was also considered and resources r e q u i r e d f o r the tankers and import f a c i l i t i e s necessary t o t r a n s p o r t t h i s imported crude to a r e f i n e r y a r e i q c l u d e d i n t h e a p p r o p r i a t e f o o t n o t e s below. The o f f s h o r e f a c i l i t i e s were assumed t o have a twenty year l i f e t i m e , w h i l e the tanker and r e l a t e d f a c ; ” t i e s b.
were assumed t o l a s t f o r t h i r t y years.
For the RFO system t h e upgrading f u e l s stage corresponds t o t h e o p e r a t i o n
of a petroleum r e f i n e r y .
T h i s r e f i n e r y was t r e a t e d as i f i t s e n t i r e o u t p u t
were r e s i d u a l f u e l o i 1 and resource u t i 1 i z a t i o n s scaled a c c o r d i n g l y . example,
For
i f the p r o d u c t i o n o f 1 b a r r e l o f petroleum p r o d u c t s a t a r e f i n e r y
consumes 1 l i t e r of water, amount o f water.
1 b a r r e l o f RFO i s a l s o assumed t o r e q u i r e t h i s
See i n d i v i d u a l resource u t i l i z a t i o n c a t e g o r y f o o t n o t e s below
f o r exceptions t o t h i s genera; r u l e .
The r e f i n e r y was assumed t o have a
t h i r t y year 1 i fetime. C.
All
RFO i s assumed t o be t r a n s p o r t e d by p i p e l i n e from t h e r e f i n e r y t o the
power p l a n t . d.
The p i p e l i n e was assumed t o have a t h i r t y year l i f e .
Q u a n t i t i e s g i v e n - - e f o r an u n c o n t r o l l e d o i l - f i r e a 7ower p l a n t b u r n i n g l o w s u l f u r r e s i d u a l f u e l o i l and w i t h a n a t u r a l d r a f t e v a p o r a t i v e c o o l i n g tower. The power p l a n t was assumed t o have a thermal e f f i c i e n c y 2 f factor of
e.
752
382,
a capacity
and a l i f e t i m e o f 30 years.
For t h i s system the management o f f i n a l wastes c o n s i s t s o n l y o f the v e r y small commitment of land r e q u i r e d f o r d i s p o s a l o f the ash generated b y RFO combustion.
f.
The d i r e c t p l u s i n d i r e c t c a p i t a l c o s t ( e x c l u d i n g i n t e r e s t d u r : n g c o n s i r u c t i o n ) f o r the RFO system was t .hen from Ref. during construction o f
3
( 2 1 ) as $248/Kwe.
Adding i n t e r e s t
years a t t h e n e t i n t e r e s t of 4.25k g i v e s a t o t a l
c a p i t a l cost o f $280/kWe.
141
9.
Conventional 0 6
0.6
mill&wHe,
M c o s t s were taken from Ref. ( 21 ) and o t h e r sources a r e
which f o r a p l a n t a t a
75% c a p a c i t y f a c t o r t r a n s l a t e s t o
$394O/Mwe /Y r h.
The p r i c e of RFO was taken from Ref.
( 3 2 ) as 204.6~/MBtu i n December o f
1974 and d e f l a t e d by the consumer's p r i c e index t o 193 C/MBtu i n mid-1974. dollars.
For t h e p r e s e n t case t h e e l e c t r i c i t y c o s t e q u a t i o n (A-1)
i n note 9
o f Table A-1 needs o n l y s l i g h t m o d i f i c a t i o n t o r e f l e c t the s l i g h t l y h i g h e r thermal e f f i c i e n c y assumed here.
0 t M cost
C a p i t a l Cost
EC = 1.69 x
Making t h i s adjustment, e q u a t i o n (A-1)
x IT
i
2.97 x
becomes:
Fuel Cost
lom7 x
(.051T
N ) + 17.2G
i
Naw, f o r t h e RFO system:
8
I T = 2.80 x 10
5 = 1.93
( f r o m f i r s t sentence o f t h i s f o o t n o t e )
6
N = 3.94 x 10 Capital b'bEC
= 4.73
( f r o m f i r s t row o f t a b l e )
(from second row o f t a b l e ) O b M
+
5.33
+
Fue 1 33.20
= 43.25
mills/KwHe
Therefore the t o t a l c o n t r i b u t i o n :,f the c o s t o f f u e l t o t h e c o s t o f d l e c t r i c i t y f o r t h e RFO system I s l a r g e basis.
--
33.20 mills/KwHe on a n a t i o n a l average
No breakdown o f the c o n t r i b u t i o n o f t h e v a r i o u s stages o f the f u e l
c y c l e to the c o s t o f R F O d e l i v e r e d to t h e power p l a n t h a s attempted,pa*
:iy
due t o the d i f f i c u l t y o f a s s i g n i n g c o s t c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o r e f i n e r y prclducts and p a r t l y due t o l a c k o f good data.
i. Fuel c y c l e f a c i l i t y c a p i t a l c o s t s , c o n s t r u c t i o n l a b o r requirements and cons t r u c t i o n m a t e r i a l s requirements a r c d e r i v c d from data g i v e n i n Ref. ( 8 ) .
Fuel
c y c l e c a p i t a l requirements a r e the investment r e q u i r e d t o b u i l d enough c a p a c i t y f o r one Mwe-yr ' s N o r t h o f f u e l p r o d u c t i o n c a p a c i t y .
T h i s was done beca*Jse o f
the d i v e r s e r e q u i r e d r a t e s o f r e t u r n and a c c o u n t i n g procedures
142
i 0 c . i
1 ized i n
C o n s t r u c t i o n manpower and ma:erials
the v a r i o u s f u e l c y c l e i n d u s t r i e s .
requirements are, however, annualized by d i v i d i n g the requirements to cons t r u c t c a p a c i t y s u f f i c i e n t to p r o v i d e one Mwe-yr. of f u e l by t h e assumed (see notes a-e!
For the imported m i d d l e e a s t e r n crude
f a c i l i t y lifetimes.
case che requirements f o r tankers and o i l import f a c i l i t i e s would be:
4
c y c l e c a p i t a l c o s t = 3, .'6 x 10 / t h e - y r ; F i e l d Super. and Adm.=
1.39 MH/Mwe-yr;
,'tiel
Engineering = 3.95 MH/Mwe-yr; F i e l d l l n s k i 1 l e d Manual = 4.07 MH/Mwe-yr;
1 F i e l d S k i l l e d Planual = 1.78 x 10 MH Mwe-yr; T o t a l c o n s t r u c t i o n l a b o r = 1 2.72 x 10 MH/Mwe-yr; MT/Mwe-yr;
S t r u c t u r a l = 3.74 x lG-'MT/Plwe-yr;
-2
H a j o r Equipment 7.69 x 10
MT/Mwe-yr;
D,pe = 3.39 x 10-1
Minor Equipment = 1.c'
x
IO-* MT/Mwe-yr; T o t a l C o n s t r u c t i o n M e t a l s = 8.06 MT/Mwe-yr and Concrete = 8.71 x j.
MT/Mwe-yr.
Very small c a p i t a l and 0 & M c o s t s for ash and sludge d i s p o s a l a r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e correspond ing power p 1a n t e n t r i e s .
k.
Fuel c y c l e 0 & M c o s t s were d e r i v e d from References (1) and (118); supertanker 0 & M c o s t s w;.e n o t obtained.
I.
0 E M labor r.quirements were der!ved from d a t a i n References (118), and (1).
0 & M l a b o r for supertanker t r a n s p o r t was d e r i v e d from Ref.
2
as 2.07 x 10 m.
(12O), (121)
MH/Mwe-yr.
Thermal e f f i c i e n c i e s and a n c i l l a r y energy requirements were o b t a i n e d from References ( l ) ,
(118) and (120).
A n c i l l a r y e l e c t r i c a l requirements were
d.,ain backfigured t o primary f u e l requirements as p e r n o t e j o f Tahle A - 1 An a n c i l i a r y energy requirement o f 1.12 x 10-1 Mwth-yr/Mwe-yr was d e r i v e d from data g i v e n i n Ref.
n.
f o r supertankers
(1).
Land requirements were d e r i v e d from d a t a g i v e n i n Referenccs ( 1 1 ,
(21,
(31,
( 4 ) , ( 7 ) , and (8) a d are annualized over the assumed f a c i l i t y l i f e t i m e s ,
143
(e.g.,
a f i x e d c o m i tment o f land necessary f o r enough r e f i n e r y c a p a c i t y f o r
one Mwe-yr.
i s d i v i d e d by tt.2 assumed r e f i n e r y l i f e t i m e t o g e t the land use
consumption per h - y r . )
The surface area of o f f s h o r e d r i 11 ing p l a t f o r m s
was considered as land use, but t h i s amounts t o a d i s t u r b e d tempo-ary
1
2
commitment o f o n l y 2 x 10 m /Mwe-yr.
P i p e l i n e s (both crude and RFO c a r r y i n g )
a r e assumed t o average 300-360 m i l e s i n l e n g t h and t o r e q u i r e r i g h t o f way o f 62.5 f e e t , o n l y 1/3 o f which i s assumed t o be d i s t u r b e d (by access roads and other maintenance and o p e r a t i n g f a c i l ituies).
None of the land commi tments
f o r the RFO system are assumed t o be permanent, a t l e a s t pot i n the same sense as f o r nuclear system f a c i l i t i e s .
Land use f o r a tank farm f o r import
2 f a c i l i t i e s i s small a t 1.84 m /Mwe-yr 0.
(from Ref ( 1 ) ) .
Although some o f the temporary land use f o r the RFO power p l a n t i s probably used as a b u f f e r zone and hence n o t disturbed,
t o be conservative, we have
chosen t o t r e a t the e n t i r e power p l a r - t land comnitment as being disturbed. p.
Water consumption data i s p r i m a r i l y f r o m references (
3 j and ( 7 ) and
r e f e r s o n l y t o evaporated water which f o r the RFO system i s o n l y r e q u i r e d f o r c o o l i n g a t the r e f i n e r y and power p l a n t .
144
0
c I
0 c
01 Y
LL
c
ID V
c
u e
N I
0
01
c
n 10 I-
z
W
I
c
f a b l e 0-2:
a.
Footnotes
Offshore domestic production p l u s p i p e l i n e .
Most o f the impacts are f r o m
the p i p e l i n e . The f o l lowing emissions are associated w i t h f o r e i g n product ion p l u s c#ude transport by tanker:
NOx 0.028 MT/MWe-yr
Air:
Water:
0.64 MT o i l spi llage/MWe-yr
SOX 0.044
P a r t 0.0032 HC
0.0019
Other 0.0003 We have not made a d i s t i n c t i o n between the impacts o f o u t e r continental shelf production and near off-shore production or between tanker transport and supertanker transport. b.
About 5.8 (10)
O i l spillage.
3 MT b r i n e could be added t o t h i s impact.
See
note e and ref. 114-119. c.
Refinery emissions are assumed t o apply on a Btu basis t o RFO which comprises about
6%of an average
- 7.1
d.
Includes 3.0
e.
O i l s p i l l a g e rates:
f.
RFO c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :
-
0.6
U.S.
r e f i n e r y ' s output (1,
3 , 7, l l a )
( l o r 3 MT o i l . 0.006%(1)
- 0.04%(3).
1.0% s u l f u r by weight
6 . 3 (10)
6
Btu/bbl
P1ant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :
0 90
-
90% removal of s u l f u r
-
99% removal of p a r t i c u l a t e s
The range o f NOx i s due t o the best new b o i l e r s a v a i l a b l e t o d a y on the h i g h end and down by a f a c t o r o f two t o account f o r f u t u r e combustion m o d i f i c a t i o n s a t the low end (IS).
An a d d i t ona
0.3 dissolved s o l i d s i n d r i f t from c o o l i n g towers
could be added.
146
s
9.
See ref. 5
h.
High number from ref. 7, low number f r o m ref. 3.
81.
1. Two thirds Ra-228, one-third Ra-226. j-I.
See Table A-2,
(3, 80, 209. '14)
notes k m .
See refs. 84-86. m.
See footnote q in Table 8-2.
147
c
I
Y
C 0
E
U V
5
U I
I
148
Table 0-3:
a.
Footnotes.
Offshore
+ p i p e l ine.
The r a t e s f o r f o r e i g n p r o d u c t i o n + tanker i m p o r t are:
( 1 , 4, 7)
Deaths 8 . 0 ( 1 0 ) - ~/MWe-yr Inj u r ies
4.5 ( 10) -3 /MWe-yr
Person-days l o s t 0.8/MWe-yr We have n o t made a d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e a c c i d e n t r a t e s of o u t e r c o n t i n e n t a l she1 f p r o d u c t i o n and near off-shore
p r o d u c t i o n o r between tanker t r a n s p o r t and
supertanker t r a n s p o r t . b.
31 d a y d i n j u r y ( 1 ) .
C.
Tanker e x p l o s i o n s ( 115-1189 205).
d.
See Table 0-2, n o t e c .
e.
31 d a y s / i n j u r y ( 1 ) .
f.
SOX o n l y .
9.
From SOX released i n a l a r g e f i r e a t a r e f i n e r y o r a t
See Table A - 3 ,
f o r a power p l a n t . h.
See Table A - 3 ,
(191).
note j .
note f aad a l s o r e f . 101
. -*orage tank farm
L 0 c. U
m
al
e L
+ al w
Y
-cm
-1
-.. I W
0
c
n
0
I-
150
Table E-1:
a.
Footnotes
Includes mining and m i l l i n g o f U 0
3 6
assumed f o r these f a c i l i t i e s .
(yellowcake).
A 20 year l i f e t i m e i s
Surface mining was assumed for the base case,
but n a t i o n a l average data a r e g i v e n for f u e l c o s t and o p e r a t i o n a l manpower Data, where a v a i l a b l e , f o r uranium deep mines i s g i v e n i n the a p p r o p r i a t e footnotes. b.
Includes conversion o f U 0
38
fabrication. C.
t o UF
6'
enrichment o f UF6 and f u e l element
A 30 year l i f e i s assumed f o r these f a c i l i t i e s .
Costs and resource u t i l i z a t i o n f o r t r a n s p o r t o f nuclear f u e l s i s included i n the appropriate f u e l c y c l e step t o t a l s , e.g.,
about 1/12 o f the c o s t of man-
agement o f f i n a l wastes may be a t t r i b u t e d t o the c o s t of spent-fuel shipping. d.
This column represents c o s t s and resource u t i l i z a t i o n s f o r a Light-Water Reactor (LWR) w i t h a n a t u r a l d r a f t evaporative cool i n g tower, a thermel e f f i c i e n c y of 32% and a c a p a c i t y f a c t o r o f
e.
75%.
This stage includes spent f u e l shipping and reprocessing, as w e l l as management o f f i n a l wastes.
f.
Because o f t h e i r many steps and t i m e lags the nuclear f u e l c y c l e s are inhere n t i y more d i f f i c u l t t o ana yze than the foss 1 f u e l cycles. ana 1 y s i s f u e l cyc:e charges a r e discounted as they occur.
I n the present
B a s i c a l l y the
e l e c t r i c t y cost zquaclan used f o r the f o s s i 1 system (equation A-1 Table .A- ) , m u s t be n o t i i f i e d as f o l l o w s :
EC =
1.69 x 10
-8
x IT
+ 2.97
x
g,
Equation F - 1
0 5 M Cost
Capital C o s t
, note
Fuel Cost
(.OS
I T + N)
+ 1.69
-8
x 10
x PV(FC)
where I T & N = a s before the p l a n t c a p i t a l cost and 0 & M cost i n mid-
1974 dol l a r s
and PV(FC) = the present value o f t h e f u e l c y c l e charges over :he
lifetime
o f t h e p l a n t discounted to t h e date o f commercial operation. Since
6% long-term i n f : a t i o n and 10.5% i n t e r e s t a r e assumed,
the n e t discount r a t e i s 4.25% (1.105/1.06)
and t h i s i s used
t o determine the present v a l u e of t h e nuclear f u e l c o s t steam. This approach i s taken since nuclear f u e l c o s t s a r e a s t r i n g
of c a p i t a l charges r a t h e r than f o s s i l fuels.
a f u e l cost i n $/MBTU i s w i t h
The c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f the c o s t s o f t h e v a r i o u s
f u e l c y c l e s o p e r a t i n g t o the cost of t h e i n i t i a l core a r e included i n the f u e l cost r a t h e r than t h e c a p i t a l cost.
This i s
conventional and makes i t e a s i e r t o consider unequal f u e l and c a p i t a l e s c a l a t i o n r a t e s i n the s e n s i t i v i t y analyses o f Chapter 3. g.
A c a p i t a l cost o f $371/kWe,
tion,was
excluding i n t e r e s t d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n and escala-
obtained from Reference (21).
construction f o r
To t h i s was added i n t e r e s t d u r i n g
3.75 years a t 10.5% i n t e r e s t and 6% long-term i n f l a t i o n .
The n e t i n t e r e s t i s 4.25%, f o r a t o t a l c a p i t a l c o s t of $424/kWe. h.
The power p l a n t 0 & M costs was taken from Ref. (21) as $5.26 x 103/Mwe/yr.
i.
The value o f the i n i t i a l core was c a l c u l a t e d using f u e l c y c l e requirements ap’
The model mass balance represents 2/3rds
t i m i n g obtained from Ref. ( 1 1 ) .
of a PWR and 1/3 of a BWR.
This corresponds t o the r a t i o a t which c a p a c i t y
o f these two types o f reactors (231).
wi 1 1 be bui 1 t according t o References (11) and
The f u e l c y c l e requirements f o r the i n i t i a l core a r e assumed t o be
442 MT of U308, 554 MT o f UF6 Conversion, 203 MT
87 MTU of fuel f a b r i c a t i o n .
o f separative work and
What the u n i t costs by the various f u e l c y c l e
services w i l l be between now and the end o f the century ( t o say nothing o f beyond t h i s p o i n t ) i s an extremely c o n t r o v e r s i a l s u b j e c t : U 0
3 8
-
(c.f.
availability
the question o f
being perhaps the most c o n t r o v e r s i a l i s s u e .
References (45). (159
-
162),
(172))
152
We would be foo
hardy to base our e n t i r e a n a l y s i s on a s i n g l e p l a u s i b l e U 0
3 8
n u c l e a r c a p a c i t y b u i l d u p scenario,and generation costs to U 0
3 8
availability-
so t h e s e n s i t i v i t y of n u c l e a r power
p r i c e i s i n c l u d e d i n Chapter
hDwever, we have chosen t h e case 0 s c e n a r i o i n Ref. t h e b u i l d u p of nuclear qeneratinq capacity.
3.
F o r t h e base case,
(11) t o r e p r e s e n t
We assume a 0.25%
t a i l s assay and do not d i s c o u n t t h e c a p a c i t y b u i l d u p by 20% due to r e c e n t c a n c e l l a t i o n s and d e l a y s as was done i n Reference
( I t s ) , because we want t h i s See Table F-1 for
LWR o p t i o n t o be one i n which P l u t o n i u m i s not r e c y c l e d . t h e Pu r e c y c l e case.
We
chose t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between f o r .'.
ward c o s t and
selling price-for U 0
3 8
g i v e n i n Ref.
(1761,
(and a l l u d e d t o
i n Reference (161)), w i 1 1 m a t e r i a l i z e and f u r t h e r t h a t a l l t h e e s t i m a t e d a d d i t i o n a l reserves t a b u l a t e d i n t h i s Reference w i l l
be d i s c o v e r e d on a t i m e l y b a s i s
between now and the end of the c e n t u r y and t h a t t h e U 0
3 8
price w i l l stay
r e l a t i v e l y f i x e d o v e r the f i r s t 19 years o f t h e n e x t c e n t u r y due to new d i s c o v e r i e s o r breeders. T h i s seems c o m p l e t e l y
(1451,
reasonable as References
(159) and (232) suggest t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l a d d i t i o n a l d i s c o v e r i e s may
be p o s s i b l e i n t h e long r u n ) .
Combining the U 0
3 8
a v a i l a b i l i t y and p r i c e
d a t a o f Reference (176) w i t h the n u c l e a r g e n e r a t i n g c a p a c i t y d a t a i n Ref. (11) we a r r i v e d a t a when the U 0
3 8
mid-1974 d o l l a r s p r i c e o f S13/lb. u3°8
i n 1988 (which
f o r the i n i t i a l c o r e would have t o be purchased i n o r d e r t o
have a commercial LWR by o u r 1990 reference d a t e ) .
Other f u e l
c y c l e c h a r g t s necessary t o compute the i n i t i a l c o r e v a l u e were g a t h e r e d from Refzrences ( l l ) , (1451, follows:
(2311, and ( 6 ) and were assumed t o be a s
Conversion t o UF6 a t SlSO/lb.-U,
F a b r i c a t i o n a t $70/KgU.
Enrichment a t $75/SWU,
and F u e l
Using a l s o the f u e l c y c l e l o a d times g i v e n i n Ref. ( 1 1 )
and a 4.252 n e t o r r e a l r a t e o f i n t e r e s t ( t h e f u e l - c y c l e
inventory holding
"Forward cost i s used here as m a r g i n a l cost o f e x t r a c t i n g U j O g from e x i s t i n g mines based on government economies, i . e . , no p r o f i t , no c a p i t a l charges, e t c . S e l l i n g p r i c e i s U 0 c o s t fror,i f u t u r e mines based on i n d u s t r i a l economics.
3 8
153
charges a r e thus t r e a t e d e x a c t l y the same as i n t e r e s t d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n ) , an i n i t i a l c o r e value o f
37.5 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s was c a l c u l a t e d .
Further,
the
f i n a l c o r e a t t h e end o f the assumed 30 year p l a n t 1 i f e has a discounted value o f 18.6 m i 1 1 i o n d o l l a r s . Using the same U 0
3 8
a v a i l a b i l i t y and nuclear c a p a c i t y b u i l d u p scenarios as
above,we used a $14/lb.-U
0
3 8
r e a c t o r ’ c o p e r a t i o n , $27/1b.-U $45/lb.-U 0
3 8
p r i c e f o r the f i r s t 5 years o f the reference 0
3 8
f o r the s e c m d 5 years o f o p e r a t i o n and
f o r the f i n a l 20 years o f r e a c t o r l i f e .
To t h e f u e l c y c l e charges
g i v e n above i s added a $120/kgU reprocessing and waste management charge. The r e a c t o r was assumed to move from t h e i n i t i a l c o r e c o n f i g u r a t i o n t o i t s steady s t a t e c o n f i g u r a t i o n as q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e
(Le., as
soon as r e p r o -
cessed f u e l i s a v a i l a b l e i t i s assumed t o be r e c y c l e d a t the s t e a d y - s t a t e level).
For t h i s case no Pu r e c y c l e was considered and t h e r e f o r e the o u t -
p u t Pu from the r e a c t o r was assumed t o have no v a l u e . t h i s assumption was t h a t i f breeders a r e
The r a t i o n a l e behind
deemed safe, so w i l l Pu r e c y c l e ,
and then e i t h e r an LWR Pu r e c y c l e economy or an LWR-Breeder economy w i l l emerge i n the s h o r t run.
See Chapter 3 f o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f the c o s t s and
resource u t i 1 i z a t i o n s for these m u l t i p l e - r e a c t o r - s y s t e m s .
The steady s t a t e
r e l o a d mass balance used was again d e r i v e d from Referelices
( 3 ) . (71, and ( l l ) ,
and assumed a 0.15% t a i l s assay, f o r a 2/3rds Pwr-1/3 means t h a t 154 MT o f U 0
3 8’
BWR model r e a c t o r .
193 MT o f UF conversion, 102 MT
6
This
o f separative
w r k , 27.5 MTU of f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n and 26 MTU o f f u e l reprocessing a r e r e q u i r e d each year. c a l c u l a t e d as
456
The present v a l u e of the f u e l - c y c l e charges was
then
r n i l l i a n d o l l a r s ( i n c l u d i n g the i n i t i a l core and c r e d i t for
the f i n a l c o r e ) .
I54
Next, u s i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g i n p u t d a t a :
IT = N = PV(FC) =
4.24 5.26 4.56
x 10
(from l i n e 1 of Table)
x 10
( f r o m 1 i n e 2 o f Table)
x 10
(from above)
*
E l l o f n o t e f t o c a l c u l a t e the e l e c t r i c i t y g e n e r a t i o n
we can use e q u a t i o n c o s t as f o l l o w s :
7.17
Fue 1
0 & M
Capital
=
EC
+
7.86
7.70
+
mills 22.73 ~ w
=
~
e
w i t h the breakdown o f t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s of t h e c o s t s o f v a r i o u s stages of the f u e l c y c l e t o t h e f u e l c o s t as shown i n the Table.
j.
c a p i t a l c o s t s ( n o t annual ized,
Fuel-cycle
*.
, spread
o v e r the assumed
f a c i l i t y 1 i f e t i m e ) and c o n s t r u c t i o n manpower and m a t e r i a l s requirements (annJ,r;ized o v e r the assumed f a c i l i t y l i f e t i m e s ) a r e p r i m a r i l y from r e f erence
(8).
For a more disaggregated breakdown of these requirements see
the r e f e r e n c e c i t e d i n note k o f Table A-1 as w e l l as references (1461,
(1471, (168), and (231). alternat;
.
For c a p i t a ! c o s t s f o r v a r i o u s waste d i s p o s a l
see r e f e r e n c e (20).
The c a p i t a l c o s t f o r underground u r i . l i u m m i n i n g would be $4.31 x 103/Mwe-yr. Manpower r e q u i r e d f o r such m i n i n g would i n c l u d e 1.08 MH/Mwe-yr o f e n g i n e e r s ,
6.9 x 10-1 MH/Mwe-yr o f f i e l d s u p e r v i s i o n and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e personnel, 6 . 3 x 00
-1
MH/Ilwe-yr o f f i e l d u n s k i l l e d manual l a b o r and
3.3 MH/Mwe-yr of
f i e l d s k i 1 l e d manual l a b o r , f o r a t o t a l c o n s t r u c t i o n manpower r e q u i rement of
5.70 MH/rlwe-yr. include 3 . 2 5 x
M a t e r i a l s r e q u i r e d f o r underground uranium m i n i n q would MT/Mwe-yr o f s t r u c t u r e metals and 8.45 x
MT/Mwe-yr
o f metals f o r major equipment f o r a t o t a l metals requirement o f 4.10 o f m e t a l s , as w e l l as 5.18 x 10
-2
MT/Mwe-yr o f c o n c r e t e .
-2
MT/Mwe-yr
k.
From references (21) and (231).
1.
From references
m.
Ba>ed on an energy p o t e n t i a l of 22,000 Kwht/gram
(7) and
(231).
U f o r complete f i s s i o n i n g o f U.
The " e f f i c i e n c y " of t h e upgrading f u e l s stage a c t u a l l y i n c l u d e s t h e whole f u e l c y c l e i n c l u d i n g reprocess ng. For t h i s system a small amount o f f i s s i o n p o t e n t i a l i s l o s t by d i s c a r d i n g Pu ani a g r e a t d e a l i s l e f t i n t h e enrichment t a i l s b o t h from r e oad and r e c y c l e o p e r a t ions.
A c t u a l l y i f a breeder economy emerges these
t a Is can be used as the f e r t i l e m a t e r i a l i n t h e breeders.
LYRs, hcqever,
use n a t u r a l uranium q u i t e i n e f f i c i e n t l y . n.
From references (21, (31, reactor
S
(61, (7), (9) and ( 1 2 ) .
i t e s ranges from 84-30,000
1160 acres ( r e f .
Land used f o r c u r r e n t
acres, w i t h an average comrni tment
of
( 1 4 8 ) ) , b u t much o f t h i s l a n d i s purchased t o accomGdate
f u t u r e expansions i n g e n e r a t i n g c a p a c i t y . used here i s from r e f .
The 250 acres per s i t e f i g u r e
(2) and should be viewed o n l y as a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
figure. 0.
Net e f f i c i e n c y for n u c l e a r p l a n t s i s p r i m a r y energy e f f i c i e n c y a t t h e g e n e r a t i n g p l a n t c o r r e c t e d f o r t o t a l a n c i l l a r y energy use assuming a n c i l l a r y energy c o u l d by converted t o e l e c t r i c i t y a t t h e p r i m a r y e f f i c i e n c y a t t h e c o n v e r s i o n p l a n t . For example, n e t e f f i c i e n c y = 1/(3.13 -+ 0 . 1 3 ) = 0.307
p.
The t o t a l c a p i t a l charge can be found by adding t h e p ant and f u e l c a p i t a l cha rges
.
( $/ kWe Tot a
= 424 + 0.75 x 39 = 453$/kWe.
156
OF
REPE#IDU-
ORIGINAL PAGE IS POOR
>
P.u
e-
>
t Y
u-oc
~
a
c
w
I I
157
a
m o a - Q
I“ I
-1 1
--
Table E-2:
Footnotes
some HF- i s emitted i n the upgrading steps.
a.
Mostly CO,
b.
Mostly Th and U.
C.
The category o f "other"
a l s o includes nonradioactive water impacts whose
character was n o t s p e c i f i e d .
-
3.4 (10) 3 MT overburden from surface mining. See refs. 157-158.
d.
Includes 2.5
e.
Transport inpacts a r e very small and a r e included w i t h i n the o t h e r steps.
f.
The h i g h end o f these ranges represents a WR w i t h o u t advanced c o n t r o l s . A B\JR emits 0.016
3
o f 99% o f H
H 3 and 50 C i K r .
and K r
+
The low end represents the containment
Xe and i s the more l i k e l y a t the end o f t h i s century. (165, 166)
9 - Curies i n low l e v e l waste from power p l a n t . h.
3
Lowel- end represents containment o f noble gas radionuclides and H note f .
.
See
(43).
i. P 1 u ton ium.
j.
Includes
4.3 (10) 3 C i o f c l a d d i n g h u l l s .
I f noble gas i s contained approxi-
mately 6 ( l o r 3 gas cy1 inders a r e needed as k.
we1 1.
C i of depleted uranium t a i l s s t o i e d as UF
6 a t the enrichment p l a n t .
Chemicsl
t o x i c i t y would be the g r e a t e r hazard here.
1.
An a d d i t i o n a l be added.
a.5
MT/Mwe-yr o f d i s s o l v e d s o l i d s from c o o l i n g tower d r i f t c o u l d
(See r e f s . 50, 142, 186, 191, 193, 209, 214).
IE
4 .. m t
W
8
Table E-3:
a.
Footnotes
The r i s k o f cancer i s taken t o be 2.0 exposure.
(10)
Except f o r mining and acciden:s
o t h e r than whole body r o u t i n e exposures. of o t h e r exposures. fatal, b.
-4
cases/person-rem f o r whole body
no attempt has been made t o evaluate See ref.
186 and 188 f o r a d i s c u s s i o n
I n t h i s study one h a l f o f the cancers a r e assumed t o be
except for t h y r o i d nodules which are taken as 1% f a t a l .
(22, 188, 190).
The t o t a l genetic r i s k t o succeeding generations i s thought t o be roughly equal t o the somatic r i s k f o r the parent generation. l a r g e u n c e r t a i n t y i n the estimate o f t h i s r i s k .
(22).
However, there i s a A Working Level Month
(WLM) exposure t o uranium miners i s taken t o be 0.1 rem f o r g e n e t i c calcu-
1 a t ions
.
C.
Fuel c y c l e i n r e f . 1 1 .
d.
The lower end represents the +proximate
acc dent r a t e for surface mining
and the higher end represents underground mining. e.
These numbers represent 50%underground and 50%surface mining. taken to be equal t o
5
One WLM i s
rem t o the lung and the r i s k of lung cancer i s taken
t o be 1.6 ( l o r 5 cases/rem.
(This assumes a 25 year p l a t e a u p e r i o d o f cancer
i n d u c t i o n and i s taken from r e f . 2 2 ) .
About
55 underground miner-year5 per
year would be required t o s ~ p p l y100% o f the urenium f o r a 1000-Mwe p i a t 75% c a p a c i t i .
Each miner, therefore,
lung cancer per year. estimate.
(Ref.
(4 WLM/miner-year)
has about 3.0
-4
chances of
This would be considered only an order o f magnitude
5 , f o r example, determined the r i s k t o be about 5.2 (10) -4 and indl:ated
t h a t the r i s k might be several t i m e s higher
or lower.) (10, 139, 190) m i 1 1 and upgrade.
f.
Average
9.
Low end from r e f . 18 and high end from r e f . 7.
nf
(10)
BWR and PWR:
160
h,
(85 miles/Mwe-yr) x (2.0
- 800.0
(10)'"
large accidentdmile) x (10.0
-
1000.0 prs-remlaccident) x (0.0001 deaths/prs-rem) , Reference 18. i.
Material in transit from reprocessing plant to sale or storage.
j.
High end from ref. 187.
k.
Loss o f Coolant Accident (LOCA) and no Emergency Core Cooling leading to
core melt and loss of containment during the worst weather conditions.
For
the studies deal ing with severities only, we have appl ied the probabi 1 i ties in Wash-1400
(17). There are also uncertainties
we have not included in this table.
in the probabilities but
I f included the range indicated
here would extend this range considerably.
Estimates o f
the maximum individual risk range from seven (17) to three (200) orders of magnitude lower than the societal risk.
(6, 14, 17, 191, 192, 195-205)
Does not include sabotage.
1.
Reprocessing only (9).
See also Table H-3, note j .
No risk included from
long-term storage or disposal rJf nuclear wastes do to lack of information on these effects. m.
Reprocessingonly
-
31 day/injury (Ref. 7).
161
162
-T-%le F-1: a.
Footnotes
For the Pu-recycle o p t i o n , 83%of the U 0
3 8
r e c y c l e LWR i s required.
The numbers here a r e t h e r e f o r e
838
of those i n
The Pu r e c y c l e o p t i o n considered
the corresponding column o f Table E-1. here i s the o f t e n c a l l e d
requirement for a non Pu-
the s e l f generating r e a c t o r (SGR) o p t i o n i n
t h a t the LWR i s assumed t o burn up o n l y the Pu i t produces.
Option. i n
which several LWR's are used t o produce Pu f o r use i n a s i n g l e LWR thereAs p o i n t e d o u t i n Ref.
f o r e operate i n excess o f the SGR Pu requirement.
(12) though, LWR's o p e r a t i n g i n excess of about 1.15 SGR would r e q u i r e subs tan t ia l des ign mod if ic a t ions b.
For an LWR-Pu
83%o f
requirement and i s necessary.
.
the conversion requirement,
79%
o f the enrichment
67% o f t h e uranium f a b r i c a t i o n requirement o f an LWR
The resource u t i l i z a t i o n s f o r these a c t i v i t i e s can then
be simply scaled from data developed f o r Table E - 1 .
The rema n i n g 1/3
o f the f u e l load r e q u i r e s mixed oxide (MOx) f a b r i c a t on i n w h ch m a t e r i a l uranium i s blended w i t h recycled plutonium. C.
Remarks made i n notes c & d o f Table E-1 apply here as w e l l .
d.
As we assume safeguards a t a l e v e l c o n s i s t e n t w i t h plutonium d i s p o s i t i o n case I V o f Ref. (11) the cost and resource u t i l i z a t i o n s f o r repro:essing and waste management a r e assumed to be 30% h i g h e r than f o r the LWR case. However since o n l y 1/3 o f the spent f u e l i s
MOx, c o s t s and resource u t i l i -
z a t i o n p e r e l e c t r i c a l megawatt year increase by o n l y 10%. e.
The i n i t i a l core i n the present case was assumed t o be the same as i n the
LWR case and from Ref. ment f o r a SGR.
( 3 ) , \7),
LWR-Pu w i t h a
were assumed t o be:
and (11) the steady-state reload r e q u i r e -
75% capacity f a c t c r and a 0 . 2 3 tails
128 MT o f U,Oo, J
161 MT o f UF6 conversion, 81 MT
U
163
assay
of separative work, 18.2 MTU o f uranium f u e l element f a b r i c a t i o n , 9.0 MTH*of MOx f a b r i c a t i o n and 26.0 MTH o f spent f u e l reprocessing. not o n l y i s less U 0
assumed t h a t since Pu i s recycled ht:e per reactor-year,
but a l s o
3 8
cumulative 11 0
3 8
t o be 20% less than i n the LWR (Table E-1) estimating U 0
3 8
It was
required
requirements were assumed Using the methods f o r
case.
p r i c e s given i n note i of Table E-1, we derived f o r the p r i c e of $ l 3 / l b .
present case a U 0
3 8
years of reactor operation,$22/lb. operation,and $36/lb.
f o r t h e i n i t i a l core and f i r s t f i v e
for the 2nd f i v e years o f reactor
for the l a s t 20 years o f operation.
The cost o f
MOx f a b r i c a t i o n was assumed t o be twice t h a t o f uranium f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n (i.e.
$140/KgH) and the cost o f reprocessing MOx f u e l was assumed t o be
30% o r greater than the cost o f reprocessing uranium f u e l .
Using these
a d d i t i o n a l requirements anc "harges the present value o f f u e l charges over the l i f e of the reactor ( i n c l u d i n g i n i t i a l core cost and f i n a l core c r e d i t ) was calculated as 371 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s . Consequently, using;
8
I T = 4.24 x 10
(from f i r s t row of Table)
6
N = 5.26 x 10
(from second row o f Table)
8
( from above)
PV(Fi) = 3.71 x 10
We get an e l e c t r i c generation cost o f : capital
EC = 7.17
O G M
+
7.86
+
Fue 1 6.28
=
?..3l m i l l s KwHe
w i t h the breakdown o f the c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f the costs o f the various stages o f the fuel cycle t o the f u e l cost as shown i n the Table.
f.
Data on f u e l cycle c a p i t a l costs, as well as construction, labor, and m a t e r i a l s requirements including MOx fuel f a b r i c a t i o n and reprocessing faci 1 i t i e s was obtair ,d p r i m a r i l y frcm references (8) and (231
+
Metric ton o f heavy m e t a l (MTH).
164
1.
9.
From Ref. (231).
h.
From References (21,
(31, (91,
i. P r i m a r i l y from References (21,
and ( 1 2 ) .
( 3 ) . (9) and (12).
Plutonium d i s p o s i t i o n
o p t i o n I V from Ref. (12) where the MOx f a c i l i t i e s a r e assumed t o be contiguous w i t h the reprocessing f a c i l i t i e s , so t h a t no new land i s committed f o r the purpose o f f a b r i c a t i n g MOx fuels.
This measure i s pro-
pcsed for safeguards reasons, however, not p r i m a r i l y as a land saving measure.
j.
P r i m a r i l y from References
k.
See note m, Table E-1.
( 3 ) , (71, (91, and
164
(12).
Table
F-2:
a-d.
See Table E-3,
e.
Footnotes
70% of LWR UF
6
notes a-d. enrichment and UO
emissions ( 1 2 ) .
2
f a b r i c a t i o n emissions p l u s YOx f a b r i c a t i o n
Here taken as 90% o f mean LWR value.
--
See Table E-2.
twice as much i f beta r a d i a t i o n i s included.
f.
Alpha r a d i a t i o n
9.
See E-2, note k.
h.
See E-2, note e.
i.
No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s from LWR plants.
j.
See E-2, note f
k.
See E-2, note y .
1.
No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e ir. emissions compared t o LiJR except f o r Trans-U
.
i n f i n a l waste. m-o. p.
See E-2, notes h-j. See f o o t n o t e 1 Table E-2
I
L
z
I VI - I +
U
-
V
w
W L L
O l L
m
168
w
Table F-3:
a,b.
Footcotes
See Table E-3,
notes a and b.
c.
Fuel c y c l e I;.
d.
A LWR-PU Recycle system r e q u i r e s about 83% as much uranium m i n i n g as a LWR
r e f . 12.
(12)
without recycle. e,f. 9.
See Table E - 3 ,
notes d and e.
Under a1 t e r n a t i v e
4
See a l s o r e f . 163.
i n r e f e r e n c e 12, r e p r o c e s s i n g and f a b r i c a t i o n p l a n t s
and the t r a n s p o r t o p e r a t i o n s between them and the r e a c t o r would be s u b j e c t t o enhanced s e c u r i t y arrangements. h.
Same as LWR.
See a l s o r e f .
Perhaps t h e r e would be s l i g h t l y more impact because o f
shipments t o and from MOx p l a n t s .
(Ref.
3 times the exposure o f LWR system b u t
12 i n d i c a t e s t h e r e c o u l d be up t o
i t uses e s t i m a t e s a t the low end
the LWR estimates.)
i. See Table E - 3 ,
note g.
j . See Table E - 3 ,
Note i.
k. See Table E-3, Note k. I . Reprocessing o n l y . m.
See Table E - 3 ,
1 4 1 , 164.
See Table H - 3 , n o t e j.
n o t e m.
0'
170
Table G - 1 : a.
Footnotes
Includes the m i n i n g and m i l l i n g o f a small anount o f U 0
3 8
Pu.
The
U 0
3 8
requirement a c t u a l l v t u r n s out to be0.758
f o r blending w i t h
o f t h a t for an LWR
and so the q u a n t i t i e s g i v e n i n t h i s column a r e b . 7 5 % of those g i v e n i n t h e f i r s t column of Table
E-1.
I n the e a r l y years o f the Breeder much o f the
requirement f o r f e r t i l e m a t e r i a l w i 1 1 be met by u t i 1 i z i n g d e p l e t e d uraniu,:, t ' r a t has been s t o c k p i l e d as enrichment t a i l s i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f e n r i c b - d
f o r LWRs.
uranium f u e l
I n a mature breeder econony, however, some U 0
3 8
must be mined. b.
Includes the purchase of Pu f o r the c r i i t i a l c o r e and the f i r s t two annual \e remainder o f t h e r e a c t o r 1 i f e ,
reloads, p l u s the s a l e of bree Pu
as w e l l as f u e l element f a b r i c a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s , which have an assumed l i f e time of 30 years. c.
considered t h e t r a n s p o r t o f n u c l e a r
As f o r the o t h e r r e a c t o r tonct,ts
f w i s from f a c i l i t y t o f a c i l i t y c o s t s v e r y l i t t l e and r e q u i r e s o n l y a small cmitment
o f non-fuel
resources.
C m s e q u e n t l y , t r a n s p o r t c o s t s and resource
u t i l i z a t i o n s a r e included i n the t o t a l s g i v e n f o r o t h e r stages o f t h e n u c l e a r fuel cycle. d.
? h i s column i n c l u d e s c o s t s and resource u t i 1 i z a t i o n s c . - s o c i a t e d w i t h t'ie o p e r a t i o n o f a model LMFBR w i t h a o f 7 5 4 and a pian:
e.
392
therrval e f f i c i e n c y , a - a p a c i t y f a c t o r
l i f e t i m e o f 30 years.
This column includes f u e l reprocessing and waste managecent. f a c i l i t i e s a r e p o s t u l a t e d t o be v e r y much l i k e those
i i d
The reprocessing
t.) r e p r o c e i s LWR
rue1 and are assumed t o have a L h i r t y year l i f e t i m e .
f.
Based on d i s c u s s i o n s i n R e f e r
' s ( 6 ) i t i s assuried t b , j t t h e
c a p i t a l c o s t i o r the f i r s t LMFBks w i l l exceed t h a t o f an LWR by about $ 1 L 5 / K w e . See Reizrence
(232) f o r a c r i t i q u r o f t h i b c o s t e s t i m a t e .
9.
Conventional 0 6 M c o s t s a r e based on a scale-up f r o m LWR 0 f w i t h t h a t g i v e n i n Ref.
h.
M i n accordace
(6).
The f u e l resource requirements (both those for t h e i n i t i a l c o r e and f o r reloads) were taken from References
(3), ( 6 ) , and (111.
The i n i t i a l core
53 MT o f U 0 2.37 MT of Pu and 47 MTH"of f a b r i c a 3 8'
was assdmed t o r e q u i r e
t i o n and 19.2 YTH of reprocessing w : t h the f i r s t two reloads r e q u i r i n g an a d d i t i o i b a l 1.61 MT o f P u and 20.6 MT of U 0
3 8
because i t was assumed ( i n
accordance w i t h f u e l c y c l e t i m i n g d a t a g i v e n i n Ref. (11))
that recycled
m a t e r i a l c o u l d n o t be r e t u r n e d t o t h e r e a c t o r u n t i l the second annual r e load a f t e r discharge. The U 0
3 8
p r i c e s c e n a r i o used was i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t used for the LWR-PU The p r i c e of Pu was s e t ,qual
system (see Table F-1).
t o i t s v a l u e as a
r e c y c l e f u e l i n LWRs ( t h i s b e i n g p r e d i c a t e d on the asslrmption t h a t d u r i n g the e a r l y days o f the Breeder i t would have o n l y a small impact on t h i s estab; isk,ed market value). prevailing U 0
3 8
Consequently the Pu p r i c e depends u p m the
p r i c e (as w e l l as t h e p r e v a i l i n g t a i l s assay, the c o s t of
s w a r d t i b e work and the c o s t d i f f e r e n t i a l between MOx and uranium o x i d e fuel fabrication).
was b a s i c a l l y assumed t h a t 1 grarn o f Pu c o u l d be
It
s u b s t i t u t e d f o r 0.8 grams o f U-235 and t h e r e f o r e t h a t 1 gram of Pu was "wrth"
144 grar
o f U 0 and 96 SWUs but that a c o s t p e n a l t y o f about $1.50
3 8
i s i n c u r r e d by having t o f a b r i c a t e MOx LWR-PU f u e l as opposed t o Uranium cxide fuel.
This g i v e s a Pu p r i c e o f $lO/gr f o r the f i r s t
o p e r a t i o n , $12.5O/grfor
5
years of r e a c t o r
the second f i v e years of o p e r a t i o n and S20/gr
for
the l a s t 20 years of r e a c t c r o p e r a t i o n . One would probably need a n e l a b o r a t e s y s t e m s a n a l y s i s model t o adequately account f o r the e f f e c t s o f the r a t e s t
uf b u i l d u p of c a p a c i t y o f i h e u i f f e r e n t r e a c t o f typcs on the p r i c e t>f Pu.
! :
M e t r i c ton o f heavy metal (MYH)
172
As b u i l d i n g and j u s t i f y i n g such a model was c l e a r l y beyond the scope o f i t i s somewhat r e a s s u r i n g t o n o t e t h a t a l t h o u g h e s t i m a t e s o f
t h i s study,
Pu p r i c e i n our time frame range from n e g a t i v e ( f o r t h e c o s t of d i s w s i n g o f a product already i n abundant S U P F ~ Y ) t o about $40/g
(where breeders
a r e assumed t o have a c l e a r e c o - m i c advantage even a t a h i g h Pu p r i c e and t h i s e f f e c t i s thus r e i n f o r c i g as t h e r e e x i s t s an i n c e n t i v e to expand Breeder c a p a c i t v as q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e ) most o f those w e have seen a r e i n the $10 t o $20 range. Using t h i s f u e l c y c l e requirement
and c o s t d a t a the prese t v a l u e o f f u e l
c o s t s over the e n t i r e r e a c t o r l i f e was c a l c u l a t e d a t 147 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s .
i. C o l l e c t i n g d a t a from above as f o l l o w s : I T = 5.50 x 10 N =
5.83
6
x 10
(from f i r s t row o f Table)
(from second r o w o f Table)
8
PV(FC) = 1.47 x 10
we may use e q u a t i o n (f:") of n o t e g, Table E-1 t o c a l c u l a t e the c o s t o f generating e I e c t r ic t y u s i n g the LMFBR system as:
0 & M
Cap i t a
EC
j.
=
9.29
+
9.90 +
Fuel 2.40
=
21.7 mills/KwHe
C a p i t a l c o s t and c o n s t r u c t i o n manpower and m a t e r i a l s requirements were abtained l a r g e l y froi,i Ref. ( 8 ) .
As phase I of the k z h t e l study d i d n o t
e x p l i c i t l y i n c l u d e the LMFBR several ( p o s s i b l y h e r o i c ) assumptions had t o be made t o o b t a i n the data shown.
F i r s t o f a l l , t h e LMFBR power p l a n t was
assumed t o r e m i i r e the same amoiints o f c o n s t r u c t i o n manpower and m a t e r i a l s a s an LWR.
i n Ref. ( 6 ) .
A t the l e v e l o f aqgregation o f our d a t a t h i s
Even a t a mol
r
i b
clearly i m p l i e d
disaggregated level, m a t e r i a l s requirements f o r
an LMFBR compared w i t h those f o r J PWR a r e e s t i i a t c d t o be q u i r e . i c r , i l a r
(e*
compare estimated composite and p r i m a r y m a t e r i a l s requirements g i v e n
f o r an LMFBR i n S e c t i o n 5 of Ref. i n Ref.
(168)
( 6 ) . w i t h d a t a g i v e i i for the same m a t e r i a l s
F u r t h e r , the f a b r i c a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s for LMFBR f u e l s a r e
assumed to be s i m i l a r t o those used for 14Ox f a b r i c a t i n g f o r the LWR-PU system and reprocessing f a c i l i t i e s a r e assumed t o be s i m i l a r to those used to reprocess LWR f u e l .
These assumptions a r e a l s o used i n Ref.
(6).
k.
P r i m a r i l y f r o m Ref.
1.
P r i m a r i l y from References
m.
See n o t e m, Table E-1.
( 3 ) and ( 6 ) .
(6).
u
Y
+L
X Q
175
Table 6-2:
a.
Footnotes
?he amount o f uranium mining and m i l l i n g r e q u i r e d f o r the LMFBR c y c l e i s about 0.75% of the requirement f o r the LWR cycle.
See t a b l e s E-2 and f o o t -
notes. b.
HF-release
C.
The t o t a l u n c e r t a i n t y i s l a r g e r than indicate.’
d.
Plutonium i n s o l i d waste from f a b r i c a t i o n p l a n t .
e.
Uranium i n s o l i d waste from f a b r i c a t i o n p l a n t .
f.
About 0 . 2 MT/Mwe-yr of d i s s o l v e d s o l i d s from c o o l i n g tower d r i f t could be
,
here.
See Section 111-8-2.
See note c.
added he re. 9-
Low end i s more probable.
High end i s u n c o n t r o l l e d release o f K r , Xe and
H-3. (174) h.
5.9 m3 / Mwth-yr c o n t a i n i n g 4.8 C i a t EBR-II (175).
1.
Includes cladding h u l l s . Mwe-yr a r e needed.
If K r i s contained, 6 . 3
See Refs. 170-175, 191.
176
(,Or3
gas c y l i n d e r s /
a
Q LL
c
A
I
177
Table
C-3 :
a,b.
See notes a and b of Table E-3.
Footnotes
c.
Fuel c y c l e i n reference 3.
d.
O.,j%
o f the uranium requirement o f the LWL cycle.
See Table E - 3 , notes
d and e.
e.
From reference 6.
f.
See note j of Table E-3.
9.
Although the mechanisms leading t o accidents and the accident c o n d i t i o n s
See a l s o Table E-3,
note h.
might be very d i f f e r e n t i n LMFBRs, t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n t h e analyses do n o t a l l o w a d i s t i n c t i o n t o be made between the p r o b a b i l i t i e s o f severe a c c i -
I n f a c t , reference 191 c a l c u l a t e s the
dents i n LMFBRs as compared t o LWRs.
p r o b a b i l i t y o f f a i l u r e leading t o a s i g n i f i c a n t release o f r a d i o i s o t o p e s t o be
-
10-5/reactor-year
f o r a LMFBR which i s close t o the 6.0(10)'5
c a l c u l a t e d i n W-1400 (17) f o r a LWR. (6) The s e v e r i t y o f LMFBR accidents may a l s o be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from L J R s . B a s i c a l l y there a r e very s i m i l a r amounts o f f i s s i o n products i n both systems and any d i f f e r e n c e i n e f f e c t s r e s u l t s from the much l a r g e r amount o f plutonium and the existence o f r a d i o a c t i v e sodium i n LMFBR (as w e l l as the d i f f e r e n c e i n release mechanisms, f u e l rods
containment systems, e t
..I.
Reference 191 c a l c u l a t e s t h a t o n l y 3 . 4 gram o f plutonium could be released i n t h e l a r g e s t accident. be released.
Ref. 175 c a l c u l a t e s t h a t o n l y 0 . 0 3 grams would
These amounts reprc
:
q
t
fractions of
t o 19-* o f the t o t a l
plutonium inventory and o n l y a very small a d d i t i o n t o the r a d i a t i o n doses caused by the f i s s i o n product releases.
Under these c o n d i t i o n s , the sever!See Table E - 3 )
How-
ever, there i s some doubt about the v a l i d i t y o f such small releases.
Ref-
i t y o f LMFBR accide:;ts i s s i m i l a r t o LWR accidents.
erence 191 c a l c u l a t e s the t o t a l r i s k o f LMfBRs as 10''
to
deaths/
h e - y r , s i m i l a r t o or smaller than the r i s k f o r LWRs i n W-1400 (17).
It
should be emphasized t h a t these estimates are subject t o even more uncert a i n t y than the LWR r i s k estimaLes. h.
Reprocessing o n l y (6).
(6, 172-175)
See a l s o Table H-3,
Does not i n c l u d e sabotage.
note j .
No r i s k included from
long-term storage o r disposal o f nuclear waste due t o l a c k o f i n f o r m a t i o n on these effects.
179
L
0
44
0
m aJ
(z
v
Q)
8
V
cn
m
L1
aJ L
3
Y
m
L
0)
P
E
I-
I
0 .I c I
r 0
c
a m
t-
180
Table H-1:
a.
Footnotes
I n c l u d e s t h e m i n i n g and m i l l i n g o f about as w e l l as about reload.
56%
o f an LWR's U 0
3 8
requirement
8 MT o f Tho2 (thorium oxide) p e r annual steady s t a t e
A c t u a l l y , i t may not be necessary t o mine t h o r i u m for some t i m e
as i t i s a byproduct of o t h e r m i n i n g o p e r a t i o n s (e.g.
phosphate m i n i n g ) ,
as w e l l as b e i n g abundantly a v a i l a b l e i n Canadian uranium m i l l t 3 i l i n g s . Eventually,though,some
t h o r i u m would need t o be mined.
A facility
l i f e t i m e of 20 years was assumed f o r b o t h uranium and t h o r i u m m i n e - m i l l comp 1exes. b.
I n c l u d e s conversion o f uranium o r e t o
UF6 and subsequent enrichment o f
m a t e r i a l as w e l l as t h e f a b r i c a t i o n o f HTGR f u e l elements.
ril;s
The U-233
produced i n t h e r e a c t o r (from v i r g i n ThoZ) i s assumed t o be r e c y c l e d ,
U-235
i s assumed t o be r e c y c l e d o n l y once and Tho2 ir assumed n o t t o be r e c y c l e d ( a c t u a l l y t h r e e types o f f u e l rods a r e f a b r i c a t e d , b u t a5 t h e HTGR f u e l c y c l e i s i n general q u i t e complex, i t i s n o t c o m p l e t e l y d e s c r i b e d here and t h e i n t e r e s t e d reader i s r e f e r r e d t o Ref. tion). c.
(183) f o r
a complete d e s c r i p -
A 30 year f a c i l i t y l i f z was assumed.
T r m s p o r t c o s t s and resource u t i l i z a t i o n s (which a r e again s m a l l ) a r e i n c l u d e d i n t o t a l s g i v e n f o r o t h c r stages o f the f u e l c y c l e .
d.
The model HTGR power p l a n t i s assumed t o have thermal e f f i c i e n c y of a capacity factor of
e.
392,
75% and a p l a n t l i f e t i m e o f 30 years.
Includes f u e l reprocessing as w e l l as waste management.
A 30 year l i f e
i s assumed f o r these f a t : ! ; t i e s . f.
Based on data given i n References ( 6 1 , c a p i t a l cost of $38O/Kwe,
(81, and
excluding i n t e r e s t during corijtruction
i n t e r e s t ti*Jring c o n s t r u c t i o n a t 10.5/0 apd r a t e i s 4.258.
(37) we a s s u m a m i d - 1 9 7 4
6:;
Adding
i n f l a t i o n , the r e a l i n t e r e s t
For a 3 . 7 5 year c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r i o d , w e g e t a t o t a l c a p i t a l
I81
c o s t o f about $440/Kwe. I n accordance w i t h d a t a g i v e n i n Ref. (6) c o n v e n t i o n a l 0 G M c o s t s f o r
g.
at1 HTGR a r e assimed t o be equal t o those for a n LWR.
h.
Based p r i m a r i l y on d a t a g i v e n i n References ( l l ) , the i n i t i a l c o r e wits assumed t o r e q u i r e
469 MT o f UF6 conversion, 339 MT fue of
element f a b r i c a t i o n . ,h02,
work,
8.3
39
(isg),
MT o f Tho
2'
(1831, and (231,
374
o f s e p a r a t i v e work and
MT of U308,
37 MTHQof
Annual reloads were assumed to r e q u i r e
87 MT o f U308, 110 MT o f UF6 conversion, 79 MT MTH o f f u e l element f a b r i c a t i o n , and
reprocessing, w i t h an a d d i t i o n a l
7.3
8 MT
of separative
MTH o f f u e l element
64 MT o f U 0 79 MT o f UF c o n v e r s i o n 3 8' 6
and 57 MTSWU r e q u i r e d f o r each o f the f i r s t t w o annual reloads because r e c y c l e d m a t e r i a l i s ncjt assumed t o be a v a i l a b l e annual r e l o a d a f t e r discharge. Ref.
f o r r e l o a d u n t i l the second
F u e l - c y c l e t i m i n g d a t a were a g a i n taken from
(11). Using these d a t a the present v a l u e o f the f u e l c y c l e c o s t s o f
the 1 i f e o f the r e a c t o r was c a l c u l a t e d to be 298.2 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s .
i.
C o l l e c t i n g the f o l l o w i n g d a t a from above:
IT = 4.40 x 10
(from r o w one of the Table).
N = 5.26 x 10
(from row t w o o f the Table).
'
PV(FC) = 2.98 x 10
(from note h above).
We can a g a i n use Equation (*) o f n o t e g, Table A-1 t o c a l c u l a t e the e l e c t r i c g e n e r a t i o n c o s t as: Capital
EC j.
=
7.49
O t M -t
8.09
,t
Fue 1 5.14
=
20.67
Fuel c y c l e c a p i t a l c o s t s and c o n s t r u c t on l a b o r and m a t e r i a l s requirements a r e from Ref.
(8).
Once a g a i n the fue
c y c l e c a p i t a l c o s t s arc n o t annualized,
w h i l e the c o n s t r u c t i o n l a b o r and mater a l s requirements a r e annual ized by the assumed f a c i l i t y l i f e t i m e .
5
M e t r i c ton o f heavy metal (IITH).
182
k.
We assume t h a t 0 & M personnel necessary to r u n a t h o r i u m mine i s i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t necessary t o r u n a uranium mine and also t h a t the number o f people reeded t o r u n an HTGR power p l a n t i s i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t necessary t o run an LWR power p l a n t .
The reader i s , t h e r e f o r e ,
r e f e r r e d t o note 1 of
Table F-1 f o r the a p p r o p r i a t e references.
1.
Uranium mining i s assumed to be 100% e f f i c i e n t . H a r v e s t i n g F u e l s i s t h e r e f o r e based on a Ref. ( 2 ) .
95% m i l l
The 95% e f f i c i e n c y f o r e f f i c i e n c y as g i v e n i n
The p r i m a r y energy i n p u t t o the h a r v e s t i n g f u e l s a c t i v i t y ( e q u i v -
a l e n t to the energy i n the e x t r a c t e d o r e ) i s assumed t o be 22,000 KWht per gram o f uranium, which correspocds t o the energy t h a t would be produced i f e v e r y atom o f uranium f i s s i o n e d . References m.
( 3 ) , ( 6 ) , (181), (182).
P r i m a r i l y from References
For a n c i l l a r y energy requirements see and
(184).
( 3 ) , ( 6 ) , (181), (182) and ( 1 8 4 ) .
0
i 84
table -9.
H-2:
Footnotes
56% of LWR uranium mining and m i l l i n g requirement. t - o ' . f ~ . Impacts
See t a b l e E-2 and foot-
from thorium mining would add about 10% t o these impacts
(3,184) but have not been added because s u f f i c i e n t thorium w i l l be a v a i l a b l e for a loiig time a= : byproduct o f other mining processes.
t
Includes small amounts o f HF-.
C.
Low end i s from r e f . 3 and h i g h end from r e f . 183.
d.
Uranium and thorium
e.
Plus 0 . b K dissolved s o l i d i n cooling tower d r i f t .
f.
I nc 1odes xenon.
9-
W I
end from r e f .
(3) plus 8 i kg uranium as UF6 (0.03 C1) i n storage.
7. (3).
h.
Stored sol i d waste
1.
With advanced controls:
H-3
0.28 C i
Kr-85 The r e s t would be stored as
j.
Mostly carbon-14.
k.
H N O ~( 3 ) .
1.
P I uton ium.
m.
8.S(IO)'3
Mt
thorium.
5.8 C i .
H-3 hydrate and compressed Kr-85.
I n addition, 5.8(10)-'
MT (0.002 C i ) o f uranium
(2% U - 2 3 5 , 64% U-236, 34% U-238) t o be sold o r stored. n.
H-3 as hydrate (see note i ) and ~ 2 ( l O ) C- ~i 1-131 as powder ( 3 ) . See Refs.
179-185.
185
W b-
-
.. m
.-uu i
oc
I
ln
Y
0 vl
I
I
u
c
n
ln
I-
w u
t w
% e -iu Y
Table H-3:
a,b.
Footnotes
See Table E-3,
notes a and b.
C.
Fuel cycles from r e f .
d.
Requires about notes d and e.
3.
56% as much uranium as the LWR cycles (3).
See Table E-3,
No thorium mining included here.
e.
40% less exposure than the LWR c y c l e (5, 6).
f.
I n t r a n s i t from enrichment p l a n t to f a b r i c a t i o n p l a n t , from reprocessing p l a n t t o f a b r i c a t i o n p l a n t and f a b r i c a t i o n p l a n t t o reactor.
9.
Annual average dose from the F t . S t .
5.0
Vrain f a c i l i t y i s estimated t o be
t o the population w i t h i n 14 miles.
(185)
For approximately
50,000 people and 330-be a t 75% capacity t h i s i s 1.0 (10) h.
-4
prs-redMwe-yr.
There i s some i n d i c a t i o n from B r i t i s h experience w i t h gas reactors and separate estimates t h a t HTGRs may be somewhat safer than LWRs (179,196). data are n o t a v a i l a b l e t o make a c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n .
i.
See note e.
j.
World exposure from Kr-85 and H-3.
However, the
See Table E-3.
