Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Nuclear Energy

Mechanical Engineering 496ALT

Alternative Energy
Larry Caretto
February 19 and 23, 2009

Read chapter 8 in text for tonight and next Tuesday.

Midterm exam, Thursday, February 26, will be like homework; it will include a
mix of problems and essay questions. The exam will be open book and
notes. It will cover up to and including material on electricity generation in
the March 17 lecture and the March 24 homework.
Read chapter 8 for the March 3 lecture which is an overview of renewable
energy technologies.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 1

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Main Ideas
• Current and projected use
• Basic physics
• Nuclear electricity generation methods
• Regulation of nuclear energy
– Nuclear safety
– Nuclear waste disposal
• Fusion Energy and Prospects for the
future

Nuclear energy now accounts for a significant fraction of electrical energy

produced in the world. In France, the vast majority of electrical energy is
produced by nuclear power. Since the accidents at Three Mile Island and
Chernobyl there has been an increased public concern about the risks of
nuclear energy. In addition, the costs of nuclear power are now higher than
other power generation methods.
Recently there has been an increased interest in nuclear generation. In the
deregulated power market several older nuclear power plants have been
recently sold at a significantly higher price than their previous sale.
Increasing concerns about global warming caused by emissions of CO2 from
combustion of fossil fuels have increased the attractiveness of nuclear
power.
These notes present an overview of nuclear power generation starting from
the basic physics, leading through nuclear plant designs and regulations of
nuclear power.
Finally we will discuss the prospects for fusion power and some of the
current thinking about the future of nuclear power generation in the US and
in the world.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 2

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Nuclear Electricity Share 2006

US and Canada 18.8%
Latin America 2.3%
Western Europe 29.4%
Eastern Europe and Former
Soviet Union 18.2%
Middle East/South Asia 1.5%
Africa 2.4%
Far East 12.4%
World Total 15.5%

The slide shows the percent of a region’s total electrical energy that is produced by nuclear
power, based on IAEA data obtained from the following web site on February 24, 2008:
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1304_web.pdf
The nuclear proportion of electrical energy for individual countries having the highest values
for this figure is shown below. The percent of the world nuclear electrical energy is also
shown for each country. The world total nuclear energy generation for 2006 was 2660 TWh.
Data for each country with reactors during that year was taken from the following web site:
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphics
andcharts/worldnucleargenerationandcapacity/ accessed February 24, 2008
Country %nuclear %world Country %nuclear %world
France 78.1% 17.0% Spain 19.8% 2.0%
Lithuania 72.3% 0.3% Taiwan, China 19.5% 1.3%
Slovakia 57.2% 0.5% U.S. 19.4% 27.0%
Belgium 54.4% 1.6% U.K. 18.4% 2.8%
Sweden 48.0% 2.4% Russia 15.9% 5.8%
Ukraine 47.6% 3.5% Canada 15.8% 3.4%
Bulgaria 43.7% 0.5% Romania 9.0% 0.4%
Armenia 42.0% 0.1% Argentina 6.9% 0.3%
Slovenia 40.3% 0.2% Mexico 4.9% 0.4%
Korea Rep. 38.6% 4.7% South Africa 4.4% 0.5%
Hungary 37.7% 0.5% Netherlands 3.5% 0.1%
Switzerland 37.4% 0.9% Brazil 3.1% 0.5%
Czech RP 31.5% 1.0% Pakistan 2.7% 0.1%
Germany 31.4% 5.5% India 2.6% 1.0%
Japan 30.0% 12.8% China 1.8% 2.3%
Finland 28.0% 0.7%

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 3

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Organizations
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
– US agency responsible for nuclear power
plant operations and regulations
• International Atomic Energy Authority
– The IAEA describes itself as the “world's
nuclear inspectorate” to prevent nuclear
proliferation and illegal nuclear use
• US Department of Energy Nuclear
Energy Program for nuclear R & D
4

Web sites for organizations on chart:

NRC: http://www.nrc.gov/
IAEA: http://www.iaea.org/
DOE/nuclear: http://www.doe.gov/energysources/nuclear.htm
Other organizations and web sites:
The NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) is an organization of companies involved
in the production of nuclear energy including plant operators, construction
companies, uranium miners, etc. (http://www.nei.org/)
The WNA (World Nuclear Association) is another organization of companies
engaged in all aspects of nuclear energy. (http://www.world-nuclear.org/)
The uranium information center of the Australian Uranium Association
(http://www.uic.com.au/) is a useful site for information on uranium
production and mining.
The American Nuclear Society (ANS) is the society for working professionals
in the field of atomic energy. They have a web site for public information on
nuclear issues: http://www.ans.org/pi/
The Federation of Atomic Scientists (http://www.fas.org/nuke/) is an
international association of scientists concerned about weapons of mass
destruction. Their site has good information on the interactions between
nuclear power and potential nuclear proliferation.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 4

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

IAEA Nuclear Forecast

Reference: http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/RDS1.shtml
Chart taken from power point presentation downloaded from web site.
The forecast is for a general downturn (or nearly constant level) in the
percentage of electricity coming from nuclear energy in regions that already
have large amounts. Regions with small amounts re forecast to increase.
These forecasts are consistent with the data on nuclear power plants under
construction, ordered or planned, and proposed shown on the next chart.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 5

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

World Reactors (GWe)

Current Building Planned Proposd
Africa 1.8 0.0 0.2 4.6
Asia 81.7 13.5 40.5 56.1
Eastern Europe 11.1 0.7 2.7 4.9
Former Soviet
Union 36.0 2.7 11.5 23.9
Middle East 0.0 0.9 6.4 4.1
North America 112.2 2.7 4.7 26.0
South America 2.8 0.7 1.2 4.7
Western Europe 123.3 1.6 1.6 1.6
World 368.9 22.7 68.9 125.8

Reference: http://www.uic.com.au/reactors.htm accessed February 27, 2007

This web site, which is now inactive, was maintained by the Australian
Uranium Association, Ltd. According to that site, Australia provides about
20% of the world’s uranium although Australia itself does not have any
nuclear power plants.
An alternative site for nuclear data is that of the World Nuclear Association.
The site http://world-nuclear.org/outlook/nuclear_century_outlook.html, has
country-by-country forecasts for nuclear generation from now to 2100.
According to this site, the current capacity is 367 GWe, similar to the figure
stated above. Forecast ranges (low – high) for installed capacity in future
years are shown in the following table:
2030 602 to 1,289
2060 1,140 to 3,538
2100 2,062 to 11,046
The WNA forecast is based on the need to curb CO2 emissions and use
various forms of electricity generation, including nuclear, that do not
generate such emissions. The web site has the following quote: “even if
renewable and clean-fossil technologies meet extremely optimistic
assumptions, a global clean-energy revolution adequate to avert
catastrophic climate change will require an enormous contribution from
nuclear power and extensive realization of its worldwide growth potential.”

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 6

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Resources
Country World %
(Tonnes U)
Australia 1,143,000 24%
Kazakhstan 816,000 17%
Canada 444,000 9%
USA 342,000 7%
South Africa 341,000 7%
Namibia 282,000 6%
Brazil 279,000 6%
Niger 225,000 5%
Russian Fed. 172,000 4%
Other 699,000 14%
World total 4,743,000

Reference: http://www.uic.com.au/nip75.htm accessed February 24, 2008

As noted on the previous page for the web site has now been discontinued.
The web sites notes that the data were based on sources (OECD, NEA, and
IAEA, Uranium 2005: Resources, Production and Demand ) available on
January 1, 2005. The cost of the uranium up to US$130/kg. However,
recent US prices have been about $22 to $33 per kg over the last ten years.
(EIA web site on uranium cost data,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/umar/summarytable1.html, accessed
February 24, 2008.
Current usage is about 68,000 tonnes per year. The current resources are
enough to last for about 70 years.
Other countries listed on the web site, but excluded from the table on the
chart and their data are:
Uzbekistan 116,000 2%
Ukraine 90,000 2%
Jordan 79,000 2%
India 67,000 1%
China 60,000 1%
All others 287,000 6%

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 7

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Reasonably
Assured Resources
(RAR) of Uranium

Reference: http://www.uic.com.au/nip75.htm accessed February 24, 2008

As noted previously, this web site is no longer operative.
The term reasonably assures resources sounds close to what would be
called reserves. They are known and economical to recover at a certain
price. (In this case the price may be slightly higher than the current market
price, so they are not truly reserves.)
This chart shows that increasing the market price from $40/kg to $80/kg
does not make a large increase in the available resources.
Here are some conversion factors: 1 mass unit of U3O8 contains 0.848001
mass units of uranium (with normal isotopic composition).
A cost of $100 per kg U is the same as $84.80 per kg U3O8, $45.36 per lb U,
or $38.46 per lb U3O8.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 8

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Reference: http://www.uic.com.au/nip75.htm accessed February 27, 2007

As noted previously, this web site is no longer operative.
Between 1975 and 1983 the average annual spending for uranium
exploration were about $4.5x108 US$ per year. From 1983 to 2005, the
average annual spending has been about $1.3x108 per year. This decline in
spending is obviously linked to the reduced need forecast for uranium use in
power plants.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 9

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

World Nuclear Power Plants

10

Reference: http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/world_map.php accessed February 24,

2008
This is from the web site of the International nuclear Safety Center, which is operated by
Argonne National Laboratory for the US Department of Energy.
The following information about California nuclear power plants would normally
begin on the next notes page.
Diablo Canyon San Luis Obispo County, California. Construction of the units may have
been the longest in U.S. history at 15 and 16 years due to regulatory concern for its ability
to withstand seismic activity. Cooling water for the units is obtained from the Pacific Ocean.
Operator: Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Owner: PG&E Corp. (100.0%) Reactor Supplier: Westinghouse Corporation
Unit 1:1,073 net MWe PWR Date of Operation: November 1984 License Expiration Date:
09/22/2021 2001: 9.47 billion kWh Average Capacity Factor: 100.8%
Unit 2 Capacity: 1,087 net MWe PWR Date of Operation: August 1985 License
Expiration Date: 04/26/2025 2001: 8.61 billion kWh 2001 Average Capacity Factor:
90.4%
San Onofre 3-unit site near San Clemente. Unit 1, shutdown in 1992, was a first generation
Westinghouse commercial unit that operated for 25 years.
Units 2 & 3 Operator: Southern California Edison Co. Owners: Edison International
(75.1%); San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (20%); Anaheim Public Utilities Dept. (3.2%);
Riverside Utiltities Dept. (1.8%) Reactor Supplier: Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Unit 2 capacity: 1,070 net MWe PWR Date of Operation: September 1982 License
Expiration Date:10/18/2022 2001: 9.49 billion kWh Average Capacity Factor: 101.3%
Unit 3 Capacity: 1,080 net MWe PWR Date of Operation: September 1983 License
Expiration Date:10/18/2022 2001: 5.65 billion kWh average Capacity Factor: 59.7%

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 10

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

US and Canada Plant Sites

11

http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/united_states.html (accessed on February 24, 2008)

is the source for this map and information below and on the previous notes page for
California reactors.
Humboldt Bay 3 in Eureka is 63 MW(e) BWR that operated from 1963 to 1976 is
permanently shut down.
Rancho Seco in Clay Station (near Sacramento), PWR 913 MW(e). operated from April
1975 to June 1989.
The location near San Francisco is called Vallecitos; this was a 5 MW experimental boiling
water reactor that General Electric operated from 1957 to 1963. (Information downloaded
from files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communities/History/Landmarks/5654.pdf on February 16,
2009.)
The Palo Verde plant in Arizona has three PWRs each rated at 1,243 MW(e). This is the
largest nuclear facility in the US. Operator: Arizona Nuclear Power Project
Owners: Arizona Public Service Co. (29.1%); Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement &
Power District (17.5%); Southern California Edison Co. (15.8%); El Paso Electric Co.
(15.8%); Public Service Co. of New Mexico (10.2%); Southern California Public Power
Authority (5.9%); Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (5.7%) Reactor Supplier:
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Unit 1 in 2001: 9.46 billion kWh 2001 Average Capacity Factor: 86.9%
Unit 2 in 2001: 9.98 billion kWh 2001 Average Capacity Factor: 91.6%
Unit 2 in 2001: 9.29 billion kWh 2001 Average Capacity Factor: 85.0%
Data on San Onofre and Diablo Canyon are on the notes page for the previous chart.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 11

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

US Nuclear Generation and Capacity

800 160

700 140

600 Generation 120

Capacity (Gwe)
Capacity factor
Generation (TWh)

500 100

Capacity Factor
Capacity (Gwe)
400 80

300 60
Projection
200 40
Data

100 20

0 0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
12
Year

Nuclear generation in the US has increased significantly without any

increase in plant capacity. This has been done by improving the capacity
factors for US nuclear plants.
Plot prepared from spreadsheet data downloaded from EIA site
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/nuclear.html (Excel link to Nuclear Power
Plant Operations) on February 24, 2008.
In some cases plants have made modifications so that they could operate for
longer time periods between fuel replacement; such modifications have been
subject to approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Other ways that
plant capacity factors have increased is by using additional staff to ensure
safe operations and reducing the need for more frequent shutdowns.
The capacity forecast calls for reductions in capacity before the end of this
decade followed by some additions to capacity.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 12

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Basic Physics
• Einstein: Δe = Δmc2
• 235U + n → 144Ba + 89Kr + 3n + 177MeV
• Nuclear energy units
– 1 atomic mass unit =1.660 538 73x10-27 kg
– 1 eV = 1.602 176 462x10-19 J
• Energy comparison
– 235U fission = 7.3x1013 J/kg
– Carbon combustion = 3.3x107 J/kg

13

Einstein’s formula e = mc2 can better be written in terms of Δe and Δm. It is

the change in mass in a nuclear reaction that produces a certain amount of
energy. Atomic masses are measured in terms of the atomic mass unit or
amu. One amu is exactly 1/12 the mass of a C12 atom. (Recall that the
atomic mass system is defined such that the atomic weight of of C12 is
exactly 12; one amu is approximately the mass of a proton or the mass of a
neutron.) Since 12 grams of C12 is exactly one mol with Avogadro's number
(6.02214199x1023) of atoms, one atom of C12 has a mass of
12g/(6.02214199x1023). So the amu is1/12th of this mass or 1.66053873x10-
27 kg.

The energy unit of electron-volts is the energy generated when one electron
moves through an electric field of one volt. The change on an electron is
1.602176462x10-19 coulombs, and one coulomb-volt = 1 joule. (Recall that 1
ampere = 1 coulomb/s and the product of amps and volts is watts or joule-
seconds.) Thus the energy in one eV is 1.602176462x10-19 J. The speed of
light is 299,792,458 m/s, so the annihilation of 1 emu of mass produces
(1.66053873x10-27 kg) * (299,792,458 m/s)2 =1.49241778308056x10-10 J =
931495084.5 eV = 931.4950845 MeV. In the fission of 235U into 144Ba and
89Kr, the mass difference is 0.19 amu producing the energy shown.

In this reaction the energy release per unit mass of 235U is 177 MeV /
235.04394 amu; this is equivalent to 7.3x1013 J/kg compared to 3.3x107 J/kg
for carbon combustion.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 13

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Mass Defect
• Isotopic mass, M, less than mass of
constituents
• Difference is binding energy
• D = Z(mp + me) + (A – Z)mn – M
• Where D = mass defect, mp, me, and mn
are masses of proton, electron and
neutron, Z = protons, A – Z = neutrons
• Binding energy, BE = Dc2
14

M in this chart is the mass of the nucleus with Z protons and A – Z neutrons.
M may be measured in any consistent mass units, amu, kg, etc.
The concept of a mass defect recognizes that the binding energy of the
nucleus, BE, can be written in terms of this mass defect using Einsein’s
formula that Δe = Δmc2. In this case the energy change is the binding
energy, BE, and the mass change is Δm; this gives the equation that BE =
Dc2. From the conversion factors on the previous chart, a mass defect of 1
amu is equivalent to a binding energy of 931.4950845 MeV.
With the units of amu, the mass of one atom or molecule is just the atomic or
molecular weight expressed in amu. For example the mass of 235U is
235.04394 amu. The mass of a neutron is 1.008665 amu; the masses of a
proton and an electron are 1.007276 amu and 0.000549 amu, respectively.
The binding energy is commonly expressed as the average binding energy,
ABE, is the binding energy, BI, divided by the total “nucleons”, A, which is
the sum of protons and neutrons. The equation for the average binding
energy is simply the equation on the chart divided by A.

ABE =
Z
( )
⎛ Z⎞
m p + mn + ⎜1 − ⎟mn −
M
A ⎝ A⎠ A
The binding energy is the energy produced in a hypothetical reaction where
the all the protons and all the neutrons which are initially assumed to exist as
free particles combine to form the particular isotope.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 14

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Binding Energy Diagram

15

Reference: (accessed February 24, 2008)

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin.html#c1
We see that the average binding energy per nucleon (ABE on previous notes
page) is a maximum for iron. This chart allows us to see the effects of
fission or fusion. We start with a certain binding energy in the initial
element(s). When we have a nuclear reaction to another set of elements
(with a certain average binding energy per nucleon), we have the possibility
of releasing energy if the binding energy of the products is greater than the
binding energy of the reactants.
This occurs because we can write, for example
92 protons + 143 nuetrons → U-235 + 235(7.6 MeV)
For the average fission products we can write
92 protons + 143 neutrons → Fission products + 235(8.6 MeV)
Subtracting these two expression gives
U-235 → Fission products + 210 MeV
For elements lighter than iron, we can produce nuclear energy when we
combine lighter elements into heavier ones. This is known as nuclear fusion.
For elements heavier than iron, nuclear fission, the separation of a heavier
element into two (or more) lighter ones will produce energy.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 15

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Nuclear Radiation
• Spontaneous decay of nuclei can yield
other nuclei and radiation
– Alpha particles 239Pu → 235U + α(4He)
– Beta particles 90Sr → 90Y + β(0e)
– Gamma radiation 60Co → 60Co+ γ
• The α, β, and γ radiation have different
energy levels that affects their impact
• Major concern: health effects of radiation

16

In addition to nuclear fusion and fission, we can have a series of other

nuclear reactions. In these reactions different kinds of radiation are
released. Note that beta radiation, although it is equivalent to an electron,
comes from the nucleus, not from the outer shell of the atom. Release of an
electron from a nucleus with Z protons and A – Z neutrons increases the
number of protons by one and decreases the number of neutrons by one.
Decreasing the number of protons changes the chemical identity of the
nucleus. Thus the beta decay of strontiun-90 into yttirium comes because
the number of protons in the nucleus has increased from 38 to 39.
Gamma radiation is high energy electromagnetic radiation. The wavelength
region for gamma rays is between 10-10 and 10-12 meters. Gamma radiation
does not change the chemical identity of the atom.
An alpha particle is a helium nucleus; release of an alpha particle does
change the chemical identity of the atom.
In a nuclear reaction a complex series of changes can occur. Not only does
the basic fission reaction take place, but products from the original fission,
called daughter products can under go other reactions. The complexity of
the reaction schemes produces a large amount of different isotopes, with
varying degrees of radioactivity in the spent fuel from the nuclear reactor.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 16

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Chain Reactions
• 235U + n → 144Ba + 89Kr + 3n + 177MeV
• Product neutrons, called fast neutrons,
have MeV range energies
• Slow or thermal neutrons energies are
in the eV range
• In a nuclear reactor the fast neutrons
may be moderated into slow neutrons

17

The equation at the top of the page is taken from a previous slide. It shows the
basic notion of a chain reaction. The reaction not only produces energy, but it also
produces additional neutrons to carry on the reaction.
Some of the neutrons may be absorbed and some may leave the reactor. A critical
mass is one in which the chair reaction can be sustained.
Additional reactions can take place in a nuclear reactor from the product neutrons.
One of these is the production of plutonium-239 by the reaction of a neutron with U-
238 that is usually present. Here is the sequence that produces plutonium
238U + n → 239U + γ
239U → β + 239Np
239Np → β + 239Pu
The first reaction in this sequence changes the number of neutrons in the nucleus,
but it does not change the number of protons; thus we still have element the
element with 92 protons in the nucleus, uranium. In the second reaction, the 239U
releases an electron from the nucleus. This does not affect the total number of
nucleons in the nucleus; instead it converts a neutron to a proton. We thus have 93
protons in the nucleus so we have formed element 93 which is called neptunium.
The neptunium then undergoes a subsequent beta decay with the same effect. The
number of protons in the nucleus is increases giving element 94 which is
Plutonium.
Plutonium is the main element used in nuclear weapons. The design of nuclear
reactors depends on their purpose. Reactors to produce nuclear weapons are
designed to produce significant amounts of plutonium. Civilian reactors are
designed to avoid the production of plutonium.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 17

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Radioactive Decay
• Decay proportional to amount present
• Gives first order differential equation for
radioactive decay (N = amount)
• dN/dt = -kN so N = N0e-kt
• t = (-1/k)ln(N/N0)
• Half life, t1/2, is point where N/N0 = ½
• t1/2 = (-1/k)ln(1/2) = ln(2)/k
• N = N0e-ln(2)t/t 1/2

18

The decay rate of spontaneous radiation is directly proportional to the

amount present. The time required for half of the initial radiation to decay is
known as the half life. Half lives for various isotopes can range from
centuries to microseconds.
The calculation of how much of the original amount of a radioactive isotope
is present after a certain period of time is computed in terms of half lives:
½ present after one half life
¼ present after two half lives
1/8 present after three half lives
1/16 present after four half lives
1/1024 present after ten half lives
1/1048476 present after twenty half lives
The proposed nuclear waste storage facility in Ward Valley Nevada is
designed to store the nuclear waste that will be radioactive for a long time.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 18

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Radiation Measurements
• Units for rate of decay
– becquerel (Bq) = 1 disintegration per sec
– curie (Cu) – older unit; 1 Cu = 3.72x1010Bq
• Units for energy deposited in matter
– 1 gray (Gy) = 1 J/kg in water
– 1 roentgen (R) = .008 J/kg in air (approx)
– 1 rad =.01 Gy (radiation absorbed dose)

19

The curie is defined as the amount of radiation from one gram of radium.
Thus one gram of radium has 3.72x1010 disintegrations per second.
The gray is defined as the amount of energy absorbed in water, where water
is used as a surrogate for human tissue. The gray is really trying to measure
the amount of energy absorbed in human tissue.
The roentgen (R) is a measure of radiation intensity of X-rays or gamma
rays. It is formally defined as the radiation intensity required to produce and
ionization charge of 0.000258 coulombs per kilogram of air. It is one of the
standard units for radiation dosimitry, but is not applicable to alpha, beta, or
other particle emission and does not accurately predict the tissue effects of
gamma rays of extremely high energies. The roentgen has mainly been
used for calibration of X-ray machines. (Quoted from
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html.)

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 19

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Biological Effectiveness
• The sievert (Sv) is the new measure of
effective radiation dose
– Replaces the former unit of rem (roentgen
equivalent man)
• Biological equivalence coefficient, Q,
accounts for different radiation effects
– 1 rad delivers Q rem
– 1 Gy delivers Q Sv

20

There are two approaches to defining standards. The first uses direct
measures of the radiation in terms of grays (or the older units of rads). The
other uses the notion of biological effective dose described here. Again,
there is a new unit, the sievert, and an old unit, the rem. The conversion
between these two is the same as the conversion between grays and rads:
1 gray = 100 rads or 1 rad = 0.01 gray
1 sieverts = 100 rem or 1 rem = 0.01 sievert
The Q factor is not constant. For alpha particles it is about 20. For X-rays it
is defined to be one.
Although the sievert is now the preferred unit for radiation exposures, there
is still a large amount of data in rems and, more commonly, millirems.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 20

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Natural Radiation Doses

• Cosmic rays 0.38 mSv/yr
• Internal to human body 0.19 mSv/yr
• Environmental minerals 0.46 mSv/yr
• Radon and daughters 1.3 mSv/yr
• Medical/dental X-rays 0.54 mSv/yr
• Total natural plus medical 2.87 mSv/yr

21

These data were taken from Table 4-1, page 89 in the book Megawatts and
Megatons, by Garwin and Charpak. Recall that 1 seivert = 100 rem so these
numbers would be multiplied by 100 to get the doses in millirem.
This chart shows the normal exposure that the typical US resident has to
radiation from natural and medical sources. This is an average and there
are large differences in the various exposures depending on your individual
living situation.
People in Denver get more cosmic rays than people in Los Angeles. (So do
people who fly a lot compared to people who don’t.)
People who live in brick houses get radon exposure. Other get significantly
less.
The exposure to environmental minerals depends to a large degree on
where you live. At one time there were attempts to mine uranium in the
Antelope Valley; I would guess that there may be larger mineral background
radiation in parts of the Antelope Valley than there are in the Los Angeles
Basin.
X-ray exposure is obviously dependent on the amount of X rays one
receives. This is a risk benefit calculation that all individuals subconsciously
make to have the benefits of medical diagnosis traded against the risks of
radiation exposure.
Note that all such data are subject to approximations and the data here differ
from those on the next slide taken from a different source.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 21

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Radiation Exposures

22

Reference: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html which

attributes the figure to Nave, C. R. and Nave, B. C., Physics for the Health
Sciences, 3rd Ed, W. B. Saunders, 1985.
In this chart medical X-rays are said to contribute 80 millirems which is
equivalent to 0.8 mSv in contrast the estimate of 0.54 mSv on the previous
chart. Similarly the total exposure to natural and medical radiation is listed
here as 200 millirems per year as compated to 2.87 mSv = 287 millirems on
the last chart.
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/radiation/sources.html#member says that the
total natural dose is about 360 millirems/year or about 3.6 mSv/yr. Of this
total, natural sources of radiation account for about 81% of all public
exposure, while man-made sources account for the remaining 19%. Natural
and artificial radiations are not different in any kind or effect. Above this
background level of radiation exposure, the NRC requires that its licensees
limit maximum radiation exposure to individual members of the public to 100
mrem (1 mSv) per year, and limit occupational radiation exposure to adults
working with radioactive material to 5,000mrem (50 mSv) per year. (NRC
regulations and radiation exposure limits are contained in Title 10 of the
Code of Feral Regulations under Part 20).

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 22

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Health Risks
• Cumulative risk of getting a disease at
any time is lifetime risk (0.25 for cancer)
• Relative risk: ratio of incidence from
some cause to normal incidence
– Relative risk of smoking for lung cancer 9.9
– Cohort studies measure relative risk
– Case control studies measure odds ratio
– Excess relative risk = relative risk minus 1

23

Health risks are measured in the terms shown here.

The difference between an odds ratio and a relative risk is a formal one which
recognizes the differences in two kinds of studies. In a cohort study, sometimes
called a prospective study, two groups are selected. One group receives a
“treatment” and a second group does not. The groups are followed for some period
of time and the incidence of the disease under study is measured in both groups.
The incidence rate of some disease in the group with the “treatment” is then
compared to the incidence rate in the group which did not receive the treatment.
The cohorts are designed to have similar activity patterns so the differences in the
disease rate will be due to the treatment.
The second kind of study, the case control study, sometimes called a retrospective
study, is one in which two groups are selected (e.g. people who worked with
radiation and those who did not). The incidence rate of certain diseases is then
compared for the two groups. Other factors which may affect the results are
controlled for in the study.
Both types of studies are known as epidemiological studies. These are studies on
human populations. Ethical issues govern these studies and limit the kinds of
exposures that can be provided.
Other types of studies, known as toxicological studies, use laboratory animals. In
such studies it is possible to use exposures to large doses that would not be used
on humans. The problem is in extrapolating results to humans. This is usually
done by studying the effect in terms of units like grams of dose per kilogram of body
weight. The easiest subjects to use are mice, but these have a metabolism that is
not like humans. Studies on larger animals are more expensive and usually not
done.
My favorite quote from an epidemiologist is the following: “Epidemiology uses the
right species but does not always have accurate dose data; toxicology uses the
wrong species but has accurate dose data. I’ll take the right species any time.”

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 23

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

High Exposure Data

24

Reference: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html which attributes

the chart to the Atlanta Journal, March 20, 1993, page F1.
The health effects associated with exposures to radiation are uncertain. Although
we know that large doses have the results shown in the table below, we do not
know what the long term effects to low does of radiation over long times are. The
standards for radiation exposure are based on a linear, no-threshold hypothesis.
This means that high does exposures for which we have data are extrapolated to
zero effect at zero dose, without assuming a threshold. Some health scientists
have argued that this is too conservative, but it has been used to provide protection
to the public.
Dose
Effect (rems)
No observable effect 0-25
Slight blood changes 25-100
Significant reduction in blood
platelets and white blood cells 100-
(temporary) 200
Severe blood damage, nausea,
hair loss, hemorrhage, death in 200-
many cases 500
Death in less than two months for
over 80% >600

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 24

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Nuclear Reactors
• Classified by neutron energy
– Fast versus slow
• Moderators reduce neutron energy
• Fast breeder reactors
• Light water reactors
• Gas cooled rectors
• CANDU reactors

25

Nuclear reactors have fissile fuel that undergoes nuclear fission and produces
energy. Once a chain reaction is started many different reactions can take place in
the reactor. If the majority of the fission reactions are done by fast neutrons, the
reactor is called a fast reactor. When moderators are used to absorb the energy of
the fast neutrons, most of the fissions are done by slow (or thermal) neutrons. Such
reactors are called thermal reactors (because they use thermal neutrons).
All nuclear rectors have the following an active core in which fissile fuel undergoes
fission. The core may also contain a fertile material that can be converted to a
fissile material. If the reactor is to use slow or thermal neutrons, a moderator is
required. The core is surrounded by a reflector to prevent neutrons from escaping
from the core.
The heat produced in the core is removed by a coolant. The energy added to this
coolant is then used to produce useful power from the reactor.
The reaction is controlled by rods inserted into the core that absorb neutrons. Such
rods, called control rods, are neutron poisons such as boron or cadmium.
Fast breeder reactors use both a fertile and a fissile material. Such a reactor can
produce more fuel from the fertile material than it consumes from the fissile
material.
Most commercial reactors are light-water reactors in which H2O, with its natural
isotopic composition acts as both the moderator and the coolant. Such reactors
have a fuel that is about 2% to 4% U-235.
The CANDU reactor uses natural uranium as the fuel with heavy-water (deuterium
oxide or D2O) as the moderator.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 25

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Pressurized
Pressurized Water Reactor
Water Reactor

26

This diagram shows a pressurized water reactor. In this reactor there is a

separate coolant loop of high pressure water that receives heat from the
reactor and then exchanges heat with the working fluid in the steam
generator (SG). Both the reactor and the steam generator are located within
the containment vessel that is designed to contain the debris from a nuclear
accident. Steam produced in the steam generator then is used in a steam
turbine as in a fossil-fueled power plant.
In this diagram RCP is the reactor coolant pump and PZR is the pressurizer,
a tank or vessel that acts as a head tank (or surge volume) to control the
pressure in a pressurized water reactor.
The diagram was found at
http://eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/pwr.html in September
2001.
In the US 69 units are pressurized water reactors (PWRs) totaling 65,100
net megawatts (electric) and 35 units are boiling water (BWR) totaling
32,300 net megawatts (electric).

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 26

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

PWR

• Details of
reactor
vessel for
Pressurized
Water
Reactor

27

This detailed diagram of a reactor vessel for a pressurized water reactor was
found at http://eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/pwr.html in
September 2001.
Recall that the purpose of this vessel is to establish a controlled nuclear
reaction that transfers heat to high pressure water. The high pressure water,
which does not boil in a PWR, then transfers heat in a separate loop to the
actual working fluid in the steam cycle.
This chart shows the detailed requirements for the reactor vessel,
particularly the ability to insert and withdraw control rods from the reactor.
These control rods absorb neutrons and their removal allows the reaction to
proceed. Inserting the control rods into the reactor decreases the amount of
the nuclear reactions, which, in turn, reduces the heat produced.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 27

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Boiling Water Reactor

28

Reference: http://eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/ September

2001
In the boiling water reactor, the heat from the reactor core is transferred to
the working fluid, producing steam. The steam from the reactor goes directly
to the steam turbine to produce electricity. In order to keep the core cooled,
additional water circulation is used.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 28

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

CANDU Reactors

29

Reference: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cz725/cnf_sectionA.htm#a September 2001

CANDU (a registered trademark) stands for "Canada Deuterium Uranium". It is a
pressurized-heavy-water, natural-uranium power reactor designed first in the late
1950s by a consortium of Canadian government and private industry. All power
reactors in Canada are of the CANDU type (of varying vintage). It is also the
power-reactor product marketed by Canada abroad
The CANDU reactor uses natural uranium fuel and heavy water (D2O) as both
moderator and coolant (the moderator and coolant are separate systems). It is
refueled at full-power, a capability provided by the subdivision of the core into
hundreds of separate pressure tubes. Each pressure tube holds a single string of
natural uranium fuel bundles (each bundle is half a meter long and weighing about
20 kg) immersed in heavy-water coolant, and can be thought of as one of many
separate "mini-pressure-vessel reactors" - highly subcritical of course. Surrounding
each pressure tube a low-pressure, low-temperature moderator, also heavy water,
fills the space between neighboring pressure tubes.
Heavy water is about eight times worse than light water for slowing down
("moderating") neutrons, but its macroscopic absorption cross-section (i.e.
probability of absorption) is over 600 times less, leading to a moderating ratio (the
ratio of the two parameters, a useful measure of a moderator's quality) that is 80
times higher than that of light water.
Heavy water's low absorption cross-section permits the use of natural uranium,
which is low in fissile content and would not attain criticality in a light-water lattice.
The lower slowing-down power of heavy water requires a much larger lattice than in
light-water cores; however, the larger lattice allows space at the core end faces for
on-line refueling, as well as space between channels for control rods, in-core
detectors, and other non-fuel components.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 29

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

30

Reference:
http://www.iaea.org/programmes/ne/nenp/nptds/htgr/technology.pdf in
September 2001
High temperature gas (cooled) reactors HTGR or HTGCR uses graphite as
the moderator and some gas such as helium as the coolant. The power
conversion uses a closed Brayton cycle. (Typical Brayton cycle engines that
use the combustion gases as the working fluid simply dump the waste heat
in the form of exhaust gas to the atmosphere.
This diagram shows the GT-MHR development program has started in 1993
in a venture involving MINATOM of Russia and General Atomics (GA) of the
US, together with Framatome of France and Fuji Electric of Japan. The
proposed plant, rated at 600 MWt/293 Mwe will be utilized for weapons
Plutonium destruction with a long-term goal of commercial development.
The final design is expected in 2005, with construction planned for 2009.
Claimed efficiencies for the advanced reactor types are of the order of 50%.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 30

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Nuclear Reactor Fuel

• Light water reactors require enriched
uranium fuel
• Natural uranium has about 0.7% 235U
• Power plants require enrichment to
about 5% 235U or less
• Gaseous diffusion phasing out in favor
of centrifuge separation
• Separative work units (SWU)
31

Reference: http://www.uic.com.au/nip33.htm accessed February 24, 2008

In order to start and sustain a chain-reaction in a light water reactor, the
uranium isotope 235 (U235) in nuclear fuel must have a concentration of up to
5% depending on reactor-type and design. U235 is the only isotope of
uranium which can be split by thermal neutrons. However, naturally
occurring uranium, contains only 0.71% of the U235 isotope. The remaining
portion is overwhelmingly made up of the U238 isotope which cannot be split.
The enrichment of the somewhat lighter U235 is thus a technically necessary
step in the manufacture of nuclear fuel from natural uranium. For the annual
reload of a standard pressurized water reactor of 1300 MW electrical
capacity some 24 tonnes of uranium with an average U235 concentration of
3.95% are required.
Assuming depletion to 0.3% U235 some 213 tonnes of natural uranium must
be used and some 124 tonnes of separative work are required for the
enrichment. Separative work is a measure of the amount of effort required
for enriching uranium. For the enrichment of uranium a number of
separation processes have been invented and in part further developed.
The main processes used today are gaseous diffusion and centrifugation.
Both of these take advantage of the differences in mass between the
uranium isotopes.
Recall that CANDU reactors, which use heavy-water as the moderator, do
not require enriched uranium.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 31

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Uranium Fuel Cycle

Complete
fuel cycle
from
mining to
disposal
requires
• Uranium ore several
steps to
get
uranium
ore from
mines to
reactor
fuel and
disposal
32

Reference: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf03.html accessed February

25, 2008
Mined uranium ore typically has between 0.1% uranium (low grade) and 2%
uranium (high grade). The ore must be processed to remove the uranium
prior to the conversion step shown in the diagram. As mined, uranium is in
the compound U3O8, commonly known as yellowcake because of its color.
Separation processes for enriching the uranium use the gaseous uranium
compound, uranium hexafloride (UF6). Prior to conversion to UF6, the
uranium is converted to UO2 which is used in reactors that do not require
enriched uranium.
The enriched uranium is then converted from gaseous UF6 to solid UO2 ,
which is then sintered at temperatures above 1400oC and formed into fuel
pellets. The pellets are then placed in fuel rods, typically about 4 m long,
which are used in the actual reactors.
These preparation steps leave two waste streams. The first is the mine
tailings from which the uranium has been removed. These are other
compounds, with a trace of the original uranium that cannot be removed
economically. These will constitute about 99% of the original ore and will
have a residual radioactivity. The second waste stream (shown above as
depleted uranium) comes from the enrichment process. This stream will be
uranium with a reduced content of U235. Again, because of the low initial
concentration of this isotope, most of the feed to the enrichment plant will
wind up as depleted uranium.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 32

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Uranium Hexafluoride UF6

• Triple point at 1516.5 mbar 64.02 °C
• Density (solid) at 20.7°C 5.09 g/cm3
• Density (liquid) at 64.02°C 3.668 g/cm3
• Density (liquid) at 148.9°C 3.043 g/cm3
• Heat of sublimation at 64.02°C 11.4 kcal/mol
• Melting heat at 64.02°C 4.5 kcal/mol
• Vaporizing heat at 64.02°C 6.8 kcal/mol
• Reaction heat with water at 25°C 50.4 kcal/mol
• Critical pressure 45.6 bar
• Critical temperature 230.2 °C
• Vapor pressure at 20°C 106.7 mbar
• Molecular weight 352.07 kg/kmol
• Sublimation point at 1013.5 mbar 56.4°C

33

Reference: http://www.urenco.de/pdf_archiv/uran_enrich.pdf September

2001
The following information was accessed on February 28, 2008 from the site
http://www.uic.com.au/nip33.htm
World Conversion supply and demand (thousand tonnes U as UF6)
Supplier 2007 2010 2015
Cameco (Canada & UK) 13.7 15.5 15.5
Areva 14.0 14.0 15.0
ConverDyn 12.0 14.0 18.0
Rosatom 5.0 5.5 10.0
China 1.5 2.5 2.5
UF6e inventories 20.1 20.8 11.0
Total supply 66.3 72.3 72.0
Requirements (ERI) 59 62-65 67-77
Requirements (WNA) 61 61-64 70-77
In a dry process uranium trioxide is reduced hydrogen to uranium dioxide
which is further reacted with gaseous hydrogen fluoride (HF) to form uranium
tetrafluoride. The tetrafluoride is reacted with gaseous fluorine to produce
UF6. An alternative wet process produces the tetrafluoride from uranium
oxide by reaction with hydrofluoric acid (HF in solution with water).

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 33

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Separative Work Unit

• Have feed, product and tails streams
– Feed mass flow rate F (kg/s)
– Feed U235 concentration, NF = 0.0071
– Similar data for product stream (P and NP)
and waste (tail) stream (T and NT)
• Mass balance F = P + T
• Balance on U235: F NF = P NP + T NT
• SWU = PV(NP) + TV(NT) – FV(NF)
• V(N) is the value function
34

Note that uranium costs for a nuclear operator are a combination of the cost
of the raw uranium (with a natural U235) content and the cost of enrichment.
A higher material cost justifies a higher enrichment cost that will produce
more useful uranium fuel, per unit cost of the raw material.
In 2006 the average cost per SWU for US nuclear power plant operators was
$106 per SWU. (reference http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/umar/
table16.html, accessed February 25, 2008).
Earlier cost data (unreferenced notes by L. S. Caretto) show a spot market
price for uranium enrichment of $98.00 per separative work unit (SWU) in
mid-1996. By mid-1998 the spot market prices was $86 per SWU and in
June 1999 the price was $84 per SWU During this period the US dollar was
appreciating against most European currencies decreasing the dollar cost of
foreign enriched uranium. European enrichers Urenco and Cogema could
sell more competitively in the U.S. market, were they were able to gain
additional market share. European enrichers also made additional inroads to
the Japanese market.
During the mid 1990s, Urenco, a European-based enricher, expanded its
production capabilities with modern centrifuges that could produce lower
cost per SWU and this also contributed to a decline in costs.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 34

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Calculating SWU
• Value function
⎛ N ⎞
defined and V ( N ) = (2N − 1) ln⎜ ⎟
tabulated ⎝1− N ⎠
N V(N) N
0.001 6.892941 0.999
0.002 6.187756 0.998
0.005 5.240372 0.995
0.01 4.503217 0.99
0.02 3.736147 0.98
0.05 2.649995 0.95
0.1 1.75778 0.9
0.2 0.831777 0.8
0.5 0 0.5
35

The value function is a measure of the work involved in obtaining pure

components from a binary mixture. It depends only on the concentrations.
The work is defined to be zero for a 50:50 mixture. As the degree of purity
of the components in the separated stream increases, the separative work
increases.
The symmetry about N = ½ can be expressed by the following equation
V(1/2+x) = V(1/2 – x).
Note that there are two effects taking place here, concentration and
recovery. For a given concentration of U235 in the product stream, it takes
more work to produce a lower concentration in the tailings. This recovers
more of the uranium, reducing the initial material cost. The optimum tailing
concentration is a trade off between the material cost and the separation
costs.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 35

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Enrichment
• For NP = 3%, 3.8 SWU required if NT =
0.25%, or 5.0 SWU if NT = 0.15%
– NT = 0.15% requires only 5.1 kg of natural
U; (6.0 kg of natural U for NT = 0.25%)
• About 100-120,000 SWU for annual fuel
loading in 1000 MWe light water reactor
• Gaseous diffusion 9000 MJ per SWU;
gas centrifuge 180 MJ per SWU.
• Enrichment ~5% of the electricity cost
36

Reference http://www.uic.com.au/nip33.htm accessed February 25, 2008.

Gaseous diffusion was developed by the Manhattan project during World
War II as the shortest path to providing enriched uranium. More recently
centrifuge technology has proven more economical and is the preferred
technology. Older gaseous diffusion plants are being phased out.
In 2007 gaseous diffusion accounted for about 25% of the total enrichment.
Another 10% came from conversion of weapons grade materials into reactor
fuel. The remaining 65% of enriched uranium came from centrifuge
operations. The forecast for 2017 is that 96% of the enriched uranium will
come from centrifuge operations with the remaining 4% coming from
conversions of weapons grade materials into reactor fuels.
Other separation processes including electromagnetic separation and
aerodynamic separation are possible, but are more costly than centrifuge
separation. A new laser process is currently being developed.
The following data for a “typical” 1000 MWe reactor were accessed on
February 26, 2008 from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf03.html: (t
stands for tonnes) 20,000 t of uranium ore with 1% uranium produces 230 t
of U3O8 which is converted to 288 t of UF6 (both have 195 t uranium). The
enrichment process produces 35 t of UF6 with 24 t of enriched uranium (4%
U235 content). The remaining 253 t of UF6 is the tails with a U235 content of
0.24%. This process requires 140,000 SWU.
(continued on next notes page)

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 36

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

US Uranium Costs

• $10 per pound of U3O8 equals $11.79

per pound of uranium
37

Reference http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/umar/figure2.html accessed

February 25, 2008.
Note the steady increase in uranium costs over time. Using the previously
stated conversion factors for the cost per pound of uranium (a cost of $100
per kg U is the same as $84.80 per kg U3O8, $45.36 per lb U, or $38.46 per
lb U3O8) shows that a cost of $10 per pound of U3O8 is the same as a cost of
$11.79 per pound of uranium.
(Continued from previous notes page)
The 35 t of UF6 is converted into 27 t of UO2 (still with 24 t of enriched
uranium) for fuel fabrication. This 24 t or enriched uranium is 1/3 of the
reactor’s total load of 72 t, 1/3 of which is replaced annually. The reactor
can produce 7.75 TWh of electricity (assuming a capacity factor of 88.5%).
When the 27 t of UO2 fuel are removed from the reactor, it will contain 23 t of
uranium with a U235 concentration of 0.5%. It will also contain 240 kg of
plutonium and 720 kg of fission products.
The performance of this reactor is rated as 45,000 MW·day/t. This is called
the burn-up rate.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 37

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

US SWU Purchases

• Most US SWU from foreign sources

38

Figure from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/umar/table16.html

accessed February 25, 2008.
Additional data on uranium enrichment capacity from
http://www.uic.com.au/nip33.htm accessed February 25, 2008.

Country - Company 2002 2006 2015

France - Areva 10,800 10,800 7500
Germany-Netherlands-
UK - Urenco 5850 9000 11,000+
Japan - JNFL 900 1050 1500
USA - USEC 8,000 11,300 3500+
USA - Urenco & Areva 0 0 4000+
Russia - Tenex 20,000 25,000 33,000+
China - CNNC 1,000 1000 1000+
Other 5 300 300
total ~46,500 48,450 61,800+
Requirements (WNA) <> 48,428 57,000 - 63,000

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 38

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

39

Reference: http://www.wise-uranium.org/img/ecbal.gif accessed February

25, 2008.
This chart shows the balance between the price of the natural uranium and
the price of the enrichment.
The purchaser of enriched uranium seeks to minimize the cost of enriched
uranium, plotted on the vertical axis (after being divided by the original cost
of the natural uranium.) The parameter in the plot is the ratio of the
enrichment cost to the feed cost. The chart shows the amount of U235 that
should be left in the tails (waste) stream to minimize the overall cost.
The curves have a very gradual slope so the location of the optimum tails
assay (the fraction of U235 remaining in the waste stream) is not that critical.
As expected it is more efficient to have a lower tails assay as the ratio of
enrichment cost to natural uranium cost decreases.
For example, if the cost of natural uranium is $20 per pound of U3O8 and the
ratio of enrichment cost to natural uranium cost is ($2/SWU)/($/lb U3O8),
then the optimum tails assay is about 0.2 %wt and the total cost of enriched
uranium (in $/kg) is about 27 times the original uranium cost of $20 per
pound of U3O8 for a total cost of $540 per kg of enriched uranium. If the
ratio of enrichment cost to natural uranium cost is ($20/SWU)/($/lb U3O8)
then the optimum tails assay is about 0.45 %wt and the total cost of enriched
uranium (in $/kg) is about 97 times the original uranium cost of $20 per
pound of U3O8 for a total cost of $1,840 per kg of enriched uranium.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 39

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Tricastin Gaseous Diffusion

40

Reference http://www.uic.com.au/nip33.htm accessed February 25, 2008

The Tricastin gaseous diffusion plant in Southern France produces enriched
uranium for the operation of French nuclear reactors. The actual gaseous
diffusion plants are in the four dark buildings in the center of the picture. In
the foreground are the four nuclear reactors required to produce the
electricity for the plant.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 40

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Nuclear Energy Regulation

• Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
• International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA)
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• Department of Energy (DOE)
– Responsible for design of national nuclear
waste facility
• Must get approval of NRC for actual plans for
disposal site
41

NRC has responsibility for regulating the use of—

Source material (uranium and thorium)
Special nuclear material (enriched uranium and plutonium)
Byproduct material (material made radioactive in a reactor, and residues
from the milling of uranium and thorium)
The NRC regulates the use of radioactive materials through 10 CFR Part 20,
"Standards for Protection Against Radiation." Part 20 includes agency
requirements for Dose limits for radiation workers and members of the public
Monitoring and labeling radioactive materials, Posting radiation areas,
Reporting the theft or loss of radioactive material,
Part 20 also includes Penalties for not complying with NRC regulations and
tables of individual radionuclide exposure limits.
The IAEA is responsible for setting international programs for nuclear
energy. Much of their effort is directed towards a comprehensive program of
nuclear safety and avoiding the diversion of nuclear materials from civilian
reactors into weapons programs.
The EPA has responsibility for environmental radiation standards and one of
their major efforts has been in addressing the problem of radon exposure in
homes and offices.
The DOE, NRC, and EPA share responsibility for the development of the
Ward Valley Waste Disposal Site.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 41

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Waste Disposal
• Ward Valley (NV) waste site
– Permanent repository for high-level nuclear
waste initially scheduled to open in 2010
– Designed for 10,000 year storage
• Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)
– Presently operating in New Mexico for low-
level waste from DOE sites
• 10,000 year standard

42

Reference: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/wipp/faq.htm#general_1
What is the WIPP?
"WIPP" is the abbreviation for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, a U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) facility located in southeastern New Mexico, 26 miles southeast of Carlsbad. The site
chosen for the 2,150-foot-deep WIPP is a 16-square-mile tract of federal land that consists
of a thick layer of rock salt deposited about 225 million years ago. The facility is the nation's
first geological repository for permanent disposal of transuranic (TRU) radioactive waste.
Congress authorized the development of WIPP in 1980 to demonstrate the safe disposal of
radioactive waste resulting from defense programs of the United States.
What is Transuranic Radioactive Waste?
The term "transuranic" is derived from trans, meaning beyond, and uranic, meaning
uranium. TRU waste, which contains manmade elements heavier than uranium (and
therefore "beyond uranium" on the periodic chart) is produced during nuclear fuel assembly,
nuclear weapons research, productions, and cleanup, and as a result of reprocessing spent
nuclear fuels. The waste generally consists of protective clothing, tools, glassware, and
equipment contaminated with radioactive materials.
TRU waste consists of materials containing alpha-emitting radio-isotopes, with half-lives
greater than twenty years and atomic numbers greater than 92, in concentrations greater
than 100 nano-curies per gram of waste. The WIPP Land Withdrawal Act specifically
excludes high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel from the definition, as neither is allowed to
be disposed of at the WIPP.
EPA and the WIPP
First, EPA was required to finalize regulations which apply to all sites -- except Yucca
Mountain -- for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, transuranic and high level radioactive
waste. The regulations, located at Subparts B and C of 40 CFR Part 191 (disposal
regulations), limit the amount of radioactive material which may escape from a disposal
facility, and protect individuals and ground water resources from dangerous levels of
radioactive contamination.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 42

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

EPA Process for WIPP

• Set environmental standards
• Monitor DOE activities
• DOE runs WIPP
• DOT is responsible for setting
transportation standards
• Ward Valley site continues to be
controversial

43

EPA's final certification of compliance will allow the emplacement of radioactive waste in the
WIPP to begin, provided that all other applicable health and safety standards, and other
legal requirements, have been met. at waste generator sites.
Panel Closure System - Condition 1 of the certification relates to the panel closure system,
which is intended over the long term to block brine flow between waste panels in the WIPP.
Waste Characterization and Quality Assurance - Conditions 2 and 3 of the final rule relate to
activities conducted at waste generator sites that produce the transuranic waste proposed
for disposal in the WIPP. The compliance criteria require DOE to have in place a system of
controls to measure and track important waste components, and to apply quality assurance
("QA") programs to waste characterization activities.
Passive Institutional Controls - Condition 4 of the certification relates to passive institutional
controls ("PICs"). The compliance criteria required DOE to use both records and physical
markers to warn future societies about the location and contents of the disposal system to
deter inadvertent intrusion into the WIPP. return to: [top] [previous location]
Throughout its operation of the WIPP, DOE must submit a recertification application to EPA
every five years, documenting the WIPP's In the immediate future, EPA will conduct
inspections at waste generator sites in order to implement Conditions 2 and 3 of the
compliance certification.
There is world-wide scientific consensus that 10,000 years is a time over which we can
reasonably predict geology, hydrology and climatology (we extrapolated backwards to the
last ice age, 10,000 years ago). If WIPP can meet the standards for 10,000 years, then it is
highly likely that it will survive beyond that.
The current defense-generated transuranic waste is temporarily stored at federal
government facilities in California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio,
Tennessee, South Carolina, and Washington.
Regulations issued by the Department of Transportation set guidelines for routing waste to
the WIPP, but give the states and Indian tribes authority to designate routes within their
borders. Different departments make the decision in each state, ranging from the
Department of Health in Texas to the Public Service Commission in Indiana.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 43

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Fusion Power
• D = Duterium
(2H)
• T = Tritium (3H)
• D + T → 4He + n
• For first
generation
fusion reactors
• n + Li6 → 4He +T
generates T
44

Reference for figure and text: http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/CPEP/Chart.html

(accessed February 25, 2008)
Energy-Releasing Reactions
Chemical Fission Fusion
Reaction C + O2 → CO2 U235 → Ba143 + Kr91 H2 + H3 → He4
Inputs Coal UO2 (3% U235) Deuterium & Lithium
Temp(K) 700 1000 108
Energy(J/kg) 3.3 x 107 2.1 x 1012 3.4 x 1014
The "D-T" reaction has the highest reaction rate at the plasma temperatures
which are currently achievable; it also has a very high energy release. These
properties make it the easiest reaction to use in a man-made fusion reactor.
As the figure shows, the products of this reaction include an alpha particle
(Helium-4 nucleus) with 3.5 MeV energy, and a neutron with 14.1 MeV
energy. The neutron escapes from the plasma (it has no charge and is not
confined) and can be trapped in a surrounding "blanket" structure, where the
n + Li6 → He4 + H3 reaction can be used to "convert" the neutrons back into
tritium fuel.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 44

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

45

Reference: http://fusedweb.llnl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pages/6.Results.html
(accessed February 25, 2008)
The site contains the following description of plasmas:
“Plasmas consist of freely moving charged particles, i.e., electrons and ions.
Formed at high temperatures when electrons are stripped from neutral
atoms, plasmas are common in nature. For instance, stars are
predominantly plasma. Plasmas are the "Fourth State of Matter" because of
their unique physical properties, distinct from solids, liquids and gases.
Plasma densities and temperatures vary widely.
One approach to fusion reactions is to create a magnetically confined
plasma in which the fusion reactions take place. The magnetic field allows
the high temperature reactions to take place without melting the walls of the
reaction chamber.”

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 45

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

46

Reference: http://fusedweb.llnl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pages/6.Results.html
(accessed February 25, 2008)
Both inertial and magnetic confinement fusion research have focused on
understanding plasma confinement and heating. This research has led to
increases in plasma temperature, T, density, n, and energy confinement
time, τ. Future power plants based on fusion reactors are expected to
produce about 1 GW of power, which requires plasma parameters of nτ ~
2x1020 s/m3 and T ~ 120 million K.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 46

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Fusion Power Plant

47

Reference: http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/
In this diagram for a fusion power plant, the deuterium-tritium (D-T) mixture
is placed in an evacuated reactor chamber where it is ionized and heated to
thermonuclear temperatures, creating a plasma. Magnetic forces hold the
ionized fuel away from the chamber walls
The deuterium tritium reaction forms charged helium nuclei. These nuclei
transfer energy to the deuterium and tritium which are injected to the reactor.
This energy transfer then sustains the fusion reaction.
The neutrons that are formed in the reaction move out of the plasma becase
they have no charge. They move through the walls of the vacuum chamber
and are absorbed in a lithium blanket that surrounds the fusion chamber.
Collisions between the neutrons and the lithium nuclei creates the heat that
is transferred to the steam in a conventional steam power cycle. The
neutrons react with the lithium to generate tritium which is separated and fed
back into the reactor as a fuel.
The successful operation of a fusion power plant will require the use of
materials resistant to energetic neutron bombardment, thermal stress and
magnetic forces. Additional work also needs to be done on the design of fuel
injection systems and systems for removing spent gas.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 47

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Tritium Hazards

48

Reference: http://www.esd.ornl.gov/iab/iab1-13.htm accessed February 25,

2008.
Thbe web site describhes work at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as follows:
“Tritium will be a fuel at future fusion reactors, but health risks for tritium
differ between its form as T2 gas and its form as HTO. Because tritium in the
water form is about 25,000 times more hazardous than in the gas form,
evaluation of human health risks for a number of situations around future
fusion reactor plants depends on knowledge of how tritium converts from T2
to HTO.
A series of experimental and theoretical studies were undertaken to measure
needed parameters and to calculate others. This effort resulted in the
development of validated rate equations, which spanned more than seven
orders of magnitude in tritium concentration. Health risks from a wide variety
of possible situations can now be calculated. These calculations provide
input for future design and siting requirements for tritium-fueled fusion
reactors.”

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 48

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Nuclear Power Concerns

• Costs per kWh for new plants
• Production of fuel that can be diverted
for use in weapons
– Rouge states or terrorists
• Long-term waste disposal
• Possibility of accidents
• Terrorist attacks against power plants

49

Cost analyses continue to show nuclear as a costly option for electric power
due to high construction costs. The uncertainty about nuclear power leads
electric utilities to be concerned enough to consider other options even if
nuclear power were costs competitive.
The possibility of diversion to weapons led the US to halt reprocessing of
spent nuclear materials from power plants in 1977. (An action attributed to
President and former nuclear engineer Carter.) The technology to handle
high-level wastes means that such diversion would probably be limited to
rouge nations who have large resources.
At present the US has not implemented the proposed Ward Valley facility for
storage of nuclear wastes. High level wastes are initially stored in the water
ponds and later in dry storage within the containment vessels of nuclear
power plants.
Before Chernobyl, Edward Teller called the problem of nuclear accidents the
“zero-infinity” dilemma. He felt that the probability of a very large accident
with was vanishingly small. Hence the estimated effect of the accident – the
probability of occurrence times the impact – was like the product of zero and
infinity: indeterminate. Other than accidents at experimental facilities the two
best known accidents have been Three-Mile Island (TMI) and Chernobyl. At
TMI there was a core meltdown, but no release of radiation.
Continued on next notes page

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 49

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Accidents and Terrorism

• Three Mile Island and Chernobyl
• Risks from transportation
– Special concerns over high level waste
transport to Ward Valley
– Containers designed to contain
radioactivity in case of accident
• Terrorism – Containment structures said
to be able of airplane strike

50

Reference: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html accessed

March 4, 2007
The Chernobyl accident was based on a Russian reactor design that was
known to have problems. It had poor response of increasing power when its
moderator turned to steam in contrast to design of other reactors in which
the power decreased when this occurred. At the time of the accident it was
being tested under low power and operator errors coupled with a poor
design caused an explosion that released part of the reactor fuel to the
atmosphere.
This most serious nuclear accident directly caused 30 deaths (28 from
radiation exposure). An additional 209 individuals were treated for radiation
poisoning. (Most of these were workers who handled the cleanup
operations.)
About 371,000 people were relocated at various times following the accident.
A UN publication available at http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/
Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf accessed March 4, 2007, reports on the health,
environmental and socioeconomic aspects of the accident.
According to this publication, there has been an increase in childhood thyroid
cancer among children exposed to the accident, but there have been no
other “clearly demonstrated increase in the incidence of solid cancers or
leukemia due to radiation in the most exposed populations.”

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 50

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Breeder Reactors
• Nuclear reactions can transform atoms
that do not readily undergo nuclear
transformations in into ones that do

92 U + n→ 92 U
238 239
• This overall
path transforms
92 U → 92 Np + e
239 239
U238 into Pu239
92 Np → 92 Pu + e
239 239

51

Reference: James A. Fay and Dan S. Golomb, Energy and the Environment,
Oxford University Press, 2002.
It is also possible to have a breeder cycle based on thorium. The amount of
thorium present on the earth is estimated to be about the same as that of
uranium. In a nuclear reactor, Thorium, Th232, can absorb a neutron and
undergo beta decay to produce Po233 (protoactinium) and then U233. This
isotope of uranium, that is not naturally occurring, is also fissile and can be
used as a fuel in nuclear reactors. India, which has large supplies of thorium
is building a breeder reactor based on thorium
These reactions are the basis for the operation of a nuclear reactor that will
produce more fuel than it consumes. This is not a new idea. These nuclear
reactions have been used for many years to produce plutonium that is used
in nuclear weapons.
One of the key concerns of breeder reactors is the production of plutonium
that can be used for weapons. When the nuclear fuel in the reactor is
replenished, the fuel withdrawn from the reactor has to be reprocessed. This
allows for the possibility that plutonium in the fuel can be withdrawn for
weapons use. This would have to be done by a rouge nation. It is unlikely
that a terrorist group would have the resources to reprocess fuel.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 51

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Once-through Fuel Cycle

52

Reference: MIT Interdisciplinary Study, “The Future of Nuclear Power,” MIT,

ISBN 0-615-12420-8, 2003. Downloaded on February 20, 2007 from
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
Abbreviations: MTU: metric tons of uranium
MTIHM: metric tons of initial heavy metal (U or Pu)
According to the report, “the specific numerical mass flows and enrichments
in Figure A-4.1 are for a burnup of 33 GWd/MTIHM,which was the average
burnup for U.S. reactors about 2 decades ago. In the rest of this section, we
use a burnup of 50 GWd/MTIHM, which is currently the average for U.S.
PWRs.”
MTIHM is an abbreviation for metric tons of initial heavy metal.
The cycle is called a once-through cycle in that there is no reprocessing of
the waste materials to recover potential materials for additional fuel or
weapons.
Definition of terms: B = burnup = Q/M where Q = Annual thermal energy
output (GW-days per year) and M = Mass of fuel loaded per year
(MTIHM/yr)
Q = Pe CF 365/η where Pe = installed electrical capacity GWe, CF = capacity
factor, and η = thermal efficiency
Calculations assume η = 33% and CF = 90%

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 52

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Fuel Cycle with Fast Reactors

53

Reference: MIT Interdisciplinary Study, “The Future of Nuclear Power,” MIT,

ISBN 0-615-12420-8, 2003. Downloaded on February 20, 2007 from
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
Abbreviations: FP – Fission Products
FR – Fast Reactor
MA – Minor actinides (elements heavier than U except Pu)
This chart, like the last one, examines the different approaches to developing
a new set of nuclear power reactors that would total 1500 GWe capacity by
2050. Although this is a far off time frame, the report examines the
opportunities and barriers to the development of such a large amount of
nuclear power in a 50-year time frame.
By comparison, the total world installed summer electrical capacity in 2007
was 372 GWe.
Although the report describes this cycle, it does not recommend its use
because of concerns over proliferation.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 53

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

MIT 2003 Report

• Identifies four areas of concern about
possible expansion of nuclear power
– Cost – not currently competitive
– Safety – need better information about
safety of entire fuel cycle
– Waste – geological deposition technically
feasible but not demonstrated in practice
– Proliferation – inadequate safeguards

54

Reference: MIT Interdisciplinary Study, “The Future of Nuclear Power,” MIT,

ISBN 0-615-12420-8, 2003. Downloaded on February 20, 2007 from
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive
with coal and natural gas. However, plausible reductions by industry in
capital cost, operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could
reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give
nuclear power a cost advantage.
Safety. Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious
accidents, but “best practices” in construction and operation are
essential.We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle, beyond
reactor operation.
Waste. Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be
demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the
long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles
involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks
and costs. Improvement in the open, once through fuel cycle may offer
waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more
expensive closed fuel cycles.
Proliferation. The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to
meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment
contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now
used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of
plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 54

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

MIT 2003 Recommendations

• Continue DOE R&E efforts to lower cost
• Production tax credit for new plants
• Incentives for carbon-free energy
should include nuclear
• DOE should broaden waste program
– Specific technical recommendations
– Develop international standards

55

Reference: MIT Interdisciplinary Study, “The Future of Nuclear Power,” MIT,

ISBN 0-615-12420-8, 2003. Downloaded on February 20, 2007 from
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
We support the Department of Energy (DOE) 2010 initiative to reduce costs
through new design certification, site banking, and combined construction
and operation licenses.
The government should also share “first mover” costs for a limited number of
power plants that represent safety-enhancing evolutionary reactor design.
We propose a production tax credit for up to $200/kWe of the plant’s
construction cost. This mechanism creates a strong incentive to complete
and operate the plant and the mechanism is extendable to other carbon-free
technologies. The government actions we recommend aim to challenge the
industry to demonstrate the cost reductions claimed for new reactor
construction, with industry assuming the risks and benefits beyond first-
mover costs.
Federal or state portfolio standards should include incremental nuclear
power capacity as a carbon free source.
The DOE should broaden its long-term waste R&D program, to include
improved engineered barriers, investigation of alternative geological
environments, and deep bore hole disposal. A system of central facilities to
store spent fuel for many decades prior to geologic disposal should be an
integral part of the waste management strategy. The U.S. should encourage
greater harmonization of international standards and regulations for waste
transportation, storage, and disposal.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 55

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

MIT 2003 Recommendations

• Expand authority of IAEA to inspect
suspect faculties
– Develop a system that goes beyond
accounting
• DOE R&D recommendations
– Focus on open, once-through fuel cycle
– Establish a program in simulation and
modeling of fuel cycles

56

Reference: MIT Interdisciplinary Study, “The Future of Nuclear Power,” MIT,

ISBN 0-615-12420-8, 2003. Downloaded on February 20, 2007 from
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
The International Atomic Energy Agency should have authority to inspect all
suspect facilities (implement the Additional Protocol) and should develop a
worldwide system for materials protection, control, and accountability that
goes beyond accounting, reporting, and periodic inspections. The U.S.
should monitor and influence developments in a broad range of enrichment
technologies.
The DOE R&D program should be realigned to focus on the open, once-
through fuel cycle. It should also conduct an international uranium resource
assessment; establish a large nuclear system analysis, modeling, and
simulation project, including collection of engineering data, to assess
alternative nuclear fuel cycle deployments relative to the four critical
challenges; and halt development and demonstration of advanced fuel
cycles or reactors until the results of the nuclear system analysis project are
available.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 56

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

EPAct 2005
• Energy policy act of 2005 covers
several different areas
• Nuclear areas
– Expand Price-Anderson act to provide
government insurance to nuclear power
plants for longer term
– Establish next-generation nuclear plant
project
• No nuclear provisions in 2007 act
57

Reference (accessed March 4, 2007): http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-

bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ058.109.pdf
The pdf file referenced above has 551 pages – one measure of the
complexity of the act. The following list gives the act’s titles (and subtitles).
Title I – Energy Efficiency (A. Federal programs, B. Energy assistance and
state programs, C. Energy efficient products, D. Public housing)
Title II – Renewable Energy (A. General, B. Geothermal energy, C.
Hydroelectric, D. Insular energy)
Title III – Oil and Gas (A. Petroleum reserve and home heating oil, B. Natural
gas, C. Production, D. Naval petroleum reserve, E. Production, F. Access to
Federal lands, G. Miscellaneous, F. Refinery revitalization.)
Title IV – Coal (A. Clean coal power initiative, B. Clean power projects, C.
Coal and related programs, D. Federal coal leases.)
Title V – Nuclear Matters (A. Price-Anderson Act Amendments, B. General
nuclear matters, C. Next generation nuclear power project, D Nuclear
security.)
Title VI – Vehicles and Fuels (A. Existing programs, B. Hybrid vehicles,
advanced vehicles and fuel cell buses, C. Clean school buses, D.
Miscellaneous, E. Automobile efficiency, F. Federal and state procurement,
G. Diesel emissions reduction.)
(continued on next notes page)

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 57

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

EPAct 2005 Nuclear Areas II

– Expand nuclear security to consider a
series of threats listed in the Act
– Federal insurance against delay costs for
first six companies to build new plants
– DOE Nuclear Power 2010 program to
demonstrate new regulatory procedures
– Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to
provide fuel to countries without processing

58

Reference (accessed March 4, 2007): http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-

bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ058.109.pdf
The following list gives the act’s titles (and subtitles) is continued from the
previous notes page.
Title VIII – Hydrogen
Title IX – Research and Development (A. Energy efficiency, B. Distributed
energy and electrical systems, C. Renewable energy, D. Agricultural
biomass research and development programs, E. Nuclear energy, F. Fossil
energy, G. Science, H. International cooperation, I. Research administration
and operations, J. Ultra-Deepwater and unconventional natural gas and
other petroleum resources.)
Title X – Department of energy management
Title XI – Personnel and training
Title XII – Electricity (A. Reliability standards, B. Transmission infrastructure
modernization, C. Transmission operation improvements, D. Transmission
rate reform, E. Amendments to PURPA, F. Repeal of PUHCA, G. Market
transparency, enforcement and consumer protection
XIII – Energy policy tax incentives (A. Electricity infrastructure, B. Domestic
Fossil Fuel Security, C. Conservation and Energy Efficiency Provisions, D.
Alternative Motor Vehicles and Fuels Incentives, E. Additional Energy Tax
Incentives, F. Revenue Raising Provisions.
(continued on next notes page)

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 58

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

EPAct 2005 Nuclear Areas III

– Expand nuclear security to consider a
series of threats listed in the Act
– Federal insurance against delay costs for
first six companies to build new plants
– $0.018/kWh tax credit for qualified
advanced nuclear facilities (Title XIII)
• Limited to first 6000 MWe constructed
– Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to
provide fuel to countries without processing

59

Reference (accessed March 4, 2007): http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-

bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ058.109.pdf
XIV – Miscellaneous (A. In General, B. Set America Free)
XV – Ethanol and motor fuels (A. General Provisions, B. Underground
Storage Tank Compliance, C. Boutique Fuels)
XVI – Climate change (A. National Climate Change Technology
Development, B. Climate Change Technology Development in Developing
Countries)
XVII – Incentives for innovative technologies.
XVIII – Studies.
The 2007 energy act, signed by President Bush in December 2007 was
found at the following web site on February 27, 2008:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:8:./temp/~c110z7pwNA::
This act had no provisions on nuclear energy.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 59

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Future Prospects
• Current nuclear reactors will continue to
operate
• Plans underway for deployment of new
nuclear reactors in the US by 2010
• Certify designs in advance to reduce
regulatory burden
• Improve design safety

60

See the report, “A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the United States by
2010,” Prepared for the US DOE, Office of Nuclear Science and Technology. October 31,
2001.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 60

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Capacity (thousand SWU/yr)

Country - Company 2002 2006 2015
France - Areva 10,800 10,800 7500
Germany-Netherlands-UK 5850 9000 11,000+
- Urenco
Japan - JNFL 900 1050 1500
USA - USEC 8,000 11,300 3500+
USA - Urenco & Areva 0 0 4000+
Russia - Tenex 20,000 25,000 33,000+
China - CNNC 1,000 1000 1000+
Other 5 300 300
total ~46,500 48,450 61,800+
Requirements (WNA) <> 48,428 57,000 -
63,000

Reference: http://www.uic.com.au/nip33.htm accessed February 25, 2008.

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 61

Nuclear Power February 19-23, 2009

Transporting Nuclear Waste

62

Geological Challenges in
Radioactive Waste Isolation
Third International Review
edited by
P.A. Wi t h e r s p o o n
G.S. Bodvarsson
Earth Sciences Division
E rnest Orlando Lawre n c e
Berkeley National Laboratory
University of Califor n i a
B e r k e l e y , C a l i f o r nia 94720 U.S.A.
D ec e mb er 200 1
P rep a re d for the
Unit e d St a t es Dep a r tment of Energy
under Contract No.
DE-AC03-76SF00098
LBNL-49767
on LSC’s home desktop computer

ME 496ALT Alternative Energy 62