Cambridge March 2001 Reason for Supporting Nuclear Power Richard Wilson Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics (emeritus) Harvard University.

Cambridge March 2001

Reason for Supporting Nuclear Power

Richard Wilson

Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics (emeritus)

Harvard University

Cambridge March 20th

1939Nuclear fission discovered

(Hahn and Strassman)

Neutron chain reactionpossibility shown!

(Joliot, Halban and Kowarski)

Euphoria!The "nuclear age" had come!

-North Cambridge MArch 20th

10,000,000 times more energy per unit weight of fuel compared to coal.

Less miningChemical processing before use possibleChemical processing after use possible

Waste can be kept out of the environment

Even if only U 235 (0.7%) is used

a factor of 100,000But bombs 10,000,000 times more

powerful are possible.

The energy from burning is more concentrated in a nuclear reactor. We run at a power level so that water can take the heat away

make steam and generate electricity. This concentration

makes it cheaper

Easy to shut down a reactor in an accident. BUT

After nuclear fission has stopped:heat is still 8% of full ower

After 10 hours it is 1% But not down to 0.1% for a year.We need to remove this heat or the fuel will melt and release

radioactivity

Nuclear Power has led the way in thinking about large accidents1949 DEFENSE IN DEPTH

1976 FORMAL EVENT TREE ANALYSIS

Learning from mistakes

Multiple Barriers between fuel and us

Fuel in pellets which hold much of it

pellets in zircium rods which are tight

rods in water in pressure vessel

pressure vessel in containment

BUTKeep water there to cool

North Cambridge March 20th

The possible Nightmare

Theft or "Diversion"of enough fuel to make a

BOMB!9 countries have made bombs

None have a bomb made with reactor fuelIIS TOO EASY TO DO IT DIRECTLY

A world wide nuclear power community can create the openness that is a major (maybe

ultimately the only deterrent)


DEMAND FOR ENERGY1970

Demand increasing(particularly electricity)

electricity use X 2 every 9 yrs.President Kennedy advocated

cheap energy oil and gas prices were dropping

politically and morally acceptable to "spend" energy

Since 1973 demand increase has slowed

BUTa 30% increase in world demand

for oil is expected within 15 years

COALEnough for 300 years in US

none in JapanOIL

Likely Supply in Saudi Arabia flatteningGAS

More than we thought especially if we crack underground rocks

SOLAROf course solar has always been our major source

but solar electricity still minimal and expensiveNUCLEAR FISSIONFuel for 100,000 years

Issues are:

Environmental

Cost

COAL is cheap in US and transportation costs reduced in

last 20 yearsOIL is too cheap at $100/bbl easy

to transport. GAS cost is tied to oil

SOLAR Electrcity still double other costs

NUCLEAR cost depends on us


Busbar Cost of Nuclear Energy 1971 and 2002

Costs in mills (1/10 cent)Description 2002 1971

Unit investment cost of plant, dollars/kw. $1700 $255Annual capital charge rate per year 0.13 0.13kilowatt-hours generated per year per kw. capacity 7,446 5,256

Cost of electricity, mills/kwh.:Plant investment 29.7 6.31Operation and Maintenance 15.0 0.38Fuel 2.05 1.87

TOTAL 46.75 8.56


1998 operating cost

1.4 cents/kWhe (S.Texas)1.5 cents/kWhe (Seabrook)

1.7 cents/kWhe (Palo Verde)1.9 cents/kWhe (Av.USA) (McKoy)

PUBLIC PERCEPTION DOMINATES NUCLEAR CONSTRUCTION COSTS

LARGE ACCIDENTS1948

DEFENSE IN DEPTH (multiple barriers)

1976 formal analysis of events1979 TMI

1986 Chernobyl 2011 Fukushima


PUBLIC PERCEPTION CHANGES

1973 Arab oil embargo1979 Iraq- Iran war

2000 Climate change concerns

2011 Fukishima

Major disasters

500,000 Fatal cancers caused by arsenic in drinking water in Bangladesh from exposures already

accumulated200,000 Earthquake in Haiti

20,000 Earthquake and Tsunami in JapanFatal cancers from Chernobyl in next 60 years

(calculated probabilistically)4,000 in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine

20,000 world wide6,000/yr Cancers from Natural Background in US

0 Cancer fatalities from Three Mile IslandMy prediction 0-1 from Fukushima


UNDERSTANDING HISTORY

“He who does not understand history is condemned to repeat it”

What have we learned? And what will we learn from Fukushima?

Effect of accidental doses.

Radiation dose of 300 Rems (3Sv) or more within a week leads to

ACUTE RADIATION SICKNESS the body fails within weeks.

At Chernobyl about 200 plant workers and firemen got this much and officially 31 died. No one in the general

public got acute radiation sickness.

This happened at no other nuclear power accident

If someone gets a dose just less than 200 Rems over a period of years then he or she has a 10%-20% addition to his cancer rate. This of course is about what one gets from

cigarette smoking. NO INDIVIDUAL can be identified from the Chernobyl

area who we know got his cancer from radiation.

For low doses we calculate probabilistically We should do this also for chemicals, air pollution

etc.but do not always do so

On Saturday 12th March the operators had no outside help

All helicopters doing more important workno one to immediately reconnect electricity

By Thursday March 17thelectricity reonnected helicopters available.

Water started cooling eveything

My prediction (made first on March 12th):Few, maybe no one will get Acute Radiation Sickness.

With no large cesium releases the number of CALCULATED cancers will be close to zero

At FukushimaAll operating reactors shut down when the

eatrthquake cameNo offsite poer: but battery operated emergency

systems and emergency diesels worked for 1 hour (maybe more)

Then water boiled away till after an hour or to fuel began to melt

Zat 19000 degrees F zirconium oxidizes leaving hydrogen behind

WHY DID THEY DELAY PUTTING IN SEA WATER?

Salt water corrodes and the plant will never operate again

THE MEDIA PANICKED ON WEDNESDAY. I DID NOT

(1) The staff at the Fukushima power plant seem to have got over the initial shock and seem to be behaving well and even heroically

(2) The decay heat that must be removed has gone down from 8% of full power to less than 1% although it is now dropping more slowly

(3) The hydrogen explosions have been outside the reactor containments and have not stopped cooling the core

(4) More helicopters are now available from a multitude of international sources to do what is necessary

(5) Although it is hard to get precise information from the power plants (I do not have the telephone number of the control room as I

had at TMI) the Japanese are hiding nothing and are asking for help.(6) There is a reliable report that electricity has been available since

Thursday at the plant site(7) The pessimistic report of NRC Chairman Jazco to a US Senate committee on Wednesday was contradicted by the Japanese because

he had his facts wrong.

Fatal cancers caused by arsenic in drinking water in Bangladesh 500,000

Earthquake in Haiti 200,000Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan 20,000

Fatal cancers from Chernobyl in next 60 years (calculated)

4,000 in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine20,000 world wide

Fatal cancers from Natural Background in US6,000 per year

Cancer fatalities from Three Mile Island 0cancers from Fukushima 0

cancer increase from evacuation (1% or 1,400)

Thank you for your attention

My notes on Fukushimahttp://physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/Japanese_reactors.htm

l


????????????The early plants were TURNKEY.

Construction costs generally have risen since 1970

We had good management and personnel in 1972 - now we don’t

Mandated retrofits after TMI?????????


Over-regulation (Towers and Perrin 1995)

Prescriptive not Performance

Dresden-II staff 250 (1975) -> 1,300+ (1997)

unnecessary safety-grade equipment


INCREASING FOSSIL FUEL1850 coal will run out in 30 years!1912 UK control of Anglo-Iranian

1947 UK electricity rationing 1962 (King Hubbert) - 90% of oil discovered

(in the USA)

1978 (Vienna) UK Cabinet MinisterN. Sea oil < 1 million bbl/day

(all gone in 20 years - today)

yet: 1999 N. Sea 4 million bbl/day2011 Cracking underground rocks

for natural gas


Is excessive regulation inevitable?

YES: unless the utility industry fights in the courts

as much as the antinukes.

Is there hope?

Chairman Jackson emphasized that this area is vital

Am I optimistic?NO!

There is no proof that people are sensible


ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

forair pollution

global warming(Meeting Kyoto commitments)

we do not need the breeder reactor.


1998 construction cost

$1,690 per MWe(GE reactor in Taiwan)

four cents per kWhe

MUCH higher than $600/MWe


The LONGER TERMIf promises are met for:

safetyproliferation resistance

costa fast neutron reactor

will be usefulfor waste disposal

efficiencyYEAR 2100 +




"Fermi's dream!”

Benedict’s conclusion (1991)The expensive uranium would increase cost 50%

Build a Breeder as soon as Possible!


"Fermi's dream!”

Breeder reactor U 238 -> Pu 239 (100 times as much energy per gram)

High efficiency in fuel use Transuranic elements consumed

Waste fission productsT1/2 < 30 years


FAST NEUTRON REACTOR IMPROVEMENTS

Fuel burn up (metal fuel) was 1%NOW > 20%

SAFER Cheaper

Pyroprocessing possible(proliferation resistance)

WHY DIDN’T THE COSTS COME DOWN?


THE THORIUM CYCLE1959

Indian Point designed to allow thorium

Thorium reserves = 6 x Uranium reserves


The interpretation of theBenedict/OECD numbers has

changed

Busbar cost is now 5 c/kwh

The difference in costis negligible


Only uranium 235 fissionable by slow neutrons

Only 3 suppliers Joachimstal, Czechoslovakia

Union Minière, CongoEldorado mining Co, Canada

The "nuclear age" was to be short lived!


Fissionable elements: A = 4N - 1 (Bohr and Wheeler)

Plutonium 239 discovered(Seaborg, McMillan, Ramannod and Wahl)

Uranium 233 and others discoveredMcMillan and Seaborg - Nobel prize

"Fermi's dream!"


Uranium Supplies Benedict 1971

Price Resource Cost Increase Total Electricity

$/lb tons LWR Breeder generated

U3O8 mills/kWh e Gwe x yr LWR Breeder

8 (base) 594,000 0.0 0.0 3,470 460,00010 940,000 0.1 0.0 5,500 720,000 15 1,450,000 0.4 0.0 8,480 1,120,00030 2,240,000 1.3 0.0 13,100 1,720,00050 10,000,000 2.5 0.0 58,300 7,700,000100 25,000,000 5.5 0.0 146,000 19,200,000


Why has the construction cost gone up?

-demands by the public? Will public perception change?

- Heat exchanger failures?(Auto radiatiors a few% of cost per KW)

- increased real safety?(yet analysis is cheap)

-increased regulation?


Problemsincrease in construction cost

(general)

Public perception:proliferation problems

Safety


1972 CONSTRUCTION COST

Maine Yankee $180 million$200 per MWe

Inflation Corr. $600 per MWh

OPERATING COST

Connecticut Yankee <0.4 cents/kWhe Yankee Rowe <0.9 cents/kWhe

Benedict estimate 0.3 cents/kWhInflation corrected: 1 cent/kWhe


EARLY OPTIMISM about

LIQUID SODIUM REACTORS

Seawolf Submarine worked(sometimes)

Sodium not corrosive (except to human skin!)

Higher temperature and efficiency


LWRFUEL USE IMPROVEMENTS

(1973) 20,000 MW days/ ton(1999) 40,000 MW days/ ton

(fewer fuel outages)

This SHOULD bring cost down


GAS

(1973) comes only with oil(1999) gas more plentiful

EFFICIENCY(1999) Combined cycle X 2

Less greenhouse gases Few particulates


1984NAS

(Energy Engineering Board)

proposed acost study

OPPOSED by EPRIWHY?

Cambridge March 2001 Reason for Supporting Nuclear Power Richard Wilson Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics (emeritus) Harvard University.

Documents

energy slide

cool slide

cheaper slide

deterrent slide

environmental cost slide

nuclear reactor

costs nuclear cost

release radioactivity