Stuart Uranium and Nuclear Energy: 1982

Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium Held by the Uranium Institute, London, 1 - 3 September, 1982
1. Auflage 2013
ISBN: 978-1-4831-6337-6
Verlag: Elsevier Science & Techn.
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, 350 Seiten

Uranium and Nuclear Energy: 1982 compiles and summarizes papers presented at the Seventh International Symposium by The Uranium Institute held in London on September 1-3, 1982. This book consists of six main topics: nuclear power and energy policy, uranium supply and demand, nuclear power economics and finance, market stability, government policy including non-proliferation, and communications with the public. This compilation specifically discusses Japan's energy strategy and significance of nuclear energy; electrification, economic growth and uranium power; and uranium equation in 1982. The utility procurement policies in the USA, nuclear power for the oil-exporting countries, and past attempts to stabilize other commodity markets are also elaborated. This text likewise covers nuclear energy in the twilight of the oil era and public knowledge of nuclear power. This publication is suitable for economists, chemists, geologists, and researchers interested in uranium and nuclear energy.

Dr. Sam Stuart is a physiotherapist and a research Fellow within the Balance Disorders Laboratory, OHSU. His work focuses on vision, cognition and gait in neurological disorders, examining how technology-based interventions influence these factors. He has published extensively in world leading clinical and engineering journals focusing on a broad range of activities such as real-world data analytics, algorithm development for wearable technology and provided expert opinion on technology for concussion assessment for robust player management. He is currently a guest editor for special issues (sports medicine and transcranial direct current stimulation for motor rehabilitation) within Physiological Measurement and Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, respectively.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Stuart, Sam

Leseproben

Electrification, economic growth and uranium power
Chauncey Starr Publisher Summary
This chapter discusses the growth of uranium power plant capacity and electrification. The unique energy density of uranium fuel and its foreseeable long-time availability when used with the breeder, imply low-cost worldwide transportability, minimal mining costs compared to coal, and a very low sensitivity of electricity costs to future uranium costs. Further, uranium power offers an environmentally benign source because of the available technical means of containing radioactivity in a closed system. The worldwide growth of uranium power plant capacity is dependent on both the growth of electrification and the competitive status of uranium power. The worldwide growth of uranium power plant capacity is obviously dependent on both the growth of electrification and the competitive status of uranium power. I am using the term ‘uranium power’ in lieu of the usual ‘nuclear power’, so as to avoid the common semantic confusion with nuclear weapons. In this paper I plan to develop the thesis that expanded use of uranium power is essential to provide a substantial portion of the electricity necessary for world economic growth. I further wish to make the case that the obstacles to this expansion arise not from the technology, but rather from the inadequacies of our industrial, political, and economic institutions to manage this new energy system effectively, nationally and internationally. Let us recall the original premises 30 years ago for initiating a major worldwide development of uranium power. It was recognized then that the spectacular potential of uranium energy, particularly with breeder technology, could make a long-range contribution to the welfare and future of humanity, by supplying an almost limitless source of energy heretofore untapped by man. The unique energy density of uranium fuel, and its foreseeable long-time availability when used with the breeder, imply low-cost worldwide transportability, minimal mining costs compared to coal, and a very low sensitivity of electricity costs to future uranium costs. Further, uranium power offers an environmentally benign source, because of the available technical means of containing radioactivity in a closed system. The facts as we know them today continue to support the importance of this objective. The world faces a cumulative energy consumption of the magnitude of 100 000 quads* during the next century, a growth rate of 2.3 per cent per year; and this is about equal to the estimated magnitude of the recoverable total fossil fuel resources of the world. While a century may appear to be a long time, in fact the history of industrial societies indicates that it takes about 100 years for a new energy source to become the supply for one-half of the total annual energy demand. It is thus not too soon to seek supplements to fossil fuels, as well as to be concerned with how to use present sources most efficiently. In large measure that is what we mean when we speak of the coming decades as a time of transition from one energy era to another. While many things have occurred in the past 30 years to discourage the sense of mission of the uranium community, the need and rationale for this new energy source has not disappeared. Instead, it has been made more urgent by the fact that what was essentially an academic exercise 30 years ago has now become a pressing contemporary economic problem. The rapidly growing reliance before 1974 on imported Middle-Eastern oil by the industrialized world, in response to its overwhelming price advantage, has been coupled with the realization of oil-exporting countries that their present price and production policies should be based upon the expectation of depletion of their oil resources, and the consequent increase in their value. World oil is now traded on the basis that it is chiefly a near-term fuel and difficult to replace, and we must all plan on this basis. Of the various supplements to fossil fuels, only two offer the technical possibility of a substantial contribution for the indefinite future. The first is the energy from atomic nuclei, using the fission breeder or fusion. We know how to produce energy from uranium via the fission process; we do not yet know how to use the fusion process. The second is solar. We know how to convert solar energy into the useful forms of heat and electricity. There is at present, however, a major difference between uranium fission and solar, namely the substantial difference in capital cost which is required to use these two energy supplies for electricity production. Unfortunately, of the world’s resources, capital is one of those in short supply. At the present state of engineering knowledge, the use of solar energy for other than low-temperature heat involves capital investments in conversion equipment more than an order of magnitude greater than those required for the nuclear fission process. We anticipate that solar electricity as a fuel dispiacer in power systems during peak or intermediate load periods may eventually have a modest role; but the economic feasibility of independent solar electric generation, with energy storage appropriate for base load reliability, is at best a very distant prospect. This reaffirmation of the correctness of the goal that was set decades ago for uranium power is hardly consistent with the atmosphere of public scepticism and criticism which today surrounds uranium programmes throughout the industrialized world. Certainly, if public doubts concerning uranium power are not diminished soon, they may seriously hinder the development of a much-needed long-term energy source. I will not here address the technical aspects of these doubts, because I believe that most of you share my confidence in our ability to handle the technical issues of public health and safety. And most of us recognize that the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation is a major international political problem, with only tenuous connections to civilian uranium power technology. I will therefore concentrate instead on the more tangible issues related to the role of uranium power on the world scene. Almost everyone in the energy industries is aware of the lead times necessary to implement future energy availabilities on a significant scale — lead times usually measured in decades. For this reason, the decisions which face us today will determine the energy structure of the world for at least the next 20 years, as well as the direction of developments beyond then. Our present task, of course, is to initiate programmes timed to meet foreseeable needs. Unfortunately, perceptions of the future always cover a wide spectrum of opinion. But we need not blindly select among opinions. We can take as a planning base those few relationships which are most likely to be valid during the coming decades. The first of these is the demographic projection of the national populations which the world’s economic systems must support by the year 2000. The second is the basic fact that electricity consumption has followed the economic output (GNP) of industrial nations with remarkable closeness through all types of changes in their social structure, through the two major oil price shocks, and through changes in their industrial mix. The historical relationship between electricity and economic output for some of the industrial nations is shown in Figures la and lb. Although both kilowatt-hours and GNP are gross aggregates that include many complex relationships, consistency of the link between them, and some insight as to its cause, give us confidence in its use for long-range planning. Figure 1a Electricity consumption and GNP, USA, 1947-1980 Figure 1b Observed electricity consumption/GNP relationships, 1960-1980 In Figure 2, I have illustrated my interpretation of some of the large-scale factors that influence the relationship, and that could change its future slope. We only partially understand the factors that have tied electricity and GNP together, even during the post-oil shock years, when total energy use — unlike electricity — experienced sharp drops. Our studies of the subject have indicated that there appears to be a continual shift into electricity as an energy form in commerce and industry. There also appear to be effects which compensate for the reduction in demand due to more efficient use, such as the continual trend towards increased electrification as a means of improving productive efficiency in the use of total resources. For such reasons, we believe that the close relationship between economic growth and electricity is likely to be maintained. Figure 2 Electricity versus GNP concept The substitution of electricity for other energy forms is a key factor, of course, and this is shown for the USA in Figure 3. Two principal factors have stimulated this progressive trend toward substitution. The first is the continual improvement in the relative economics of electricity and fossil fuels, even when both prices increase. This is shown in Figure 4 for the USA. For the economists, this means that the own-price elasticity of electricity is balanced by the cross-price elasticity with oil and gas. In simpler terms, when prices go up, electricity remains a better buy than oil and gas, whose prices increase the most. Figure 3 Percentage of primary energy used for...