The economics of nuclear power plants are primarily influenced by the high initial investment necessary to construct a plant. In 2009, estimates for the cost of a new plant in the U.S. ranged from $6 to $10 billion. It is therefore usually more economical to run them as long as possible, or construct additional reactor blocks in existing facilities. In 2008, new nuclear power plant construction costs were rising faster than the costs of other types of power plants.. A prestigious panel assembled for a 2003 MIT study of the industry found the following:
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.—The Future of Nuclear Power
The MIT study used a 40 year baseline for nuclear reactor lifespan. Many current plants have been extended to operate well beyond this period, and studies have shown that extending plant life to 60 years would dramatically reduce overall costs.[83]
Comparative economics with other power sources are also discussed in the Main article above and in nuclear power debate.
Flexibility of nuclear power plants
It is often claimed that nuclear stations are inflexible in their output, implying that other forms of energy would be required to meet peak demand. While that is true for certain reactors, this is no longer true of at least some modern designs.[84]
Nuclear plants are routinely used in load following mode on a large scale in France.[85]
Boiling water reactors normally have load-following capability, implemented by varying the recirculation water flow.
Safety
Environmental effects of nuclear power
Comparisons of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions
Most comparisons of life cycle analysis (LCA) of carbon dioxide emissions show nuclear power as comparable to renewable energy sources.[86][87]
Debate on nuclear power
The nuclear power debate is about the controversy[88][89][90] which has surrounded the deployment and use of nuclear fission reactors to generate electricity from nuclear fuel for civilian purposes. The debate about nuclear power peaked during the 1970s and 1980s, when it "reached an intensity unprecedented in the history of technology controversies", in some countries.
Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil.[93] Proponents claim that nuclear power produces virtually no conventional air pollution, such as greenhouse gases and smog, in contrast to the chief viable alternative of fossil fuel. Proponents also believe that nuclear power is the only viable course to achieve energy independence for most Western countries. Proponents claim that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer reactors, and the operational safety record in the Western world is excellent when compared to the other major kinds of power plants.[94]
Opponents believe that nuclear power poses many threats to people and the environment[95][96][97]. These threats include the problems of processing, transport and storage of radioactive nuclear waste, the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation and terrorism, as well as health risks and environmental damage from uranium mining.[98][99] They also contend that reactors themselves are enormously complex machines where many things can and do go wrong, and there have been many serious nuclear accidents.[100][101] Critics do not believe that the risks of using nuclear fission as a power source can be offset through the development of new technology. They also argue that when all the energy-intensive stages of the nuclear fuel chain are considered, from uranium mining to nuclear decommissioning, nuclear power is not a low-carbon electricity source.
Arguments of economics and safety are used by both sides of the debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment