sci.energy.hydrogen

"Karl Johanson" wrote in message
news:$@pd7urf1no...
> "daestrom" wrote
>>
>> "Roland Mösl" wrote in message
>> news:8ce12$47acbe10$557f96cf$6641@...
>>>>> It seems You have no clue how much energy is necessary
>>>>> to extract uranium from 0,2% ore
>>>>>
>>>> It seems you have no mind to lose. All these anti-nuke delusions have
>>>> been debunked.
>>>
>>> Why do You think does USA disarm the atomic bombs now faster
>>>
>>> They need the uranium.
>>>
>>> Nuclear power is declining.
>>>
>>> Even with so much uranium from disarmed atomic bombs,
>>> uranium price increased very much in the last years.
>>>
>>> After the last disarmed atomic bomb is converted to fuel
>>> for nuclear power plants, the uranium price will explode
>>> making power from atomic power plants to expensive.
>>>
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> BTW, here's a little estimate for you. An 850 MWe nuc plant might
>> operate for two years between refueling at an overall capacity factor of
>> 95% (if it's well run). That means about MW-hrs for each fuel
>> cycle. A refueling of such a plant in 2006 spent about $60M for the
>> fuel. Suppose you're right and the price of U triples so that same fuel
>> costs $180M.
>>
>> That extra $120M for your 'exploded' fuel price will add about $8 /
>> MW-hr. Considering the summertime peak prices rise up over $100 / MW-hr
>> quite often, that kind of price increase is *not* going to cause plants
>> to shutdown.
>
> Would a tripling of the cost of Uranium add up to a tripling a cost of
> enriched, fabricated and clad fuel for the reactor?
>

Almost certainly not. So the problem is even less of an issue than my
example. I chose this worst case to illustrate the point that even if fuel
costs were directly linear with uranium prices, it still wouldn't be enough
to shut down plants.

daestrom