3 ms·

> illusion that the technology was cost-competitive with fossil fuel generators The hope, then, was to quickly obtain an industrial breeder reactor in order to

> illusion that the technology was cost-competitive with fossil fuel generators The hope, then, was to quickly obtain an industrial breeder reactor in order to considerably reduce (or even suppress any) dependency towards uranium providers (there is no known similar trick for oil/methane). It failed, and it may be a major cause of the current nuclear demise.

pfdietz 2y ago
I don't see how this can be the major cause, since fuel is only a minor part of the cost of nuclear power.
- natmaka 2y ago
  It is not about cost but about availability: without any breeder a reactor needs way more (at least x30, up to x100) uranium. "identified uranium reserves recoverable at US$130/kg ((...)) At the rate of consumption in 2017, these reserves are sufficient for slightly over 130 years of supply" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Peak_uranium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Peak_uranium In other words the already precarious and degrading case of nuclear as a sound investment further degrades with each and every new reactor, up to the catastrophic "no more uranium for a reactor not yet amortized". Nuclear now produces, worldwide, about 10% of electricity which is less than 25% of final energy: nuclear produces about 2.5% if final energy. Build reactors to have it reach about 7% and there is not enough guaranteed uranium for all reactors to produce 100% of their theoretical output for about 40 years => from an investor's viewpoint it is moot. Exploration is a bet: the uranium bubble (2007) triggered an impressive exploration raise, which had very insufficient results (reserves: + ~15%). To reduce greenhouse gas emissions we have to electrify numerous applications and therefore will need at least 2x more electricity: those ~7% (of current electricity demand) will then be ~3%. Tripling the nuclear output this way means maintaining the (already old) fleet of reactors and building approx 600 more. Before 2050?! In the event of a nuclear 'renaissance', those limited uranium deposits will be subjugated by superpowers. In the event of a serious accident all hope to amortize may be instantaneously lost. No industrial breeder => game over.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    I think you're getting cause and effect mixed up, a kind of cargo cult error. You seem to think nuclear failed because we didn't go with breeder reactors. But the reality is the opposite: we didn't get breeder reactors because nuclear failed. The justification for breeder development was that uranium was going to run out real soon (with everyone building cheap-as-dirt nuclear power plants), and breeders would then have a big market as uranium prices rose. But nuclear was too expensive, so the build out was aborted. Uranium has remained at a price level at which breeder reactors (or even reprocessing to make MOX fuel for burner reactors) cannot be justified. In the time scale of operation of any existing reactor, or any reactor we could build today, uranium is projected to remain cheap enough for this still to hold. That even France has mothballed its breeder program, saying publicly there would be no market for such reactors before the second half of this century, should be evidence breeders weren't some sort of panacea for the problems of nuclear. They were a solution to a hypothetical problem that failed to arise.

pfdietz 2y ago

I don't see how this can be the major cause, since fuel is only a minor part of the cost of nuclear power.

natmaka 2y ago
It is not about cost but about availability: without any breeder a reactor needs way more (at least x30, up to x100) uranium. "identified uranium reserves recoverable at US$130/kg ((...)) At the rate of consumption in 2017, these reserves are sufficient for slightly over 130 years of supply" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Peak_uranium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Peak_uranium In other words the already precarious and degrading case of nuclear as a sound investment further degrades with each and every new reactor, up to the catastrophic "no more uranium for a reactor not yet amortized". Nuclear now produces, worldwide, about 10% of electricity which is less than 25% of final energy: nuclear produces about 2.5% if final energy. Build reactors to have it reach about 7% and there is not enough guaranteed uranium for all reactors to produce 100% of their theoretical output for about 40 years => from an investor's viewpoint it is moot. Exploration is a bet: the uranium bubble (2007) triggered an impressive exploration raise, which had very insufficient results (reserves: + ~15%). To reduce greenhouse gas emissions we have to electrify numerous applications and therefore will need at least 2x more electricity: those ~7% (of current electricity demand) will then be ~3%. Tripling the nuclear output this way means maintaining the (already old) fleet of reactors and building approx 600 more. Before 2050?! In the event of a nuclear 'renaissance', those limited uranium deposits will be subjugated by superpowers. In the event of a serious accident all hope to amortize may be instantaneously lost. No industrial breeder => game over.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  I think you're getting cause and effect mixed up, a kind of cargo cult error. You seem to think nuclear failed because we didn't go with breeder reactors. But the reality is the opposite: we didn't get breeder reactors because nuclear failed. The justification for breeder development was that uranium was going to run out real soon (with everyone building cheap-as-dirt nuclear power plants), and breeders would then have a big market as uranium prices rose. But nuclear was too expensive, so the build out was aborted. Uranium has remained at a price level at which breeder reactors (or even reprocessing to make MOX fuel for burner reactors) cannot be justified. In the time scale of operation of any existing reactor, or any reactor we could build today, uranium is projected to remain cheap enough for this still to hold. That even France has mothballed its breeder program, saying publicly there would be no market for such reactors before the second half of this century, should be evidence breeders weren't some sort of panacea for the problems of nuclear. They were a solution to a hypothetical problem that failed to arise.