A threat of global warming should convince the public to accept a nuclear fission energy contribution to climate change mitigation, at least for the climate critical years up to 2065. The nuclear fission energy is ava...A threat of global warming should convince the public to accept a nuclear fission energy contribution to climate change mitigation, at least for the climate critical years up to 2065. The nuclear fission energy is available now, with proven reactors, such as advanced LWR （light water reactors）. Nuclear strategy in this paper outlines a proposal to replace all coal power plants （without carbon and capture storage system） with nuclear power plants in the period 2025-2065. Assuming once through advanced LWR technology, one would need nuclear capacity of 1,600 GW to replace coal power plants in that period. Corresponding reduction of emission would amount to 11.8 Gt of CO2. This energy strategy would reduce carbon emission by approximately 22% in the year 2065 and would be covered by projected uranium resources. An estimation of replacement costs showed that future carbon tax has a considerable potential to offset higher costs of nuclear replacement power.展开更多
A climate relevant and immediately available proven light water nuclear strategy with a potential to contribute essentially and timely to reduction of carbon dioxide emission to the year 2065 was assumed. The perspect...A climate relevant and immediately available proven light water nuclear strategy with a potential to contribute essentially and timely to reduction of carbon dioxide emission to the year 2065 was assumed. The perspective of fission energy after that year is considered. Two technologies with long term perspective which need no or small amounts of uranium, i.e. fast breeders and molten salt thorium reactors were singled out. The main technical and safety characteristics were considered. In both of these technologies it is essential to have starter nuclides as neither U238 nor Th232 are fissile. It was investigated whether plutonium from spent fuel of light water reactors generated to the year 2065 would be present in quantities sufficient to continue operation on the same or similar level in both technologies. However, taking into account operational safety, proliferation risks, and waste production preference must be given to thorium technology.展开更多
文摘A threat of global warming should convince the public to accept a nuclear fission energy contribution to climate change mitigation, at least for the climate critical years up to 2065. The nuclear fission energy is available now, with proven reactors, such as advanced LWR （light water reactors）. Nuclear strategy in this paper outlines a proposal to replace all coal power plants （without carbon and capture storage system） with nuclear power plants in the period 2025-2065. Assuming once through advanced LWR technology, one would need nuclear capacity of 1,600 GW to replace coal power plants in that period. Corresponding reduction of emission would amount to 11.8 Gt of CO2. This energy strategy would reduce carbon emission by approximately 22% in the year 2065 and would be covered by projected uranium resources. An estimation of replacement costs showed that future carbon tax has a considerable potential to offset higher costs of nuclear replacement power.
文摘A climate relevant and immediately available proven light water nuclear strategy with a potential to contribute essentially and timely to reduction of carbon dioxide emission to the year 2065 was assumed. The perspective of fission energy after that year is considered. Two technologies with long term perspective which need no or small amounts of uranium, i.e. fast breeders and molten salt thorium reactors were singled out. The main technical and safety characteristics were considered. In both of these technologies it is essential to have starter nuclides as neither U238 nor Th232 are fissile. It was investigated whether plutonium from spent fuel of light water reactors generated to the year 2065 would be present in quantities sufficient to continue operation on the same or similar level in both technologies. However, taking into account operational safety, proliferation risks, and waste production preference must be given to thorium technology.
