Premier Debate 2016 September/October ld brief

NEG—Generic

Laundry

Nuke power is baller – many reasons

Pedraza 12

Jorge Morales Pedraza, consultant on international affairs, ambassador to the IAEA for 26 yrs, degree in math and economy sciences, former professor, Energy Science, Engineering and Technology : Nuclear Power: Current and Future Role in the World Electricity Generation : Current and Future Role in the World Electricity Generation, Nova 2012, New York. [Premier]

There are a number of strong arguments in favor of the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation. These arguments are the following: 1) it brings technological development in advanced areas from the technological point of view in comparison with any other form of energy; 2) it is a proven technology that can meet large-scale energy demands in the coming years; 3) it provides a continuous supply of energy. Other available technologies such as hydroelectric, solar and wind power depend on environmental factors difficult to predict; 4) there are no supply problems, at least in the medium and long terms, with regards the nuclear fuel. Global stocks of uranium are more than enough to satisfy any future increase in the world energy demand. 5) the proven reserves of uranium are not located in politically sensitive regions of the world; 6) the international cost of the nuclear fuel at this moment is acceptable and can be afforded by those countries with nuclear power programme and also by those thinking to introduce this type of programme for the first time in the future.

Uranium Seawater

Uranium seawater makes nuclear power effectively renewable

Conca 7/1 [James Conca, contributor at Forbes magazine, “Uranium Seawater Extraction Makes Nuclear Power Completely Renewable,” Forbes magazine, July 1, 2016, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/#5f8077a46e2a] [Premier]

America, Japan and China are racing to be the first nation to make nuclear energy completely renewable. The hurdle is making it economic to extract uranium from seawater, because the amount of uranium in seawater is truly inexhaustible. And it seems America is in the lead. New technological breakthroughs from DOE’s Pacific Northwest (PNNL) and Oak Ridge (ORNL) national laboratories have made removing uranium from seawater within economic reach and the only question is – when will the source of uranium for our nuclear power plants change from mined ore to seawater extraction? Nuclear fuel made with uranium extracted from seawater makes nuclear power completely renewable. It’s not just that the 4 billion tons of uranium in seawater now would fuel a thousand 1,000-MW nuclear power plants for a 100,000 years. It’s that uranium extracted from seawater is replenished continuously, so nuclear becomes as endless as solar, hydro and wind. Specifically, this latest technology builds on work by researchers in Japan and uses polyethylene fibers coated with amidoxime to pull in and bind uranium dioxide from seawater (see figure above). In seawater, amidoxime attracts and binds uranium dioxide to the surface of the fiber braids, which can be on the order of 15 centimeters in diameter and run multiple meters in length depending on where they are deployed (see figure below). After a month or so in seawater, the lengths are remotely released to the surface and collected. An acid treatment recovers the uranium in the form of a uranyl complex, regenerating the fibers that can be reused many times. The concentrated uranyl complex then can be enriched to become nuclear fuel. Gary Gill, deputy director of PNNL’s Coastal Sciences Division who coordinated the marine testing, noted, “Understanding how the adsorbents perform under natural seawater conditions is critical to reliably assessing how well the uranium adsorbent materials work.” In addition to marine testing, PNNL assessed how well the adsorbent attracted uranium versus other elements, how durable the adsorbent was, how buildup of marine organisms might impact performance, and which adsorbent materials are not toxic. This marine testing shows that these new fibers had the capacity to hold 6 grams of uranium per kilogram of adsorbent in only about 50 days in natural seawater. A nice video of U extraction from seawater can be seen on the University of Tennessee Knoxville website. And later this month, July 19 to 22, global experts in uranium extraction from seawater will convene at the University of Maryland-College Park for the First International Conference on Seawater Uranium Recovery. Stephen Kung, in DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy, says that “Finding alternatives to uranium ore mining is a necessary step in planning for the future of nuclear energy.” And these advances by PNNL and ORNL have reduced the cost by a factor of four in just five years. But it’s still over $200/lb of U3O8, twice as much as it needs to be to replace mining uranium ore. Fortunately, the cost of uranium is a small percentage of the cost of nuclear fuel, which is itself a small percentage of the cost of nuclear power. Over the last twenty years, uranium spot prices have varied between $10 and $120/lb of U3O8, mainly from changes in the availability of weapons-grade uranium to blend down to make reactor fuel. So as the cost of extracting U from seawater falls to below $100/lb, it will become a commercially viable alternative to mining new uranium ore. But even at $200/lb of U3O8, it doesn’t add more than a small fraction of a cent per kWh to the cost of nuclear power. However, the big deal about extracting uranium from seawater is that it makes nuclear power completely renewable. Uranium is dissolved in seawater at very low concentrations, only about 3 parts per billion (3 micrograms/liter or 0.00000045 ounces per gallon). But there is a lot of ocean water – 300 million cubic miles or about 350 million trillion gallons (350 quintillion gallons). So there’s about 4 billion tons of uranium in the ocean at any one time.

Abundant

No peak uranium

Jewell 10

[-- Jessica, is a Research Scholar in the Energy Program where she works on energy security, nuclear energy and the political economy of energy transitions. She is particularly interested in understanding the political implications of and institutional preconditions for sustainable energy transitions. At IIASA, her research focuses on incorporating insights on the institutional constraints and drivers of energy policies into energy modeling. She has published on energy security under decarbonization scenarios, nuclear energy prospects and global energy governance in journals such as Energy Policy, Climatic Change and Nature Climate Change as well as popular-press pieces on the politics of energy in the Economist and other outlets, “Ready for nuclear energy?:Anassessment of capacities and motivations for launchingnewnationalnuclearpowerprogram,” Oct 29 2010, ScienceDirect] [Premier]

With rising concerns over energy security and climate change, interest in nuclear power has recently reemerged. Unlike oil and gas, proven uranium reserves are abundant: even in the face of large nuclear expansion, they are estimated to last at least a century and most likely well beyond (Macfarlane and Miller, 2007; NEA, 2008a). Uranium is also more evenly geographically distributed than oil and gas with a large portion located in OECD or other developed countries (NEA, 2008a). In addition, nuclear energy offers greater protection from commodity price fluctuations. In 2008, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimated that a doubling of uranium prices resulted in a 5–10% increase in electricity generation cost while a doubling for coal and gas led to a 35–45% and 70–80% increase, respectively (IAEA, 2008a). Thus, nuclear power is considered to provide a more secure, in both short- and long-term, supply of energy.

Definitely no uranium peak.

NEA 08

NEA, 2008a. Nuclear Energy Outlook (No. 6348). OECD, Paris. [Premier]

Nuclear energy is more able than fossil energy to provide security of supply because the fuel – uranium – comes from diverse sources, the main suppliers being in politically stable countries. Uranium’s high energy density (one tonne of uranium produces the same energy as 10 000-16 000 tonnes of oil with current practices) also means that transport is less vulnerable to disruption. Furthermore, the high energy density and the low contribution of uranium to the cost of nuclear electricity production make the storage of a large energy reserve practical and affordable. Identified uranium resources are sufficient to fuel an expansion of global nuclear generating capacity employing a once-through fuel cycle (i.e. without reprocessing) at least until 2050, allowing decades for further discoveries. Nuclear energy can provide electricity with almost no CO2 emissions – it is the only nearly carbonfree technology with a proven track record on the scale required. 16 Nuclear Energy Outlook 2008 – Executive Summary, ©OECD 2008 Nuclear Energy Outlook 2008 – Executive Summary, ©OECD 2008 17 The current resource to consumption ratio of uranium is better than that for gas or oil. Based on regional geological data, resources that are expected to exist could increase uranium supply to several hundreds of years. Reprocessing of existing irradiated nuclear fuel, which contains over half of the original energy content, could provide fuel for about 700reactor-years, assuming 1 000 MWe light water reactors (LWRs) operating at an 80% availability factor. Additional existing resources, such as depleted uranium stocks and uranium and plutonium from ex-military applications, could provide nuclear fuel for about another 3 100 reactor-years. Converting non-fissile uranium to fissile material in fast breeder reactors with closed fuel cycles can multiply the energy produced from uranium by up to 60 times. This technology could extend nuclear fuel supply for thousands of years, but fast breeder reactors are not yet in commercial operation. France, the Russian Federation, India and Japan have operable fast reactors (some of which are research reactors).