The Nuclear Power Thread

[mheslep]

After briefly reading through this thread, it seems we are focusing strictly on nuclear fission.
What about nuclear fusion?
Does everyone think it will be beneficial to implement such a volatile source of power?
With more smaller labs researching cheaper ways to obtain a reaction, how viable will it be as a power source?

There are numerous good fusion threads in the forum. You might search in the Nuclear Engineering forum at large for them.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

Yes. That is true, if the oil prices keep increasing - which is by no means a given. Economic contraction may decrease demand to the point where prices (in real, inflation-adjusted terms) stagnate or even drop.

At which point, no-one would be able/willing to bear the opportunity cost of new NPPs.

I am afraid that curling of economic activities about which you write so easily means for example that your computer won't have power supply and you will not can for example posting in the Internet.
Workplaces’ number will sharply be reduced, etc.
Nobody including you will agree with that.
Oil deposits run low. That is fact. Through 40-50-60 years oil will end at all. So, the rise of prices is inevitable.

 

[mheslep]

Prices are determined not just by supply, but also demand. I think you find yourself hard pressed to find the real price of any commodity increasing over ~100 years or so of its use.
c.f. Figure 1 here on historical price of coal

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.0605v2.pdf

Or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Simon-Ehrlich.png

Oil here:
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1869.gif

 

[zapperzero]

I am afraid that curling of economic activities about which you write so easily means for example that your computer won't have power supply and you will not can for example posting in the Internet.
Workplaces’ number will sharply be reduced, etc.
Nobody including you will agree with that.
Oil deposits run low. That is fact. Through 40-50-60 years oil will end at all. So, the rise of prices is inevitable.

It matters not one whit if I agree.
Employment IS at a historical low in most developed countries.
The oil IS running out. So prices rise, until some buyers are driven to bankruptcy or otherwise forced to stop buying. Then, demand falls and prices go down again. When that happens, those who invested in new production capacity that is only profitable because of high prices go bankrupt too. This will happen to the fancy new NPPs that make process heat for Fischer-Tropsch, if they are ever built.

So overall, production plateaus or declines slowly, while more and more buyers are driven out of the market. Eventually, only plastics manufacturers will be left, they will be the last to switch to natural gas.

My computer does not have a fuel cell. If juice from the wall socket somehow runs out, I will not go "hmm, time to invest in new NPPs". I will set up a few wind turbines or solar panels on the roof of my condo so that my neighbors and I have some juice to charge up mobile phones and laptops, run a couple iceboxes in the basement maybe...

 

[Joseph Chikva]

Prices are determined not just by supply, but also demand. I think you find yourself hard pressed to find the real price of any commodity increasing over ~100 years or so of its use.
c.f. Figure 1 here on historical price of coal

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.0605v2.pdf

Or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Simon-Ehrlich.png

Oil here:
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1869.gif

Thanks for my education.
But you are a little late.
Yes price forms on base of ratio on supply and demand.
And oil supply will fall down with permanently growing demand.
Do not drive car, do not grow bread, consequently do not eat, etc.

 

[Luca Bevil]

Most often fossil based power generation relies on coal or natural gas.

I do not see what is the significance of oil prices, whatever their future course could be, on the economic prospects of NPPs.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

It matters not one whit if I agree.
Employment IS at a historical low in most developed countries.

At the expense of fast developing countries e.g. China, India, Brazil, etc.
And I thought that we told about world.
And certainly personally you can try to lead primitive life. But the majority living on the planet would disagree with you and further will use the civilization blessings consuming more and more fuel and electricity.
Have Air Conditioner and do you switch it on when you hot?

 

[mheslep]

Most often fossil based power generation relies on coal or natural gas.

I do not see what is the significance of oil prices, whatever their future course could be, on the economic prospects of NPPs.

Roughly a third of all energy consumption goes into transportation via petroleum. Fifty years from now, or so, transportation will be largely based on either i) hugely expensive petroleum or equivalent liquefied fossil fuel, ii) electrified transportation which draws power from a grid that will still be dependent to a degree on affordable nuclear power for base load, iii) biofuel. To prevent case i), then ii) or iii) have to become (or continue to be) feasible.

 

[robinson]

I notice that solar powered electric vehicles is missing from the scenario. As is solar/wind power in general.

 

[Luca Bevil]

Roughly a third of all energy consumption goes into transportation via petroleum. Fifty years from now, or so, transportation will be largely based on either i) hugely expensive petroleum or equivalent liquefied fossil fuel, ii) electrified transportation which draws power from a grid that will still be dependent to a degree on affordable nuclear power for base load, iii) biofuel. To prevent case i), then ii) or iii) have to become (or continue to be) feasible.

Well.. 50 years from now I can quite easily envisage a smart grid with massive renewable generation...
does it matter to the NPP competitiveness right now ?

I do not think so...
what will in fact matter is the financial crisis felt in these hours and the effect it will have in real interest rates for major (and financially risky) projects around the world, levels of aggregate electric energy demand and so on..

a much shorter time horizon is what guides today's society

 

[edpell]

Carbon source in this case will be only the coal gasification in which target reaction is: 2C+O2=>2CO

Farm waste is a good source of carbon we can also get carbon from CO2 in the air.

 

[edpell]

what will in fact matter is the financial crisis felt in these hours and the effect it will have in real interest rates for major (and financially risky) projects around the world, levels of aggregate electric energy demand and so on..

China having a strong command economy component will have no problem building power plants needed for the countries survival. Remember that really big wall?

 

[Joseph Chikva]

Farm waste is a good source of carbon we can also get carbon from CO2 in the air.

You can get carbon anywhere from any carbon containing feedstock. But production cost of coal mined at e.g. Ekibastuz open pit http://www.flickr.com/photos/herwigphoto/289243943/ is about 5$/t. Annual production - not less than 40 millions tons and if needed, can be easily extended.

 

[edpell]

You can get carbon anywhere from any carbon containing feedstock. But production cost of coal mined at e.g. Ekibastuz open pit http://www.flickr.com/photos/herwigphoto/289243943/ is about 5$/t. Annual production - not less than 40 millions tons and if needed, can be easily extended.

The down side to carbon from coal is that we are putting more carbon into the air. The global warming and human global warming folks say this is very bad. The up side of using a biological source is that it is NET carbon neutral. The carbon came from the air into the plant and is returned to the air to begin the cycle again.

There are a number of interesting papers from Uppsala University on peak coal.

Man, $5 per ton is cheap.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

If we consider burning, yes, more CO2 pollution in comparison with burning of e.g. natural gas.
If we consider processing into hydrocarbons of two carbon sources: farm wastes and coal, you are wrong. Firstly, coal is biological source too. Secondly, gasification of coal is very similar to gasification of biomass.
If we would produce hydrogen via electrolyze and not via the following reaction:
CO+H2O=>H2+CO2
We will have very low CO2 pollution during processing.

Yes, 5$/t of production cost is cheap and their selling price ExW (on site) is about 8-10$ depending fraction. But transported e.g. to Georgia that coal would cost about 50-60$/t. As transportation cost is very critical to cheap goods’ final price.

 

[mepat1111]

I've just read through this whole thread, some great information in here, thanks for the reads to everyone who contributed. I'm self taught but have a strong interest in nuclear physics, engineering and safety, and am considering taking up undergraduate studies next year. I'm not very knowledgeable compared to the highly educated people here just yet so I'll probably be mostly lurking for a while, maybe popping up with questions here and there.

A couple of posts from way back in the thread which I thought were amusing in hindsight:

The next Chernobyl magnitude meltdown will put an end to the nuclear experiment. The Union of Concerned Scientists predicts a 1 in 3 chance
of a meltdown in the USA in the next 5 years due to sumps plugging
up.http://www.nukepills.com/contentbuilder/layout.php3?contentPath=content/00/01/08/65/98/userdirectory6.content

Want to place a bet then?

I'll give you 3 to 1 odds.

If there is a meltdown in the US in the next 5 years, you get $300 of my money.

If there isn't, you owe me $100.

How about it?

Remember, the magnitude of Chernobyl was TINY. Like I said before, if EVERY nuclear power plant in the US has a Chernobly magnitude meltdown, air pollution would STILL kill more people in a month. The biggest cost would be the money and energy lost.

And I'd take the bet too. I'd give 100 to 1 odds. Because of the differences in design, a Chernobyl style meltdown would require something like a meteor strike to happen - the odds really are that low.

 

[Astronuc]

But in the 1976 election proliferation was an issue where Ford felt a disadvantage relative to his opponent Jimmy Carter. Therefore, on October 28, 1976, just five days before the presidential election, Ford announced a ban on the reprocessing of nuclear fuel in an attempt to curb proliferation.

Ref: http://energyfromthorium.com/category/conferences/thec2011/

The ban is often attributed to (blamed on) Carter, but Ford promoted it publicly before Carter. It was however enacted during Carter's administration.

 

[gmax137]

1981

President Ronald Reagan lifts the ban on commercial reprocessing, but the development of reprocessing facilities was no longer considered economically viable in the United States.

from the same site linked by astronuc. I have never really understood the emphasis given to this 5 year ban on reprocessing. Apparently reprocessing has been 'legal' for the past 30 years, but all we ever hear is 'Jimmy Carter made reprocessing illegal.'

 

[eXorikos]

I'm doing a paper on nuclear fusion by laser as an application of high power lasers. Are there papers that I really have to read? I can't find any more recent material. The most recent I found was from 2002.

I've got 2 books in our library: High Power Laser Interactions by Robieux (2000) and The Physics of Laser Fusion by Motz (1979).

 

[Joseph Chikva]

I'm doing a paper on nuclear fusion by laser as an application of high power lasers. Are there papers that I really have to read? I can't find any more recent material. The most recent I found was from 2002.

I've got 2 books in our library: High Power Laser Interactions by Robieux (2000) and The Physics of Laser Fusion by Motz (1979).

You can not find because only

The National Ignition Facility (Nif) in the US is drawing closer to producing a surplus of energy from the idea.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14842720
As I know they should end building of their experimental set in near future and do not make publications.
You can get more information from their web-site: https://lasers.llnl.gov/programs/ife/ or https://www.llnl.gov/str/Payne.html

If you are interested generally in inertial confinement also you should find information on Heavy Ions Fusion
Light Ions Fusion program is canceled.

From books I would also advise you: James J. Duderstadt, Gregory A. Moses, INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION, John Wiley and Sons, NY, 1982

 

[Astronuc]

An interesting perspective on the nuclear industry in the US -

http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/93/04708943/0470894393-112.pdf

 

[clancy688]

An interesting perspective on the nuclear industry in the US

Interesting indeed. To me that doesn't sound like a "perspective" at all. It's rather undertones of a disappointed child who doesn't get his toys.

If such an explosion [in Chernobyl] were to have occurred in a Western nuclear power plant, the explosion would have been safely contained.

I'm not so sure about that. No way a containment could've contained the force of THAT explosion.

The accident that occurred at Chernobyl could not occur elsewhere.

Maybe. Maybe not. But other types of accidents could occur elsewhere. Even in his super-safe western reactors. *hint* Fukushima *hint*

Thirty-one plant workers and firemen died directly from radiation exposure as a result of the Chernobyl accident.

No word regarding related cancer deaths, environmental concerns and hundreds of thousands of people who had to be evacuated forever. Only 1800 cancer cases which have been mostly healed. "What are you fussing about? Look, only 31 people died! If that's the worst nuclear power can do, then stop arguing!"

After decades of scientific study, it is clear no legitimate safety issues preclude opening Yucca Mountain for the storage of spent nuclear fuel.

Nice. Everything regarding reprocessing and storage in one paragraph. If it's that easy, then what the hell are we fussing about for DECADES? Seriously...

Reprocessing will become more efficient and economical as technology continues to advance

Didn't we start using nuclear power without having any plan on exactly what to do with the resulting waste because we thought "In 20 or 30 years someone will find a solution, for example transmutation."?
So far technology hasn't advanced. Where do his hopes come from?

But even in the United States, all the high-level by-products from 50 years of nuclear fission could be assembled 10 feet high on a single football field

With or without shielding? And how many football fields do the low- and medium-level byproducts need?

Commercial nuclear electricity has killed zero members of the public over that period.

ONE page above he mentioned 1800 Chernobyl related thyroid cancer cases. 99% of which were healed successfully. Which means that, unfortunately, 1% was fatal. It took him only one site to totally discard the results of that accident. Fascinating. What a hero.

Nuclear ships from all countries are welcomed into 150 ports in 50 countries

Nope. I remember some nuclear powered ice breakers not being allowed in some German ports.

North America may be unable to compete with countries that have cheap, clean, reliable nuclear power while they are stuck with a bunch of windmills and solar farms producing expensive, unreliable energy or, more likely, not much energy at all.

Just on a side note:
He thinks that any country without nuclear power will strand somewhere comparable to technological middle ages, doesn't he?
That's not a rational approach. For him, wind turbines are an archaic technology, using them would be an insult to hundreds of years of human excellence in the field of science. That's what I make of this little statement.

But you won’t see any GE ads, in this day of concern about climate change, that 70% of our carbon-free electricity comes from nuclear power

What the hell does he care about carbon? As far as I'm concerned, the US doesn't care. We Germans will reduce our emissions by 20% during the next 10 years - including shutting down all existing NPPs. You Americans will reduce your emissions by about 2% during the next 10 years. Including building new NPPs.
Plus the fact that mining uranium produces considerable carbon emissions on its own. Nuclear power is not as carbon free as you all think.

Those of us who know better must begin a strong and enduring battle against these forces because our success will improve the plight of the least fortunate, poorest fed, clothed, sheltered, and educated on this planet

"With nuclear power, energy will be to cheap to meter!" - all right, it's the sixties argument all over again. ----------------------------The whole text can be summarised into two arguments:

- Nuclear power can save the world
- All those anti-nuclear-power-goons are fear-driven spoil-sports

 

[mheslep]

What was the over pressure in the explosion? Wiki says, un-referenced, that containment withstands up to 200 psi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building

 

[mheslep]

We Germans will reduce our emissions by 20% during the next 10 years - including shutting down all existing NPPs.

Well perhaps if 20% of Germans leave, but otherwise no Germany will not lower CO2 emissions 20%, not in 10 years if it permanently shutters all 17 reactors. Germany might export some emissions, or import nuclear power, as it has just begun doing now with the closure of 6 plants, but then what's the point?

Meanwhile in the US, energy consumption per person has been dropping 1.5% per year since 2000.

 

[clancy688]

Germany will not lower CO2 emissions 20%, not in 10 years if it permanently shutters all 17 reactors

I had a similar discussion with NUCENG half a year ago. I'll quote myself from that thread:

NUCENG provided a link which stated that Germany will reduce its CO2 emission by 30-33% compared to 1990 until 2020. Shutting down NPPs included. We won't met our target of -40%, but 30% is still not bad. In the same time, the US will probably be building over a dozen new plants. And what will be their reduced emissions? The plan is 4%. If they are as efficient as Germany, they come down to 3%.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...enhagen-accord

Summary

Germany shuts down 17 NPPs until 2021 and will reach a 33% emissions cut until 2020
US will build over two dozen new NPPs but plans to reach only a 4% emissions cut until 2020

Guess you're right. 20% was wrong. It's actually 30%.
But why is that so? Why do we get a 30% cut even if we shut down our plants? It's simple, really. This cutdown was agreed upon somewhere around 2000. At the same time, it was decided to phase out nuclear power until 2020 (they decided to phase out the phase out 10 years later, but that's another story). So shutting down ALL NPPs was always included in our plan to lower emissions.

Germany might export some emissions, or import nuclear power, as it has just begun doing now with the closure of 6 plants, but then what's the point?

It's not six, it's more. I don't have the exact number right now, but it was well over 10 for most of the year (other NPPs unaffected by the moratorium were being maintenanced). Moreover, that we had to import energy was also being caused by the old electric grid. Most nuclear plants are located in the south, with much of our renewable energy being located in the north. But the current existing grid is to old and to unflexible to handle energy transports across the country. There were times last year when wind turbines in the north were creating excess energy - but transporting it to the south where it was needed was not possible, so we had to import from surrounding countries.

Here's a chart displaying energy import and export for 2009-2012. To select the chart:

Chose the value you want (tagesgenau - per day, 7-Tage-Durchschnitt - 7-day-average, 30-Tage-Durchschnitt - 30-day-average, kumulativ - cumulative) and click on the button "Ansicht zurücksetzen" in the upper right corner of the chart.

The black line marks the shutdown of our oldest 7 plants. In late May 13 of our 17 NPPs were offline.

This article (sorry, only in German) concludes that, even with NPPs shut down, Germany continued to export more energy than import.
They state that numbers from ENTSOE (european network of transmission system operators for electricity) show that Germany exported around 6 billion kWh in 2011.

Meanwhile in the US, energy consumption per person has been dropping 1.5% per year since 2000.

Great. But then go to the lower left side of the website, scroll for Germany and enable our energy consumption per capita. Granted, it hasn't dropped 1.5% per year.
But then we only started with HALF of your energy consumption per person.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...t=948430800000&tend=1232514000000&hl=en&dl=en

 

[mheslep]

But then we only started with HALF of your energy consumption per person.

Yep. Try it with some serious distance to travel in country that spans a continent, ~4000km coast to coast, with Great Plains winters, FL, AZ, TX, NM, and southern CA summers, the world's largest refining industry, and then get back to me. Canada has even higher per capita energy consumption for similar reasons.

 

[mheslep]

Guess you're right. 20% was wrong. It's actually 30%.

There's no 'actually' until it happens over the next 10 years as you predict above.

Moreover, that we had to import energy was also being caused by the old electric grid. Most nuclear plants are located in the south, with much of our renewable energy being located in the north. But the current existing grid is to old and to unflexible to handle energy transports across the country. There were times last year when wind turbines in the north were creating excess energy - but transporting it to the south where it was needed was not possible, so we had to import from surrounding countries.

No, the proximate cause of imports was taking those nukes off line, the grid was incidental. Prior to that, regardless of grid quality Germany exported net power. Now, since the plant closures after Fukishima, it imports net power according to de Spiegel.

Here's a chart displaying energy import and export for 2009-2012. To select the chart:

From the "Anti-Nuclear Pirates"? (Google's translation)

 

[clancy688]

No, the proximate cause of imports was taking those nukes off line, the grid was incidental. Prior to that, regardless of grid quality Germany exported net power. Now, since the plant closures after Fukishima, it imports net power according to de Spiegel.

According to Spiegel (but no English version of the specific article) we're exporting and importing power at the same time. Thanks to the mentioned grid unreliability.
I guess both of us are getting our wires crossed.

You're right when you say that taking the NPPs offline caused us to import more power.

But at the same time, the data shows that our overall annual energy production is still more than we need.

From the "Anti-Nuclear Pirates"? (Google's translation)

The actual data they are using is taken from ENTSOE.

 

[mheslep]

An interesting perspective on the nuclear industry in the US -

http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/93/04708943/0470894393-112.pdf

The author (Lehr) states that a 1GW can be built on 200 acres. Theoretically, sure that's true. But absent a coastal plant without cooling towers, I doubt that is true practically speaking in the US under existing regulation, or anywhere close to it. If the NRC's 'exclusion zone' is included I expect the area of even the smaller ones (Milstone) is doubled.

Quick survey (from either wiki or the site licenses at NRC):
Byron 1782 acres
Milstone: 500 acres.
Palo Verde: 4000 acres
Commanche Peak: 7700 acres

Then there are the other peripherals seldom mentioned. The plant closest to me, the 1.8GW North Anna, had a 53 km^2 (13100 acres) lake built solely for the cooling needs of North Anna. And BTW, that area of land receives 53GW of solar radiation for several hours a day, or http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/pubs/redbook/PDFs/VA.PDF.

 

[Astronuc]

Clearly, land use has to be considered, and certainly that is dependent on the path to the ultimate heat sink. It is beneficial to have a river, e.g., Hudson River, which is actually a tidal estuary, lake or ocean on the boundary.

Perhaps the smallest NPP site is San Onofre at 84 acre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station

Lehr's article is too lofty for me.



Meanwhile - Sandia chemists find new material to remove radioactive gas [gaseous iodine] from spent nuclear fuel
https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/mof/

But it's a start in the right direction.

 

[mheslep]

Clearly, land use has to be considered, and certainly that is dependent on the path to the ultimate heat sink. It is beneficial to have a river, e.g., Hudson River, which is actually a tidal estuary, lake or ocean on the boundary.

Perhaps the smallest NPP site is San Onofre at 84 acre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station

Yes I knew San Onofre was one of the smaller plants, using the Pacific as its heat sink (no evaporator towers). However, the Exclusion Zone given in section 4 of the license online at NRC has a long radius of ~2000 sq ft, or about 287 acres, though about a third of that is in the ocean. The Low Population zone appears to have a radius five times larger (hard to gauge from the figure), or about 1400 acres, with only half on land.

Lehr's article is too lofty for me.

Agreed. I find fault with much of it. I think advocates should leave well enough alone with three points: i) nuclear provides 90% capacity factor baseload power which variable renewables can not without some innovation in storage, ii) nuclear emissions are ~zero, iii) nuclear could be inexpensive, in fact it appears to be in other countries like China, but is not in the US in no small part due to the NRC, which has never granted an operating license to a nuclear plant proposed under its watch.

That kind of argument would draw attention to improving the nuclear business model instead of leaving it stuck in the 1960's LEU and PWR world.

Meanwhile - Sandia chemists find new material to remove radioactive gas [gaseous iodine] from spent nuclear fuel
https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/mof/

But it's a start in the right direction.

There's another way to accomplish this: molten fuel.

 

[Astronuc]

There's another way to accomplish this: molten fuel.

Molten (or otherwise degraded) fuel certainly releases fission gases and volatiles. That was the problem with Fukushima.

If one is referring to molten salt, that too releases fission products, which do have to be collected, even if in a dedicated processing facility.

Thorium (Th-232) and U-233 fissions produce a slightly different isotopic vectors than U-235/U-238 fissions, but one still has fission gases (isotopes of Xe, Kr) and volatiles (isotopes of I, Br, etc) to collect, immobilized (calcine and vitrify, or petrify) and dispose of in a water repository.

 

[mheslep]

Molten (or otherwise degraded) fuel certainly releases fission gases and volatiles. That was the problem with Fukushima.

If one is referring to molten salt, that too releases fission products, which do have to be collected, even if in a dedicated processing facility.

Thorium (Th-232) and U-233 fissions produce a slightly different isotopic vectors than U-235/U-238 fissions, but one still has fission gases (isotopes of Xe, Kr) and volatiles (isotopes of I, Br, etc) to collect, immobilized (calcine and vitrify, or petrify) and dispose of in a water repository.

Yes I know molten salt fission will produce gases; the point is they are relatively simple to remove compared to solid fuel, pending some breakthrough like you linked. This should make high burn up possible in a MSR.

 

[clancy688]

Here's a recent report regarding French nuclear power and the actual costs:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/N...s_of_French_reactors_best_option-3101124.html

France, the court estimated, has so far spent €188 billion ($246 billion) on nuclear energy.

[...]

The operating costs of EDF [operator of the French NPPs) amounted to €8.9 billion ($11.6 billion) for the production of 407.9 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2010, according to the court. The average generating cost, the court calculated, was €49.5 ($64.7) per megawatt-hour (MWh). According to the audit office, whatever decision is made to maintain the current level of nuclear energy usage in France will require significant investment in the short- and medium-term at a rate of at least double the current level of investment. This, it says, will increase the average cost of production by about 10%.

Soooo... 5 cents per kwh. Looking cheap so far, doesn't it? But then look at those 188 billion in research. And add that, too. Nearly tenfolds the price.
Onshore wind energy is not much more expensive (somewhere between 50 and 60 Euros per MWh if I remember correctly... and I'm not so sure if any country boosted its wind energy research with 200 billion bucks).

Cheap energy my ***. Renewables can hardly top that. Here's the report in French:

http://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/CC/documents/RPT/Rapport_thematique_filiere_electronucleaire.pdf

 

[Astronuc]

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-New_technology_supported_in_US_budget_request-1402124.html

14 February 2012

The development of small modular reactors and domestic uranium enrichment technology has received support in US budget requests for fiscal year 2013. However, industry complained that cuts are being proposed to the funding of university nuclear programs and that a levy to fund the cleanup of legacy enrichment facilities would be re-imposed on nuclear companies.

. . . .