Re:First New U.S. Nuclear Reactor in Two Decades to Begin Fu...
by Tuna-Fish on Monday October 26, 2015 @01:45PM
(#10452970)
> Yes, fuel cost isn't that much... apparently 0.52 ¢/kWh
That's more than 95% processing, not raw material cost.
> But with 70 years of uranium left, I'm not sure prices will stay at similar prices over the life time of a new reactor.
That's not true at all. The total accessible uranium resources are near inexhaustible. The 70 years you hear bandied about is proven reserves/consumption, which is completely braindead, because proven reserves do not mean what you think they mean.
If the market price of uranium rose by two orders of magnitude, it still wouldn't materially impact the economics of nuclear fuel plants, and it would make thousands of years worth of uranium reserves economically extractable.
That's more than 95% processing, not raw material cost.
> But with 70 years of uranium left, I'm not sure prices will stay at similar prices over the life time of a new reactor.
That's not true at all. The total accessible uranium resources are near inexhaustible. The 70 years you hear bandied about is proven reserves/consumption, which is completely braindead, because proven reserves do not mean what you think they mean.
If the market price of uranium rose by two orders of magnitude, it still wouldn't materially impact the economics of nuclear fuel plants, and it would make thousands of years worth of uranium reserves economically extractable.