Peter Lang

>>Question: What would be the effect on the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE), for nuclear generation, if the internationally recommended safety limit for ionizing radiation was raised from 0.08 mSv per month to 100 mSv per month? >>

I don't think it's necessary to do anything that drastic.

The problem is that the development of reactor technology stalled for 30 years because of anti-nuclear hysteria.

Fortunately Russia, China and India are now dedicating resources to the further development of the technology and I think that will push down prices while boosting safety.

Best of all would be the development of thorium reactors.

See for example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html

The Indians too are developing thorium technology. So, amazingly enough, are the Norwegians.

StevenlMyer,

I am not into picking technology winners - e.g between the many Gen IV concepts, designs and demonstrators some of which will eventual become viable.

But I do think that raising the internationally recommended safety limit for ionizing radiation from 0.08 mSv per month to 100 mSv per month (a factor of 1200) from “As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)” to “As high as Reasonably Safe (AHARS) would greatly reduced the cost of nuclear in both the short term and the long term. Consider these impacts:

1. greatly reduces the costs of accidents - e.g. reduced need or no need to evacuate from Fukushima

2. Immediatly reduces the cost of insurance (which is included in the cost of electricity)

3. Sends a clear message to potential investors that financial risk of nuclear is much lower than experienced to date

4. Sends a clear message to nuclear industry that the cost of nuclear will come down - encourages them to get going again with innovation, proposing their projects and getting them through licencing

5. Sends a message to regulators to back off the stringent restrictions and licencing requirements

I suspect you may be able to think of many more effects on the cost of electricity, and the rate of development and roll out, such a change to the internationally agreed safe threshold would have. And what affect it would have on the industry, the public's nuclear paranoia, the anti-nuke activists basis for their arguments.

It is amusing to read yet again that opposition to nuclear power, and to thorium reactors in particular, comes simply from "hysteria" and "paranoia".
Do the following reasons for scepticism about thorium reactors sound hysterical and paranoid?

1. COST. The mass marketing, mass production, of small thorium reactors is not an economically viable proposition. Regardless of reactor size,the claim that the design of LFTRs tends towards low construction cost and very cheap electricity does not stand up to scrutiny. While some elements of LFTR design may cut costs compared to
conventional reactors, other elements will add cost, notably the continuous fuel reprocessing using high-temperature 'pyro-processing' technologies. Moreover, a costly experimental phase of ~20-40 years duration will be required before any 'production' LFTR reactors can be built.

2. WEAPONS PROLIFERATION. A LFTR could (by
including 238U in the fuel) be adapted to produce plutonium of a high purity well above normal weapons-grade, presenting a major proliferation hazard. Beyond that, the main proliferation hazards arise from:
- the need for fissile material (plutonium or uranium) to initiate the thorium fuel cycle, which could be diverted, and
- the production of fissile uranium 233U.

3.SAFETY. In an LFTR the main danger has been shifted
from the reactor to the on-site continuous fuel reprocessing operation – a high temperature process involving highly hazardous, explosive and intensely radioactive materials.

4. WASTES High-level waste is an unavoidable product of nuclear fission. Spent fuel from any LFTR will be intensely radioactive and constitute high level waste. The reactor itself, at the end of its lifetime, will constitute high level waste. A particular hazard is the production of 232U, with its highly radio-toxic decay chain.The reactor itself eventually becomes a radioactive waste.

5. PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE,INSURANCE and REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.Peter Lang's optimistic claims about these factors are not founded in any facts. As far as I can see, they are sheer fantasy. Particularly as regards regulation, any fool can see that as thorium rectors require plutonium or enriched uranium to get the fission process happening, there will have to be stringent regulation and security.

On the question of increasing the "acceptable" dose of ionising radiation, here's what the Physicians for Social Responsibility have to say:
“A dose of 100 mSv (10,000 millirems) creates a one in 100 risk of getting cancer, but a dose of 10 mSv (1,000 millirems) still gives a one in 1,000 chance of getting cancer, and a dose of 1 mSv (100 millirems) gives a one in 10,000 risk,”

Even if the risk of getting cancer for one individual from a given level of food contamination is low, if thousands or millions of people are exposed, then some of those people will get cancer.

So - increasing the safety limit for radiation might reduce the costs for the nuclear industry, while greatly increasing the costs for public health.

If anyone is still following this thread, they may be interested in this excellent brochure just posted called: "Radiation: The facts"
http://home.comcast.net/~robert.hargraves/public_html/RadiationSafety26SixPage.pdf

It's excellent for forwarding to people and students who want a simple, clear explanation.

In reply to Peter Lang's post urging readers to read an article by Robert Hargraves, about nuclear radiation.

Well, I really do think that Mr lang should have told us who Robert Hargraves is. Unlike the Physician for Social responsibility, Hargraves has no medical or radiation expertise.
Hargraves' specialities are physics and mathematics.

Robert Hargraves is an active promoter of nuclear power, especially of Thorium nuclear reactors, in fact is an advisor to a firm to develop the liquid fluoride thorium reactor.