Images de page
PDF
ePub

Having said that, as I read the ERAB report, they mention that both the preparation for the construction and generation of steam would affect the ultimate price that the government might receive for that steam and that the way in which the reactor or reactors were divided in terms of number and power levels might also affect the price that was obtained for the steam. They point out, I believe quite rightly, that that price can vary substantially depending upon the specific arrangements and configurations that are finally determined by the Secretary of Energy.

Senator MCCLURE. Mr. Schoettler.

Mr. SCHOETTLER. Senator, the expression that you used was not of major consequence, and I don't think that it quite accurately reflects the discussion of the findings that ERAB made. As Dr. Graham just testified, the range of revenue varied all the way from 15 to 60 mils per kilowatt-hour.

I think the one observation that ERAB did make was that they would prefer to input steam over the fence or at the site boundary rather than to get involved in electrical generation because you get involved in NRC and regulatory agencies, and that aspect of it, an NPR, perhaps, would be the one that would be subjected to most difficulties.

The actual revenue would be site dependent, and it would be dependent upon the increased demand for the area, and also the assurance and reliability that a utility customer could expect, and that is usually for a baseload planned at least 10 years in advance. So there are a number of variations.

The other thought was that if you used it for tritium supply and at some time in the future, because of disarmament, you no longer need tritium, then there was an advantage to have some other purpose for an investment of that size.

Senator MCCLURE. I appreciate the response, and at the risk of sounding like I am speaking for the Idaho Falls Chamber of Commerce—and I sometimes do I would just note for the record the uncertainty of steam sales is not necessarily so great because Idaho Power Co. has a standing commitment to purchase any such output that might occur if the construction of any plant produced steam at an Idaho site.

I mention that not because I am suggesting that the only place to build it is Idaho, I don't make that suggestion. But I do want to make the suggestion that, indeed, I will bet you that you will see the South Carolina interests purchase steam if it were necessary to keep Idaho from getting the plant. [Laughter.]

I think that Idaho Power's commitment is valid at almost any location, because it will drive others to make equal commitments if for no other reason.

I can't help but read into the record something that has not been specifically referred to from the ERAB report on page 34, and it is the final line in the options conclusions. It says:

The Board believes that a combination of technologies, including advanced technologies, offers a unique opportunity that should be carefully considered even at increased costs for a step increase in reactor safety and substantial improvement in commercial reactor technology.

That is not a bad place to leave the discussion.

Mr. Secretary.

Mr. SALGADO. I would just like to add, in case it hasn't been done, I would ask, since we made numerous references to it, that the ERAB report itself be incorporated into the report as a point of reference. Senator MCCLURE. Without objection, it will be done.

[The report follows:]

ASSESSMENT of CandidatE REACTOR TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE
NEW PRODUCTION REACTOR

JULY 1988

A REPORT OF THE ENERGY RESEARCH ADVISORY BOARD TO THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Energy Research Advisory Board

to the

United States Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20585
(202) 586-5444

June 27, 1988

The Honorable John S. Herrington

Secretary of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

Dear Mr. Secretary:

In response to your letter of January 7, 1988, the Energy Research Advisory Board has assessed four reactor types as candidate technologies for New Production Reactor (NPR) capacity. The results of the assessment are given in the attached report.

The Board has focused its attention on the production of nuclear materials, especially tritium, as the primary mission of the NPR, as indicated in your letter. In its assessment, the Board emphasized the primary and equal importance of producing goal quantities of tritium when needed and doing so in a safe and environmentally sound manner.

The Board reviewed and modified the Department's proposed selection criteria, and reported these results to you in an Interim Report on March 1, 1988. The Interim Report is included as Appendix E of the present report. The modified criteria have been used by the ERAB in the assessment.

The report notes that the cost of the NPR program and the national defense need for the tritium product requires strong assurance of tritium production capability. The ERAB evaluation has found that the heavy water reactor has the most mature technology for tritium production at the present time, but that each of the technologies could provide new production capacity with varying degrees of risk as to cost and schedule.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The report further states that multiple reactors either of the same type located at one site, or with different technologies and located at different sites offer tritium production flexibility and increased production assurance. The Board has recognized, however, that deployment of multiple reactors would increase the cost. In any case, the development of new tritium target technologies would provide expanded options for future consideration.

The ERAB's position is that the primary justification for using two technologies is for increased flexibility and assurance of tritium production.

There are other advantages of using different technologies, separate from those associated with tritium production. Deployment of two technologies would necessarily include at least one of the "high temperature" reactors and, therefore, would be capable of generating steam or electric power. The revenue gained by the sale of steam for power applications (the ERAB prefers the sale of steam to the sale of electricity) would provide revenue to offset NPR cost. In addition, and very importantly, development of a high temperature technology would provide both real and perceived improvements in the safety of commercial power.

I hope you will find the report responsive to the charge letter and useful. I would be happy to discuss the report with you at your earliest convenience.

[subsumed][ocr errors][merged small]

Energy Research Advisory Board

to the

United States Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, S. W.
Washington, D.C. 20585
(202) 586-5444

July 1, 1988

Mr. John H. Schoettler, Chairman
Energy Research Advisory Board

Department of Energy

1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20585

Dear Mr. Schoettler:

I am pleased to forward to you the ERAB report "Assessment of Candidate Reactor Technologies for the New Production Reactor." The report reviews four reactor technologies, as requested by the Secretary of Energy, as well as criteria for the evaluation, and risks and benefits associated with each technology. The report includes a number of findings by the ERAB and identifies options that the Department could follow to obtain new production capacity.

The ERAB formed a Panel of 19 experts to help perform the assessment. The Panel provided technical background and current information for use by the ERAB in completing this report. The Panel includes individuals with

wide experience in the management of reactor facilities, nuclear engineering, engineering of large energy systems, safety and environmental concerns, and physics. The Panel used six additional technical experts to help evaluate the technical information that was presented by proponents for each of the reactor types. The Panel divided itself into four subpanels, each concentrating on one of the four technologies. The Department of Energy provided a technical and administrative support team of DOE and contractor staff to help organize and assimilate the information.

I have been pleased with the cooperation provided by the members of the New Production Reactor (NPR) Technology Assessment Panel, the ERAB members, and the technical and administrative support staff.

[blocks in formation]
« PrécédentContinuer »