 | Drumbeat: July 20, 2010 | The Oil Drum | BP's Deepwater Oil Spill - Time is Not Our Friend - and Open Thread |  |
Possibilities for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors?
Posted by Gail the Actuary on July 20, 2010 - 10:32am
This is a guest post by Rod Adams, author of Atomic Insights Blog. Rod's Oil Drum name is atomicrod. Rod earned his initial atomic knowledge while serving as an engineering officer on US nuclear powered submarines throughout the 1980s. He founded Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. in 1993 to produce small modular reactors, but put that company to sleep in 1996, when the price of oil dipped to $10 per barrel and natural gas sold for as low as $1.60 per million BTU.
Pick up almost any book about nuclear energy and you will find that the prevailing wisdom is that nuclear plants must be very large in order to be competitive. This assumption is widely accepted, but, if its roots are understood, it can be effectively challenged.
Recently, however, a growing body of plant designers, utility companies, government agencies and financial players are recognizing that smaller plants can take advantage of greater opportunities to apply lessons learned, take advantage of the engineering and tooling savings possible with higher numbers of units and better meet customer needs in terms of capacity additions and financing. The resulting systems are a welcome addition to the nuclear power plant menu, which has previously been limited to one size - extra large.
In this post, I would like to tell you a little more about the change that is taking place--which I view as a welcome one.
When Westinghouse, General Electric and their international competitors first learned that uranium was a incredible source of heat energy, they were huge, well established firms in the business of building equipment used for generating electrical power. Each had made a significant investment in the infrastructure necessary for producing central station electrical power on a massive scale.
Experience had taught them that larger power stations could produce cheaper electricity and that electricity from central power stations could be effectively distributed to a large number of customers whose varying needs allowed the capital investment in the power station to be most effectively shared between all customers.
Their experience was even codified by textbook authors with a rule of thumb that said that the cost of a piece of production machinery would vary by the throughput raised to the 0.6 power. (According to this thumb rule, a pump that could pump 10 times as much fluid as another pump of similar design and function should cost only four times as much as the smaller pump.) They, and their utility customers, understood that it was much cheaper to deliver bulk fuel by pipeline, ships, barges, or rail than to distribute smaller quantities of fuel in trucks to a network of small plants.
Just as individuals make judgments based on their experience of what has worked in the past, so do corporations. It was the collective judgment of the nuclear pioneers that the same rules of thumb that had worked so well for fossil plants would apply to nuclear plants.
Though accurate cost data is difficult to obtain, it is safe to say that there was no predictable relationship between the size of a nuclear power plant and its cost. Despite the graphs drawn in early nuclear engineering texts-which were based on scanty data from less than ten completed plants-there was not a steadily decreasing cost per kilowatt of capacity for larger plants.
It is possible for engineers to make incredibly complex calculations without a single math error that still come up with a wrong answer if they use a model based on incorrect assumptions. That appears to be the case with the "bigger is better" model used by nuclear plant designers and marketers.
Though the "economy of scale" did not work for the first nuclear age, there is some evidence that a different economic rule did apply. That rule is what is often referred to as the experience curve. According to several detailed studies, it appears that when similar plants were built by the same organization, the follow-on plants cost less to build. According to a RAND Corporation study, "a doubling in the number of reactors [built by an architect-engineer] results in a 5 percent reduction in both construction time and capital cost."
This idea is significant. It tells us that nuclear power is no different conceptually than hundreds of other new technologies.
The principle that Ford discovered is now known as the experience curve. . . It ordains that in any business, in any era, in any capitalist competition, unit costs tend to decline in predictable proportion to accumulated experience: the total number of units sold. Whatever the product (cars or computers, pounds of limestone, thousands of transistors, millions of pounds of nylon, or billions of phone calls) and whatever the performance of companies jumping on and off the curve, unit costs in the industry as a whole, adjusted for inflation, will tend to drop between 20 and 30 percent with every doubling in accumulated output.
George Guilder Recapturing the Spirit of Enterprise Updated for the 1990s, ICS Press, San Francisco, CA. p. 195
These ideas are not new. I copied most of the above paragraphs from an article that I published on Atomic Insights in May 1996 titled Economy of Scale? Is Bigger Better?.
Apparently, the ideas that I pointed to fourteen years ago have also occurred to a number of nuclear plant designers and business decision makers who noticed that the estimates for the traditional sized nuclear plants kept expanding at much greater than the rate of inflation as they became more detailed and closer to reality. The complexities of putting together the very large systems and projects kept adding to the risk, which added to the cost and complexity of financing which added to the project complexity by requiring additional partners - including government agencies and public subsidies.
Some frustrated nuclear plant designers, inspired by talking with customers about their needs and remembering what was technically possible in terms of nuclear reactor sizing determined that they might be able to solve some of the cost and schedule complaints by a complete rethinking of the old economy of scale paradigm. For anyone who has been paying attention during the past five years or so, the names of Hyperion, NuScale and Toshiba 4S have been increasingly frequent terms of discussion as start-ups and some established vendors began designing nuclear fission based systems sized at 10, 25, or 45 MWe, which is a radical departure from the 1000 MWe (plus) sizes of the AP1000 (Westinghouse), ESBWR (GE-Hitachi), or EPR (Areva).
Initially, the project leaders for these new designs thought about using them in distributed remote locations where power is either not available or is being supplied by expensively delivered diesel fuel. John (Grizz) Deal and his sister, Deborah Deal Blackwell, the Hyperion Power Generation founders thought about the how a simple, infrequently fueled nuclear plant could supply power to a remote area for up to a decade without refueling. They recognized the value that such a system could provide to the previously powerless people living in that remote area.
The system could provide power for refrigeration, water treatment and distribution systems, communications systems, and reliable, flicker free lighting. Unfortunately, the specific technologies needed for the Hyperion design - liquid metal (Pb-Bi) cooling and uranium nitride fuel elements - are not in commercial use. They hve been used in several specialized reactors and proven to work reliably and safely, but starting up a new supply chain is just one of the many hurdles that Hyperion is diligently working to overcome. The Toshiba 4S sodium cooled power system faces similar challenges, but both concepts have their fans and both are moving forward.
A trio of project teams has recognized that the concept of small does not mean that you have to start from scratch with the supply chain, training programs, and safety analysis; it is possible to do a redesign of light water reactors from the ground up to produce an economical design that achieves economy by both simplification and increased unit volume. All three of the teams - NuScale, B&W and Westinghouse - have designed systems that put the entire primary plant into a single pressure vessel. This choice eliminates the potential for a large pipe break loss of coolant accident. They have all chosen to include a large volume of water - relative to the core power output - that provides operators with lengthy interval between any conceivable accident and required operator action. They also have chosen passive safety systems that do not require any outside power sources to operate, so they expect to be able to prove that they can meet existing safety criteria without redundant power sources. All of the iPWR systems envision using fuel assemblies that are essentially the same as commercial nuclear plant fuel elements - but they will be shorter and there will be fewer assemblies in each core. All of the systems have been designed for the post 911 security and safety considerations including the aircraft impact rule through the use of below grade installation.
After those common traits, there are some differences in technical features that might be attractive to different kinds of customers. NuScale's module size is 45 MWe and it does not contain any coolant pumps; the system uses natural circulation both in operation and when shut down. The company expects that customers will want to plan for the eventual installation of 6 (270 MWe) or 12 (540 MWe) units on a single site.
NuScale has selected Kiewit as its Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) contractor. Together the two companies have completed a detailed, bottom up price estimate yielding an expected cost of between $4,000 and $4,400 per kilowatt of capacity, depending on whether the customer wants a 6 or 12 pack installation. NuScale has informed the NRC that it will be filing its license application in the first half of 2012. Much of its system and safety analysis work is backed up with actual data from the 1/3 scale integrated system loop (with electric heaters to simulate the nuclear core) installed at Oregon State University.
Westinghouse is a bit further out with its 335 MWe IRIS, but it plans to submit a license application by the end of 2014. Part of the delay is due to a company focus on completing the revised license application for the AP1000 and quickly resolving any of the inevitable engineering issues that pop up during plant construction.
The integrated pressurized water reactor (iPWR) that is gaining the most buzz from the business community and political leaders, however, is the 125 MWe mPower™. Yesterday, Bechtel Corporation, one of the largest privately held companies in the United States, with 57,000 employees and $30.8 billion in 2009 revenue, announced that it was joining with B&W as a 20% partner in an exclusive alliance that they have branded as Generation mPower to build complete, turn-key power plants.
B&W has an already existing and ASME 'N-stamp' certified US manufacturing base and 50 years worth of experience in building nearly all of the components required for the small, modular light water reactors that power ships and submarines. Bechtel has either built or participated in major renovation projects at 64 of the 104 nuclear plants operating in the United States.
The mPower™ modules will be about the same size as the NuScale modules, but each module will produce about 2.5 times as much power as a NuScale module because they include submerged reactor coolant pumps to provide forced flow through the core. The system is designed to supply a sufficient quantity of natural circulation to provide core cooling after shutdown without any pumps running, thus maintaining the passive safety characteristic. Like NuScale, Generation mPower expects that customers for its plants will probably want to plan to install multiple units on a single site, though they might start with just one or two and add additional units gradually over time. Generation mPower has informed the NRC that it will be submitted a design certification application by the end of 2012; that application might be filed at the same time as a construction and operating license for the first of a kind unit.
The iPWR projects are all positioning themselves to obtain licenses in the United States, to sell their first units to US customers, and to get the involvement of experienced nuclear utility companies. The project sponsors have determined that their smaller unit sizes will be attractive power sources for certain types of customers that would face an insurmountable barrier in trying to build one of the extra large plants. Modular power stations can be financed in phases with revenue generation increments that are more closely matched with demand growth. Several cooperative electric utility companies have joined in the user groups that have formed to help provide both mPower and NuScale with the customer point of view as the system designers complete their detailed work.
Both NuScale and Generation mPower have determined that the proposed unit sizes more closely match the capacity currently provided by aging coal plants and might be considered as appropriate replacements once those coal plants reach the end of their life. Both the Tennessee Valley Authority and FirstEnergy have expressed interest in finding out more about how the proposed modules might help them reuse existing sites that currently host obsolete coal power plants and are not even close to natural gas pipelines.
A growing body of plant designers, utility companies, government agencies and financial players are recognizing that smaller plants can take advantage of greater opportunities to apply lessons learned, take advantage of the engineering and tooling savings possible with higher numbers of units and better meet customer needs in terms of capacity additions and financing. The resulting systems are a welcome addition to the nuclear power plant menu, which has previously been limited to one size - extra large. Developing a broader range of system choices using nuclear fission energy could have a measurable impact on segments of the energy market that have been most often served by burning distillate fuel or natural gas. Small modular reactors offer a reason to be optimistic that human society will have access to all of the energy that it needs for increased prosperity for larger portion of the population.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Amazing technology. I can see how that could be a big help in the years to come. But is fuel availability an issue? I thought that nuclear fuel was going to become scarce in the next 30 years or so, but maybe I'm confused or missing something.
The question of uranium supply is one you will get different answers to. We had a recent post related to the subject.
At this point, the supply from Kazakhstan is rising rapidly, but is pretty much flat elsewhere. Uranium prices are quite low compared to prices in 2008. Kazakhstan seems to be able to make money at these lower prices, but it is not clear that these prices provide much incentive for other producers. The US is dumping recycled bombs on the market. This, besides the high production from Kazakhstan, is helping to keep uranium prices down.
Going forward, there are different views of what could happen. One issue is the amount of supply needed. Financing nuclear plants is expensive, and even fixing up old ones is expensive. Looking at a graph of world nuclear electric generation gives the impression that nuclear electric production has peaked. If so, the amount of increase in uranium production needed is not large, and recent production trends are adequate. If the recession continues, and gets worse, this could further reduce generation needs (although some areas, like China, are planning big increases in nuclear electric production).
Besides the financial situation, oil supply could also affect uranium availability, since diesel is significantly used in its extraction. As less oil is available after the peak, this may have an affect on uranium production.
So we really don't know about the uranium situation. If a lot of old reactors are going off-line, this could free up uranium for newcomers.
The uranium supply question is more complex when you factor in recycling of spent fuel. Spent fuel is so radioactive because it is incompletely "burned." It still contains vast quantities of energy, otherwise it would not be very radioactive. (Radioactivity of a material is related to its potential fission energy content.)
A similar thing was true in the early days of oil power. Gasoline and many other fractions of early oil refining were literally flared off or dumped... they had no value. Nuclear waste today is sort of like that.
Most of the "peak uranium" modeling that I've seen assumes a very inefficient first-generation once-through fuel cycle. I do recall Hubbert doing a "peak nuclear" curve... his peak nuclear curve just went flat at the top and carried on like that forever. Why? Because Hubbert thought that other limits to growth (birth rate reduction, fresh water, food, land, etc.) would kick in long before we reached nuclear's maximum generating capacity.
Then there's thorium, but that's still somewhat in the future.
Very inefficient?
Efficiency is a function of temperature and the ability of metals to safely withstand high temperatures and radiation is limited.
As I remember (almost) all the higher temperature gas cycle, pebble bed reactors have been closed.
High temperatures mean high danger.
This is the reason that 'low efficiency' LWRs are everywhere (that and the high price of heavy water).
The idea that fission can replace fossil fuels is even more unlikely than renewables.
In nuke loving Europe, 25% of electricity comes from nuclear in the US it's 21%.
Renewables could even overtake nuclear as the main non-fossil, in Europe renewables are 18% of electricity, but only 9% in the USA.
The absolutely predominant form of 'inefficient' commercial nuclear power is the once-thru LWR, that can't change.
Thorium MOX fuel rods in LWRs(Radkowsky) can extend nuclear fuel by 1/3 but requires slighly more enrichment(9% U-235 or plutonium)which is probably a very slight plus (might reduce the amount of uranium required per Gwh by 30%? at great expense).
This is why India is going for thorium-plutonium breeders.
It is insane to 'save the world' by building thousands of commercial nuclear power plants many of which will sit empty waiting for fuel, while many old plants have 'swimming pools' stuffed with nuclear waste awaiting inexpensive reprocessing technology which has not materialized after 50 years.
China's high temperature pebble bed reactor 10 MW is still operating. China's Shidawan reactor will or has started construction for 2013-2014 completion of a 210 MWe module.
High temperature pebble beds are safer. The chinese reactor had a walk away test where all cooling was shutdown and the reactor ran down without meltdown. It cooled by itself. This is the reason or the smaller sizes. Below about 300 MWe the pebble beds do not have enough pebbles to cause a meltdown.
wind is at 300 TWH now after decades of construction and solar electric power is at 20 TWH, Nuclear is at 2559 TWH and has been as high as 2800 TWH. the figure that you are quoting for renewables includes biomass (burning of wood etc...) and hydroelectric.
Existing nuclear power plants can be uprated with new turbines and other equipment to get up to 20% more power. Korea is working on annular fuel which are hollow cylinders instead of solid rods. So that coolant can reach inside and outside. This enables existing reactors to get another 20-50% uprate in generation. Korea is looking to not change anything about the plant and minimally change the fuel assembly to get a 20% boost to their reactors.
40% boost to half of all existing reactors would be 510 TWH increase. more than current wind and solar generation.
The 61 reactors under construction will start getting completed at 10-15 per year and new construction starts will happen at an increasing pace.
The factory built small reactors (china's pebble bed, hyperion power generation and the reactors described by Rod) can massively change the situation and enable hundreds of small reactors to be completed each year with elapsed construction time dropping to 12-36 months or less.
Japan has a 30 MW Very high temperature research reactor.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf79.html
At the end of 1998 JAEA's small prototype gas cooled reactor, the 30 MWt High Temperature Engineering Test Reactor (HTTR) started up at the Oarai R&D Centre. This was Japan's first graphite-moderated and helium-cooled reactor. It runs at 850°C and in 2004 achieved 950°C, which will allow its application to chemical processes such as thermochemical production of hydrogen. Its fuel is ceramic-coated particles incorporated into hexagonal graphite prisms, giving it a high level of inherent safety. It is designed to establish a basis for the commercialisation of second-generation helium-cooled plants running at high temperatures for either industrial applications or to drive direct cycle gas turbines. By 2015 an iodine-sulfur plant producing 1000 m3/hr of hydrogen is expected to be linked to the HTTR to confirm the performance of an integrated production system.
JAEA's Japan Materials Testing Reactor (JMTR) at the Oarai R&D Centre is being refurbished for 2011 resumption of operation, when it will produce some radioisotopes, notably Mo-99, as well as enable basic research on LWR fuel and materials, and other applications. The JMTR was initially converted from 93% HEU fuel to 45% enriched fuel in 1991, and then to 19.8% enriched fuel in 1994.
=========
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html
The first commercial version will be China's HTR-PM, being built at Shidaowan in Shandong province. It has been developed by Tsinghua University's INET, which is the R&D leader and Chinergy Co., with China Huaneng Group leading the demonstration plant project. This will have two reactor modules, each of 250 MWt/ 105 MWe, using 9% enriched fuel (520,000 elements) giving 80 GWd/t discharge burnup. With an outlet temperature of 750ºC the pair will drive a single steam cycle turbine at about 40% thermal efficiency. This 210 MWe Shidaowan demonstration plant is to pave the way for an 18-unit (3x6x210MWe) full-scale power plant on the same site, also using the steam cycle. Plant life is envisaged as 60 years with 85% load factor.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html
Based on the HTTR, JAERI is developing the Gas Turbine High Temperature Reactor (GTHTR) of up to 600 MWt per module. It uses improved HTTR fuel elements with 14% enriched uranium achieving high burn-up (112 GWd/t). Helium at 850°C drives a horizontal turbine at 47% efficiency to produce up to 300 MWe. The core consists of 90 hexagonal fuel columns 8 metres high arranged in a ring, with reflectors. Each column consists of eight one-metre high elements 0.4 m across and holding 57 fuel pins made up of fuel particles with 0.55 mm diameter kernels and 0.14 mm buffer layer. In each two-yearly refuelling, alternate layers of elements are replaced so that each remains for four years.
========
Areva's Antares is based on the GT-MHR. Areva is funding its design and development.
It is based on the GT-MHR and has also involved Fuji. Reference design is 600 MWt with prismatic block fuel like the GT-MHR. Target core outlet temperature is 1000°C for a very high temperature reactor (VHTR) version, or up to 850°C for the HTR version. It uses an indirect cycle, possibly with a helium-nitrogen mix in the secondary system, removing the possibility of contaminating the generation or hydrogen production plant with radionuclides from the reactor core.
=======
Fast neutron
Several countries have research and development programs for improved Fast Breeder Reactors (FBR), which are a type of Fast Neutron Reactor. These use the uranium-238 in reactor fuel as well as the fissile U-235 isotope used in most reactors.
About 20 liquid metal-cooled FBRs have already been operating, some since the 1950s, and some have supplied electricity commercially. About 300 reactor-years of operating experience have been accumulated.
Natural uranium contains about 0.7 % U-235 and 99.3 % U-238. In any reactor the U-238 component is turned into several isotopes of plutonium during its operation. Two of these, Pu 239 and Pu 241, then undergo fission in the same way as U 235 to produce heat. In a fast neutron reactor this process is optimised so that it can 'breed' fuel, often using a depleted uranium blanket around the core. FBRs can utilise uranium at least 60 times more efficiently than a normal reactor. They are however expensive to build and could only be justified economically if uranium prices were to rise to pre-1980 values, well above the current market price.
For this reason research work almost ceased for some years, and that on the 1450 MWe European FBR has apparently lapsed. Closure of the 1250 MWe French Superphenix FBR after very little operation over 13 years also set back developments.
Research continues in India. At the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research a 40 MWt fast breeder test reactor has been operating since 1985. In addition, the tiny Kamini there is employed to explore the use of thorium as nuclear fuel, by breeding fissile U-233. In 2004 construction of a 500 MWe prototype fast breeder reactor started at Kalpakkam. The unit is expected to be operating in 2011, fuelled with uranium-plutonium carbide (the reactor-grade Pu being from its existing PHWRs) and with a thorium blanket to breed fissile U-233. This will take India's ambitious thorium program to stage 2, and set the scene for eventual full utilisation of the country's abundant thorium to fuel reactors.
Japan plans to develop FBRs, and its Joyo experimental reactor which has been operating since 1977 is now being boosted to 140 MWt. The 280 MWe Monju prototype commercial FBR was connected to the grid in 1995, but was then shut down due to a sodium leak. Its restart is planned for 2009.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) is involved with a consortium to build the Japan Standard Fast Reactor (JSFR) concept, though with breeding ratio less than 1:1. This is a large unit which will burn actinides with uranium and plutonium in oxide fuel. It could be of any size from 500 to 1500 MWe. In this connection MHI has also set up Mitsubishi FBR Systems (MFBR).
The Russian BN-600 fast breeder reactor at Beloyarsk has been supplying electricity to the grid since 1981 and has the best operating and production record of all Russia's nuclear power units. It uses uranium oxide fuel and the sodium coolant delivers 550°C at little more than atmospheric pressure. The BN 350 FBR operated in Kazakhstan for 27 years and about half of its output was used for water desalination. Russia plans to reconfigure the BN-600 to burn the plutonium from its military stockpiles.
The first BN-800, a new larger (880 MWe) FBR from OKBM with improved features is being built at Beloyarsk. It has considerable fuel flexibility - U+Pu nitride, MOX, or metal, and with breeding ratio up to 1.3. It has much enhanced safety and improved economy - operating cost is expected to be only 15% more than VVER. It is capable of burning 2 tonnes of plutonium per year from dismantled weapons and will test the recycling of minor actinides in the fuel. The BN-800 has been sold to China, and two units are due to start construction there in 2012.
However, the Beloyarsk-4 BN-800 is likely to be the last such reactor built (outside India’s thorium program), with a fertile blanket of depleted uranium around the core. Further fast reactors will have an integrated core to minimise the potential for weapons proliferation from bred Pu-239. Beloyarsk-5 is designated as a BREST design.
Russia has experimented with several lead-cooled reactor designs, and has used lead-bismuth cooling for 40 years in reactors for its 7 Alfa class submarines. Pb-208 (54% of naturally-occurring lead) is transparent to neutrons. A significant new Russian design from NIKIET is the BREST fast neutron reactor, of 300 MWe or more with lead as the primary coolant, at 540C, and supercritical steam generators. It is inherently safe and uses a high-density U+Pu nitride fuel with no requirement for high enrichment levels. No weapons-grade plutonium can be produced (since there is no uranium blanket - all the breeding occurs in the core). Also it is an equilibrium core, so there are no spare neutrons to irradiate targets. The initial cores can comprise Pu and spent fuel - hence loaded with fission products, and radiologically 'hot'. Subsequently, any surplus plutonium, which is not in pure form, can be used as the cores of new reactors. Used fuel can be recycled indefinitely, with on-site reprocessing and associated facilities. A pilot unit is planned for Beloyarsk by 2020, and 1200 MWe units are proposed.
The European Lead-cooled SYstem (ELSY) of 600 MWe in Europe, led by Ansaldo Nucleare from Italy and financed by Euratom. ELSY is a flexible fast neutron reactor which can use depleted uranium or thorium fuel matrices, and burn actinides from LWR fuel. Liquid metal (Pb or Pb-Bi eutectic) cooling is at low pressure .The design was nearly complete in 2008 and a small-scale demonstration facility is planned. It runs on MOX fuel at 480°C and the molten lead is pumped to eight steam generators, though decay heat removal is passive, by convection.
In the USA, GE was involved in designing a modular liquid metal-cooled inherently-safe reactor - PRISM. GE with the DOE national laboratories were developing PRISM during the advanced liquid-metal fast breeder reactor (ALMR) program. No US fast neutron reactor has so far been larger than 66 MWe and none has supplied electricity commercially.
Today's PRISM is a GE-Hitachi design for compact modular pool-type reactors with passive cooling for decay heat removal. After 30 years of development it represents GEH's Generation IV solution to closing the fuel cycle in the USA. Each PRISM Power Block consists of two modules of 311 MWe each, operating at high temperature - over 500°C. The pool-type modules below ground level contain the complete primary system with sodium coolant. The Pu & DU fuel is metal, and obtained from used light water reactor fuel. However, all transuranic elements are removed together in the electrometallurgical reprocessing so that fresh fuel has minor actinides with the plutonium. Fuel stays in the reactor about six years, with one third removed every two years. Used PRISM fuel is recycled after removal of fission products. The commercial-scale plant concept, part of a Advanced Recycling Centre, uses three power blocks (six reactor modules) to provide 1866 MWe. See also electrometallurgical section in Processing Used Nuclear Fuel paper.
Korea's KALIMER (Korea Advanced LIquid MEtal Reactor) is a 600 MWe pool type sodium-cooled fast reactor designed to operate at over 500ºC. It has evolved from a 150 MWe version. It has a transmuter core, and no breeding blanket is involved. Future development of KALIMER as a Generation IV type is envisaged.
===============
Like modern jet engines that run much higher temperature and pressure than early jets and run reliably for thousands of hours between overhaul.
No. The "hottest" parts of spent nuclear fuel are the fission products, the elements that are the result of fission. That's the opposite of what you are saying, AdamI.
There is no simple relationship between "radioactivity of a material" and its fission energy content. And I put that phrase in quotes, because there are different kinds of radioactivity.
They're "hot" because they're still fissioning. Radiation comes from decay, and radioactive decay releases energy.
AdamI, I strongly suggest that you consult a textbook on nuclear physics. A general science or general physics book may do as well.
Radioactive elements are radioactive because the nuclei of their atoms are unstable in some way, either containing an imbalance of protons and neutrons or too much energy. They may emit energy (gamma rays) or particles (alpha or beta) to get to a more stable state. A very few are radioactive because they're still fissioning, but most of the radioactivity in spent fuel is from the products of the fission of heavy elements.
You just said exactly the same thing that I did. I've studied physics. "... to get into a more stable state" means that they've decayed, releasing energy. Radiation is energy.
What you said amounts to "that's not burning! It's combining with oxygen to get into a more stable state!"
If you study physics more, you will realize that fission and radioactive decay are not the same thing. Not everything that emits radioactivity does so because of fission, in fact, very few things do, and even fewer of them as any part of a natural process.
DP
I know I'm picking a nit, but fission and decay are usually considered to be separate processes. Uranium-235 fissions and forms atoms of much lighter elements such as strontium and iodine. Alternatively, U-235 sits near the top of an alpha/beta decay chain that sheds particles and eventually ends at lead. In nature, fission events are quite rare compared to decay events.
Looks like we are fighting because his argument was sloppily made. Fission products have relatively short half lifes, which is why the dominate short term radioactivity of "waste". The stuff that environmentalist make a big issue about are the elements/isotopes with very long half-lifes, these are usually fissionable.
Do not just look at the charts and create a fictional interpretation. There are hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on new nuclear construction. 61 reactors are under construction now. 24 of them projects in China.
Ignoring the actual construction and actual mine development would be like going back to various points in history and ignoring russia becoming a big exporter or Alaska oilfields getting developed.
Nigeria is coming onstream with new mines. They have already had an increase of a few thousand tons per year. they need the uranium mines to replace the diamond industry. Uranium will be about 20-30% of their economy. France, Russia, Australia, china are all getting into Nigeria and putting together multi-billion projects.
there is also big development in Niger, Canada, Russia
Also, for the extraction there are more energy efficient leaching methods where the geology permits. For the fuel there is more energy efficient enrichment.
So we do know a lot about the uranium situation.
``Nigeria is coming onstream with new mines. They have already had an increase of a few thousand tons per year."
I think you are mixing up countries!
Nigeria is go for oil and oil spills and poverty and so on allowing to effectively steal the goodies from that country
but not yet uranium as far as I know!
yes, it should have said Namibia
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/07/namibia-expands-uranium-mines-as.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-21/uranium-prices-have-limited-ups...
Uranium supplies will exceed demand through 2012 and there is “limited upside” to prices for at least six months, London-based research company CRU said.
This year production is expected to rise to 55,000 tons from 50,772 tons last year, according to data from the World Nuclear Association.
Demand is expected to increase by 46 percent over the next decade, mainly driven by China, according to CRU. “China’s propensity for heavy and early stockpiling will also influence the market,” Schodde said in the presentation.
Supplies from dismantled nuclear weapons and other sources not directly from mines will fall to 13 percent of demand by 2020 from 27 percent last year, he said.
======
Pretty much in agreement with my predictions on uranium
Strange,
you forgot again to copy and paste the following section from the article:
``Demand Doubles
Mine supply is expected to grow primarily in Namibia, Niger and Kazakhstan, he said. By 2030, the projected supply from mines may lag behind demand by as much as 30,000 tons as demand doubles, according to CRU."
30000 tons missing by 2030? and this is supposed to agree with your
predictions on uranium?
Lets try to get the maths correct!
1) 51000 tons mined in 2009 and 65000 tons demand,
the secondary supply in 2009 was roughly 20000 tons
and 10000 tons of that will be gone at the end of 2013 (the article says by 2020 which says the same thing somehow).
2) 55000 tons in 2010.. ( I believe it when I see it.. any bet on the 18000 tons from Kazakhstan this year?)
3) for the demand doubling by 2030 thus 370 GWe will double to 740 GWe and
the required uranium supply by 2030 from mining should make almost 100% of it (-10000 tons perhaps)
thus 120 000 tons of uranium need to be extracted accordingly by 2030 (about 2 times more than in 2009)
but .. 30000 tons are missing according to the article.
You can't agree with that!
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. If demand increase that much, so will supply. I don't find it meaningful to project a shortage of an abundant mineral 20 years from now. New extraction don't take nearly that long to get on-stream.
You seem to misunderstand.
The article linked/quoted by advancednano
says a certain thing. Namely that 30000 tons of uranium per year are missing to fulfill even the modest
1-2% annual growth by 2030.
So you might conclude that you think the bloomberg article is meaningless
or wrong or whatever.
But you can agree that this is what is said in the article!
and just in case here is what you predicted last year:
jeppen on August 20, 2009 - 10:56pm
Year GWe TWhe
2008 373 2601
2009 375 2615
2010 379 2643
2011 385 2685
2012 393 2740
2013 403 2810
2014 415 2894
2015 429 2991
2016 445 3103
Well, it's quite natural that some of the supply to match optimistic demand projections is "missing" in a 20-year perspective, since all mines that will come on-stream until then aren't planned yet.
Nice of you to keep track of my projections. Today there is 375 GWe nuclear and only 60 GWe is under construction. So I should probably revise my prediction downward, but I'll wait and see.
your are welcome
but today is 373 GWe and
2009 was a little less
and only 2560 TWhe ..
http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/
I usually go by this table, which claims 375 GWe:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html
I see,
actually some time back I asked the IAEA people about the WNA/PRIS differences
If I remember correctly the answer was that there is a mixture with net and brut capacity
but never mind, what counts is the number of TWhe per year.
michael
I don't remember, but I think the basis of my projection was something like this:
Initiated construction (number of reactors):
2004: 2
2005: 3
2006: 4
2007: 7
2008: 10
2009: 12
2010H1: 8
So, construction seem to increase by around two reactors per year. If the trend continues, the world has a nuclear "acceleration" of around 2 GW/year^2. I might have been a year early or so in my estimation of the base velocity, though. It all depends on decommissioning rate and construction times.
I don't know how you made this estimate but in any case
assuming you have such doubling, for how many future years could this go on?
In the 1980s there were 213 reactor completions or about 21 per year.
The world GDP has doubled. China and India were not part of the last round of building and USA had its construction peak in the 1970s.
comparable sized facilities for coal which china completes at better than one per week.
Plus coal facilities can swap out the burner for nuclear and leave the turbine and balance of plant and grid connections.
So 100 reactors per year is feasible for starting and completing.
Doubling based on GDP and converting the new coal construction and swapping out coal plants.
this is for large nuclear plants of the 1GW-2GW range.
Factory mass produced small reactors could go up to thousands per year
It's no estimate, it's real-world (historic) figures for construction starts. My projection is based on a year or two extrapolation from the trend and a few assumptions about decommissioning and construction time.
No doubling either, but a construction ramping with two more reactors per year started each year. If this goes on for about 40 years, we'd be at a 100 per year - which advancednano mentioned is feasible from an industrial capacity point of view. Of course, for this to work sustainably, the once-through conventional fuel cycle won't do.
A hundred reactors per year would add about 40Wth per capita/year in a 9 billion world. Assuming an 80-year life, that would in time generate a steady-state fleet of 8000 reactors with a capacity of 3.2KWth/capita, which should be in the right ball-park.
NB, I don't say we'll do this. I'm just saying this is what we'll do if we can't find anything better. If fusion turns out well, that might be the future instead. In the unlikely event that we find wind + storage to be better, we'll do that. But if we find no such a holy grail, the 100 nukes per year is what we'll get.
``If this goes on for about 40 years, we'd be at a 100 per year ...
Of course, for this to work sustainably, the once-through conventional fuel cycle won't do."
Can we really agree on this statement? That would be a nice achievement!
and thus (+2 per year starting construction)
for this year we have 8 so far as you quoted Pris
so we should see at least 4 more? (lets allow +-2 fluctuations)
thus 10-12 this year
2011 12-14
2013 16-18
and
2015 20-22
etc
actually I prefer to look at the number actually connected to the grid per year
as this is well defined
and accordingly it will be rather constant for the next 5 years at best!
12 was last year. I would expect 14 +- 2 this year and 16 +- 2 next year.
Well, Tomari 3 of Japan was initiated in 2004 and connected 2009 and similarly Lingao 3 of China was initiated in 2005 and connected 2010 (both less than 4.5 years construction time). Thus it doesn't seem much too optimistic to assume grid connection will follow construction initiation with a five year lag. So we may predict this year ~3 reactors connected (already accomplished) and ~14 reactors connected in 2015. Hardly constant!
This illustrates why your disregard of construction initiations will make you projections lack accuracy. You try to predict how many five year olds we'll have in the next five years by looking at how many are five today. It would benefit your accuracy to look at how many are 0-4 years old instead.
Fine 14+-2 and 16+- next year and so on. Lets see.
concerning the grid connection per year.
You can just look up how many of the 10 reactors supposed to become online this year
were supposed to become online in 2007/2008 and 09
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html
for the February 2010 status
(I managed to get older versions by googling but unfortunately the WNA does not like
to keep track of their predictions..
in our exchanges last year someone posted the older version .. don't remember the post number)
True, right now it seems that China and Japan manage to get their reactors more or less within the planned schedule.
Others do not!
but I admire the number of new start ups, the cost overruns for all big projects (not only in nuclear energy)
as well as the happening decline of reliability with the older reactors.
``You try to predict how many five year olds we'll have in the next five years by looking at how many are five today. It would benefit your accuracy to look at how many are 0-4 years old instead."
no, I just compare the predicted numbers to become online with reality during the past 10 years lets say.
accordingly .. the Red Book 2009 (just out) says for 2010 the installed nuclear capacity should be between
380.9 GWe to 393.3 GWe
the 2007 book said
377-392 GWe
reality right now is 373 GWe (according to their own data base!).
Fact is - barring a game-changing event, the initiated reactors will be completed and will thus have an average construction time. If the average isn't five years, it may be six years. Doesn't matter much.
So, if the initiation ramps, the completion will ramp similarly a number of years later. Since construction ramping began some 6 years ago, the completion ramping can be expected to start right about now, depending on what your estimate of average completion time is.
I maintain that it is much better to predict completion by matching with initiation than by drawing arbitrary negative conclusions from that "the Reed Book has been too optimistic before".
``I maintain that it is much better to predict completion by matching with initiation than by drawing arbitrary negative conclusions from that "the Reed Book has been too optimistic before"."
Fine, lets see and compare the past/present WNA timelines for new reactor grid connections with reality.
Areva (Siemens left Areva which does not help much) does not have a great record for timelines.
Canadian and Russian ones are terrible so far
and Americans.. well not much data here.
Japanese and Chinese do much better.
but performance of Japanese reactors (even without earthquake trouble) is not great.
No, let's not. Let's just look at reality and make our own projections.
Concerning ``reality" sure we seem to agree that this is the only way of correcting guesstimates
about projections.
But how do you make projections if not based on past reality checks?
And yes, past reality checks tell a lot!
The alternative is:
"lets forget all what we learned in the past and start from zero again
this (or next(?)) year"
fine, from now on things will work out according to plans.
but so we did last summer and the year 2009 version of this exercise was not a great "nuclear renaissance year either".
Do we agree that the 2,3,4,7,10,12... construction initiation ramping from 2004 onwards will lead to similar reactor grid connection numbers after the average construction time?
If so, based on past data, the standardisation of reactors such as AP1000, the dominance of China and so on, what is your estimate of the average construction time? I.e, when will the ramping starting 2004 begin to show in completion numbers?
As I said, my estimate is 5-6 years. (I'll count restarts as new starts. It isn't meaningful to count for instance Russian completion of some 80-ies project as a 30-year completion time - that'll just screw the numbers up.)
agreed, the russian chernobyl ones should be excluded from the counting. Similar perhaps for the latest version of the russian type.
like the one in Iran. The Candu types are also problematic. Similar for the Fast Reactors
and the french EPR ..
but all others (half of them?) are made on schedule with perhaps 20-30% more (+1-2 years)
assuming that no "problems" like with financing, policy changes, wars, earthquakes etc will happen.
But, such financing problems are going to happen so in my view 5-10 years remains a good estimate.
My projection on uranium is out to about 2018-2020.
so if there was a shortage in 2030 starting in 2025 that is outside the date range of my prediction.
My prediction for 2010 is 56,000 tons and the WNA is predicting 55,000 tons.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/07/my-uranium-and-nuclear-bets-on-oil-drum...
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/07/world-uranium-production-for-2009-was.html
Updated Uranium predictions Brian Wang Dittmar midpoint 2009 49,722 tons 44,000 tons ACTUAL 50,572 tons WINNER Brian Wang, Dittmar WRONG 2010 56000 tons 45,000 tons 50,500 tons 2011 60000 tons 45,000 52,500 tons 2012 64000 tons 45,000 54,500 tons 2013 68000 tons 45,000 56,500 tons 2014 72000 tons 45,000 58,500 tons 2015 76000 tons 45,000 60,500 tons 2016 80000 tons 45,000 62,500 tons 2017 84000 tons 45,000 64,500 tons 2018 88000 tons 45,000 66,500 tonsYou predicted flat uranium production in 2009 and are already over 15% too low.
The 30,000 tons could be addressed if Australia's politics get sorted out and the Olympic Dam expansion was in place to increase production to 19,000 tons from that mine. Get another big Australian or Canadian mines or more from Russia etc... and the gap is closed.
Or more exploration or increasing efficiency of reactors by about 20%. Because the 2030 shortfall is based on about 120,000 tons of supply
CRU -
http://crugroup.com/Documents/UraniumPressRelease2009Sep23.pdf
By 2030, miners will need a uranium price of US$58/lb (in real 2009 dollars) to justify bringing these new projects on stream
CRU Group, the leading metals and mining consultancy firm, forecasts a major escalation in uranium mining costs towards $60/lb for the ‘next generation’ of projects required to meet demand projections over the next two decades
Over the next two decades, CRU believes that mine production needs to double to meet forecast demand.
Unclear what the tonnages are. Do not have access to the paid CRU report.
It looks like if price went up to $70-100/lb there would be no supply problem because the next layer of mine projects would be justified.
ok, I told you already (and the oildrum people) that you won the mining part for 2009
(you lost however the more relevant part of the electric energy production from nuclear)
lets see for the coming years ..
anyway it would be nice if you copy and paste the entire messages
including the one you do not like.
How do you get from "By 2030, the projected supply from mines may lag behind demand by as much as 30,000 tons as demand doubles" to "30000 tons are missing according to the article"?
What else does "lag behind as 30000 tons" stand for?
or perhaps you would have liked to read
"will potentially be missing as this mining capacity is not yet envisioned"
or similar?
@Michael - I think what Bill was trying to point out was the fact that you are overlooking the conditional words indicating uncertainty in the estimate.
"May" and "as much as" are words used by people who recognize the impossibility of precise predictions of the future. When I see an estimate that says "may" I silently add the phrase "and may not". When I see "as much as" I recognize that the estimator is trying to put an upper bound on a number, but also recognizes that a much lower number might also be true. That is especially true in predicting market supplies because people will make choices that change production levels as prices and demand changes.
One very important example of this kind of careful conditional wording and critical thinking comes from the WHO study of the health effects of the Chernobyl accident.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs303/en/index.html
Here is a sentence that uses words expressing uncertainty:
"The Expert Group concluded that there may be up to 4 000 additional cancer deaths among the three highest exposed groups over their lifetime."
A critical reader who understands the probabilistic nature of the health effects of radiation will recognize that the words "may be up to" indicate that the number represents an upper bound, not a prediction with any precision. There is also a good chance that the number will be much lower than 4,000 and may even be zero.
Some other readers - often journalists - who want to express a number and hate the fact that there really is no way to "know" what will happen in the future will take the number and remove the conditional words, thus changing the entire meaning of the sentence and causing people to wonder if they are going to be one of the 4,000 people who are fated to die early from cancer because they were "exposed".
That is how people can be made afraid of something rather than learning how to understand the way the physics, chemistry and biology all interact to enable human to live in an uncertain world full of "dangerous" chemicals and scary radioactive substances.
mostly agreed!
However concerning the point of the uranium requirements and the predictions:
Plans for new reactors exist and ``may" or ``may not be" realized.
Building them is only one part in the equation.
The required new uranium mines and other infrastructure (10 year time scale at least) need to be constructed as well.
The "article" in question quotes basically the "state of the art" and says without extra effort
30000 tons of uranium will be missing by 2030 if this new power plants will be constructed.
Thus, those who promote other peoples money for such projects should tell the people
honestly that much more efforts are required to realize all these things!
Dropping such parts from a "copy and paste" statement is not good practice!
No, nobody is required to paste stuff you find nuke-negative when they display other parts of a text. The copyer is just required to paste enough to properly present the point he wants to make, and he did just that.
Also, of course current uranium mine plans doesn't cover optimistic nuke buildout projections out to 2030! This is to be expected - it would be very strange if it were otherwise. There is even less need to copy-and-paste self-evident stuff.
The 30,000 ton shortfall is if the price of Uranium stays at $56-60 per pound or less.
If the price goes higher then the supplies are there. The extra effort is to bring some more expensive mines online. The shortfall the report is talking about is 2030, which is plenty of time for mines in various places to be developed. It is also time for fuel to get changed with better cladding, higher enrichment, changing to annular fuel etc...
You do not search for the statements or sources or facts that go against your fixed viewpoint. Even when confronted with facts sometimes you will try to deny them (Kazakhstan production reports). I pointed out the other CRU group source that discusses the price of uranium aspect of their forecast.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/07/uranium-prediction-by-cru-and-china.html
You could incorporate the discussion of using enrichment of tails and depleted uranium as a means to add more supply.
BTW: I am willing to bet that Kazakhstan will have 2010 production over 16,500 tons.
They have a decent chance of getting over their 18000 ton target, but I am not going to bet on that at this point. Project could slip by a quarter or two and effect the production ramp or an existing set of mines could run into minor difficulties.
16,500 is my 95% confidence level. 17,200 is my 50% confidence level and 18,000 is my 35% confidence level. For 18,000 I think they need to be going at 5,000 tons in the fourth quarter.
Technically that could be done but business wise they may decide to slow the ramp or they would be over 20,000 tons per year in 2011.
I am not in denial about the results presented by Kazakhstan and I accept them.
(I just have some doubts).
but lets do another bet as this is kind of fun
Reading the news from their own website (you do as well I guess) it seems that their new target for this year is 15000 tons
So I would say 15000 tons or less for 2010.
Thus the midpoint 15750 right (to decide who wins and who looses).
same conditions as last year (I send a bottle of wine to the oil drum people in case .. still have to get advice on how to do that)
For 2011 .. if you want we can add something as well. So I say they will not achieve even the 2010 target of 18000 tons.
One might add a further speculation bet for how many more reactors will be declared grid connected during 2010.
WNA February states 10 in total (three so far)
Thus I put three more at most as possible (still a record number compared to many years back)
The predictions and the bet is for the uranium production of the country of Kazakhstan.
So not just Kazatomprom, although that is most of the production.
Again we use the World Nuclear Association numbers of uranium production when reported.
I agree to the Kazakhstan uranium production bets for 2010 and 2011
Brian Wang Dittmar Midpoint 2010 16500 tons 15000 tons 15750 tons 2011 18000 t ormore 17,999.9 tons or less 18000 tonsHi Brian, accepted.
michael
Long-term uranium supply is simply not an issue. Even assuming substantial growth in the use of nuclear, and no reprocessing or breeding, it will be many centuries, if not longer, before uranium runs out. Plenty of time to develop breeders, fusion, renewables, what have you...
Uranium is a ubiquitous element in the earth's crust that we've barely started looking for. To use a term people here at TOD should be familiar with, we are just at the beginning of the "discovery curve" for uranium. With oil and gas on the other hand, we are near the end of the discovery curve. The amount of money and resources spent so far on finding uranium is negligible compared to that spent on finding oil and gas. (And despite that, we're still not finding much new oil, not enough to offset consumption.) I hear that it costs 300 times less money to find new uranium desposits than it does to find oil deposits (on a per unit energy extracted basis). Do you know what our estimates were for total oil/gas endowment when we were at the beginning of their discovery curves (i.e., early in the 20th century)? Less than 1% of current endowment estimates! To give you a picture, Middle East (Arab) oil wasn't discoverd yet. It's not a matter of moving on to lower and lower-grade uranium reserves. We will continue to find new, high-grade uranium reserves, well into the foreseeable future. Reserves will actually go up with time, the way they did with oil.
In addition to not accounting for future discoveries, another issue with official (e.g., Redbook) reserves estimates is that they use a ridiculously low price cutoff (above which reserves are classified as "not economically recoverable"). I heard someone here say that the Redbook cutoff was $100 per pound of ore. This ore cost contributes only ~0.4 cents/kW-hr to the cost of nuclear electricity (i.e., ~5% of the total cost). A much higher price can be afforded, before the ore cost significantly impacts the total cost, and makes nuclear uncompetitive. As the allowable ore price increases, recoverable reserves increase exponentially. The result is centuries, if not millenia, of reserves. If we ever do breed, the raw ore cost would drop by another factor of ~50, making it possible to rely on the (low) concentration of uranium in the base granite that forms much of the earth's crust (i.e., an infinite fuel supply). Seawater would work too.
Finally, I'm not sure what Gail's point is concerning oil use for uranium extraction. As shown in the links below, nuclear's overall energy inputs are negligible. Similarly, nuclear's overall net CO2 emissions are negligible as well. Oil use for uranium mining (specifically) would be just one tiny part of the overall energy inputs. This will never be an issue. Besides, electric vehicles are a possibility (in the future) you know.
http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_...
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull422/article4.pdf
While I agree with that statement, the low price elasticity of consumption coupled with the long lag times for creating new supply are cause for worry about the potential for temporary (say five year) shortages. I don't have any confidence that our capitalist syetem can do intertemporal optimization. It seems to respond only to current price.
You (and Gail) raise a valid point about the potential for temporary shortages, due to the long and difficult process of getting new production capacity (mines) on line, and the possibility of large price swings due to the lack of price elasticity (since the ore cost is such a small fraction of the overall cost).
That said, nuclear is much less vulnerable (than fossil fuels) to price swings, or outright supply cutoffs, for many of the same reasons. Due to its tiny physical size (per unit energy produced) it is very easy to store large amounts of uranium fuel (years worth) from a practical perspective (i.e., it wouldn't take up much space). From an economic perspective, the "opportunity cost" of buying a large amount of uranium (years of supply) and keeping it in storage is also very low, since the ore cost is only a few percent of the final power cost.
For these reasons, along with the fact that most of the uranium supply is in friendly stable nations like Canada, Australia and the US itself, the economic, geopolitical, and security issues associated with fossil fuel imports largely don't apply to nuclear. It's not that those effects aren't there at all for nuclear. It's just that the magnitude of the issue/effect is orders of magnitude smaller.
@Kingfish - there are many myths about the supply of uranium. A good, publicly available summary of resource can be found at the World Nuclear Association's information site at
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html
You can also watch the world markets to see that even with a major planned increase in nuclear energy use in China, the US, Southeast Asia, India, and other countries, the price of uranium has been hanging around $40 per pound, with the exception of a brief spike in 2008. That is the same price - without any adjustment for inflation - as it was in the early 1970s when you could purchase oil at $3 per barrel.
If there was a coming scarcity, the market price would be higher and going up.
The other thing to know about uranium is that we currently use only 0.7% of the resource - we know how to make use of the other 99.3% but it is a bit more effort to do so. If we start running short, we will start improving our utilization.
Then there is the thorium resource - but that is a topic that I am sure others will introduce into the discussion.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
The fuel is not a significant part of the cost of running the plant either. Nuclear fuel would have to go very, very high for that to be the case. The major costs are capital, labor, engineering, waste management, safety protocols, insurance, etc.
Whether or not nuclear fuel is a large part of the cost of running a plant, nuclear power plants still have to have it, regardless of price.
Price seems to react to current supply and demand more than what people think of as longer-term supply and demand. But it takes a while to get new production set up and in place. I expect it also takes time to start making better use of the uranium we have.
Because of the time lags (and perhaps also financial crises) we could end up with supply gaps, where theoretically none should exist. Hopefully, nuclear power plants are buying uranium far enough ahead that there should not be an issue--but I am not really sure this is the case.
We produce something like 10% of our uranium in the US.
@Gail - you have expressed some legitimate concerns, but there are significant advantages in the time lags associated with the nuclear fuel cycle compared to the fossil fuel cycle.
For example - currently operating commercial reactors in the US only need new fuel every 18-24 months. When they refuel, they only replace 1/3 of the core fuel elements. They have plenty of space on site to store their next set of elements, so it is quite possible to have no need to actually purchase new fuel for as long as 4 years into the future.
Many utilities have even more advanced purchase programs. We are also spooling up our long dormant uranium mining industry. It was shut down not because we came close to running out of material, but because the material prices on the open market for several decades got so low that it just did not make any sense to keep mining here.
Though there is some uranium coming from places that we might not consider to be very stable, about half of the world's known uranium supplies are located in Canada and Australia, two countries that are unlikely to decide to cut us off in the near future.
Rod Adams
China is stockpiling Uranium in advance of the new reactors coming online and cutting deals for supply all over the world.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-11/uranium-bottoming-as-china-boos...
Great post, Rod!
Regarding the other 99.3%, note that M. King Hubbert's identification of peak oil in 1956 included a discussion of breeder reactors.
The final paragraph of "Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels" is included here:
"In order to see more clearly what these events may imply, it will be informative to consider them on a somewhat longer time scale than that which we customarily employ. Attention is accordingly invited to Figure 30 which covers the time span from 5000 years ago - the dawn of recorded history - to 5000 years in the future. On such a time scale the discovery, exploitation, and exhaustion of the fossil fuels will be seen to be but an ephemeral event in the span of recorded history. There is promise, however, provided mankind can solve its international problems and not destroy itself with nuclear weapons, and provided that the world population (which is now expanding at such a rate as to double in less than a century) can somehow be brought under control, that we may at last have found an energy supply adequate for our needs at least for at least the next few centuries of the "forseeable future."
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf
Hubbert was referring to nuclear fission of fertile isotopes using breeder reactor technology. I think he was spot-on in identifying not just peak oil, but threats due to overpopulation and nuclear weapon proliferation, and the high energy density promise of nuclear fuels. Accessing nuclear power while discouraging proliferation of human beings and nuclear weapons are political problems.
Hmm isn't that what was supposed to happen to oil and then demand destruction threw a monkey wrench into that idea.
Oh and isn't the
comingcurrent financial crisis going to make all this moot in the same way that Gail often tells us that we won't have the credit available to implement renewables?Or we won't be able to maintain our roads. And how are you ever going to build nuclear reactors if you have to travel on gravel roads?
Anyways I think this kind of nuclear reactor can only be viewed as a fossil fuel extender until our entire civilization collapses when we finally do run out of fossil fuel, so why bother?
/snark off!
Fred,if you want to curl up in the foetal position in a corner then that is your right.
However,some prefer to tackle the problems we have with practical solutions.None of us would be here if our ancestors had just rolled over and died during the last ice age or any one of the many potentially catastrophic occurences of the past.
thirra, I can assure you I'm far from curled up in the foetal position.
OK! Prove they are practical for the entire world within the context of the current energy and fiscal crisis without a totally new paradigm shift in how we construe industrial civilization and that they are indeed a panacea and a better choice than living within our allotted energy budget.
Though I do find it quite amusing that when I say that renewables such as wind and solar are economically viable today in the real world, disclaimer:I own a small Solar energy business,BTW. when I disagree that renewables should be seen only as fossil fuel extenders. When I state that our current practices are patently untenable but I see these forms of energy generation as being part of a new non BAU paradigm. I am often told exactly the same thing as I'm saying here. Therefore the snark.
My question is what makes the maintenance of BAU with small scale nuclear reactor a more reasonable proposition than a complete redesign of current paradigm. I don't see it, given the info provided.
I do not see any way to continue with BAU! That's very different from retreating into a cave and hoping that lightning strikes a tree stump near by. Case in point, if your energy source is intermittent then learn how to store it and conserve it better, work with what you have rather than attempt to substitute an unsustainable model with another unsustainable model.
I'm sorry if you don't like my point of view but I think it reality based.
Maybe, however past performance is no guarantee of future success... ask the Neanderthals, they weren't all that different from us but they aren't around anymore are they? Who knows another million years or so some highly evolved primate descendant of ours that manages to make it through the evolutionary bottleneck of the sixth and greatest extinction event will be looking at a few remnants of skull fragments from that primitive self destructive evolutionary dead end known as Homo Sapiens in a museum somewhere. I'd bet if they exist they won't squander energy like we have!
Thanks Fred - like you I don't see a continuance of BAU.The major problems are population overshoot,climate change and energy.Like you I have a personal interest in Solar PV,having recently installed a 5.4kw system,grid connected,with backup.The reason why I went to the considerable extra expense of a backup is that I am not confident that the current,or expected,state and federal governments in Australia have the competence to maintain a base load power grid,or supply power at something like a reasonable price.
There is a current conventional wisdom in some circles here that Australia can build a nationwide grid 100% renewable powered by 2020.The latest manifestation of this idea is the Beyond Zero Emissions report.I don't have a direct link to this 198 page PDF (8mb) however you can access it via www.bravenewclimate.com - Warning,this is pronuclear site but has a lot of interesting information on it,not just about nuclear.
I regard this report as being at least 50% fantasy and most of the rest as wishful thinking.
My reality based opinion is that Australia has the choice between nuclear or fossil fuels.Given the political reality at present the latter will be the default choice - such is life.
I see renewables,mainly Solar PV and Solar Thermal,as having a niche market in remote areas where grid connection is not viable.Small,household type grid connected Solar PV,at present subsidized,will probably not survive more stringent economic times because of the difficulty of using it on a large scale without destabilizing the grid.
A complete redesign of the current paradigm is going to happen whether we like it or not.How it happens is still,in a large measure,up to us.You can take the doomer view and get together your survival kit or you can take the cornucopian/technocopian view and basically continue BAU until you can't.Neither is the way forward.
I think we can still adapt to the inevitable changes and nuclear power for base load electricity generation is part of that adaptation.
re Neanderthals - there is Neanderthal DNA in our present genome so,presumably,there was some interbreeding going on.Who knows what the future holds for Homo Saps but it will probably be extinction,sooner rather than later,if sufficient numbers take the negative path.
thirra, I suspect we are more on the same page than not.
I live in South Florida (hurricanes and power outages) so battery back up systems are not that hard of a sell. I'm actually selling completely off grid systems in the Miami Metropolitan are. We market them as a substitute for the standard gasoline powered backup generator, We just do a hookup in the same way as the gas generators and it's much easier to go through the permitting process than for grid tied systems. We have the inverters set up to top off the battery bank when the sun isn't shining. We do a lot of education and set up only a small part of the house with some basic LED lights and appliances, small fridge, that will only be used if there is a power outage to the main grid.
I agree, I'm trying to slither along the edges of both those mental modes until I see a crack that I can use to get through to the other side. maybe I'll get lucky, no illusions though.
Yep! According to recent research that's pretty much a given.
So you are in the land down under, eh? I originally hail from Brazil, if things go south around here so will I >;^)
A growing body of plant designers, utility companies, government agencies and financial players are recognizing that smaller plants can take advantage of greater opportunities to apply lessons learned, take advantage of the engineering and tooling savings possible with higher numbers of units and better meet customer needs in terms of capacity additions and financing. The resulting systems are a welcome addition to the nuclear power plant menu, which has previously been limited to one size - extra large. Developing a broader range of system choices using nuclear fission energy could have a measurable impact on segments of the energy market that have been most often served by burning distillate fuel or natural gas. Small modular reactors offer a reason to be optimistic that human society will have access to all of the energy that it needs for increased prosperity for larger portion of the population.
AppropriatelyNamedRod, we've spent several weeks here building the case that BAU is simply not possible from here on out. I suppose you didn't read those. Build it and they will come? The big scale nuclear is not net energy, so we'll try small instead, even though the same safety issues apply when there are more but smaller reactors, creating even more problems? And we're going to scatter this stuff all over the landscape, dispersing the risk, to boot? Is this going to keep Phoenix going after the Colorado River dries up? Is the American way of life non-negotiable to you? Or are you just having dreams of lucre? Where's the big picture perspective here? What's your motive? Out of uranium, out of places to put the waste, one question for you. How many Gulf of Mexicos (or Nevadas, perhaps) are you willing to trash in order to keep BusinessAsUsual afloat?
Repeat after me--Hi, I'm ARod, and I'm sad and bargaining today.
@Iaato - I do not like business as usual - I see the human condition as getting better, enabled by abundant, emission free energy that is superior in many different ways to burning hydrocarbons. If I did not know about fission, I would be as pessimistic as you apparently are.
I have glimpsed the future while operating a small, modular reactor on board a submarine. The amount of fuel required to propel that 9,000 ton ship for 14 years weighed just a bit more than my own body mass. The waste left over after 14 years of operation would fit under my office desk - but I would give it a bit of shielding for protection. All of the used cores that have powered US naval vessels sit in a single facility in Idaho.
Interesting that you happen to mention the power requirements for Phoenix. That city is already powered by the largest nuclear station currently operating in the US at Palo Verde. The three large reactors on that site are cooled by the waste water from the city.
http://www.pnm.com/systems/pv.htm
Also to your point - I have been trying for the past 17 years to become incredibly wealthy based on my fission based investments. While waiting for Godot to arrive, I maintained a day job as an active duty officer in the US Navy, a position that I just left about a month ago. I still hope to one day strike it rich by providing lots of fission based electricity and propulsion power to interested customers. If you do not want to help, stop buying electricity.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Sorry, Rod, I gave you too many questions, when I really only wanted you to answer the one. You are not describing BAU as defense in your response to me, you are describing BusinessAsWeUsedToDo. You're describing the way we did things during the biggest run-up in energy flowthrough in the history of man. My question is for the future. How many Gulf of Mexicos are you willing to sacrifice to git 'er done?
@Iaato - none. How in the world do you associate the Gulf of Mexico with nuclear energy? That was a "clean natural gas" explosion and had NOTHING to do with nuclear energy. We do not find uranium at the bottom of the ocean under 5,000 feet of water.
If you put all of the used nuclear fuel produced in the US in 50 years of a silly "once through" fuel cycle in a single location, it would still only cover a football field to a depth lower than the goal posts.
I am quite willing to sacrifice a land area smaller than the stadium and parking area of any one of dozens of football cathedrals around the country in order to enable the continued production of reliable, emission free electricity.
How in the world do you associate the Gulf of Mexico with nuclear energy? That was a "clean natural gas" explosion and had NOTHING to do with nuclear energy. We do not find uranium at the bottom of the ocean under 5,000 feet of water.
Whew, that's a relief. No fossil fuels needed to make these plants? They must be really different than the traditional ones, then.
http://www.mnforsustain.org/nukpwr_tyner_g_net_energy_from_nuclear_power...
So the same thing for wind turbines. 1000 3 Megawatt wind turbines needed to equal one 1 GigaWatt nuclear powerplant.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/07/per-peterson-information-on-steel-and.html
11 times more steel and 5 times more cement needed to make the same energy from wind turbines versus nuclear.
More construction and more material means more oil usage. Steel and cement also require mining and energy to produce.
Exactly, Nano. That's why we're screwed. It ALL requires fossil fuels and materials to develop. Thank you.
By the way, ARod mentions solution mining and electric shovels as a solution to peak uranium. Electric shovels means using higher quality energy of electricity to mine uranium, which is the same fix we are in with tar sands with using NG to mine asphalt. Round and round we go, with each iteration yielding less and less energy for more and more effort, until we're so far beyond netzero that we're trashing the environment on a grand scale. And I looked up solution mining. It sounds like fracking for the nuclear crowd. I'm serious about the Gulf of Mexico question. Your narrow, technologically-focused thinking is just what got us where we are today, ARod. I'm going to call these things doomsday devices. Guess who said this:
Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.
Fossil fuels can be replaced by either electricity or synthetic liquid fuels in *every* case.
LA-UR-07-7897: Green Freedom: A Concept for Producing Carbon-Neutral Synthetic Fuels and Chemicals (PDF, 1.8MB)
LA-UR-08-1805: Green Freedom Synthetic Fuels and Chemicals Production (PDF, 1.2MB)
@Iaato -
I really do not know and do not care what kind of anti human you are quoting. Please do yourself a favor, turn off your computer, shut off your lights, wander out into your self sustaining garden, and sew a few of the seeds that you saved from last year's harvest. Then make sure that you do not turn on your television, eat fresh fruit out of season, order farm raise shrimp from Thailand, or enjoy a nice bottle of wine unless you grew your own grapes.
I LIKE technology. It is a representation of a very human desire to create new things and make a better life. Sure, the path forward is never straight and there are plenty of evil people in the world, but, in general, things are better now than they were 50 years ago when I was born. A large measure of that is due to the technological progress made based on the hard work, creative thinking and simple perseverance of people like Weinberg, Rickover, Jobs, Gates, Brin, Metcalf, Rockwell, and hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of technological leaders with great ideas for improving the human condition.
Rod Adams
Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.
LOL, LOL, LOL. Is this guy one of your heroes, too? You boys keep making my points for me. Time to go back to the books, maybe, and reread some of this stuff? The "anti-human" guy who said the things above also said these:
That's nice, since you don't seem to make any yourself. Your big block of citations is quite meaningless, and so is the rambling that preceded it.
A point even less valid than an appeal to authority, is an appeal to non-authority. Einstein was authority in physics, but did and said plenty silly things beyond his field of specialty - such as many of the quotes you seem to like.
@Iaato - there is a big difference between recognizing the scientific truth of an equation and some sort of implied agreement with the ethics and philosophies of the man who discovered that truth. I admire Einstein as a physicist but have never paid any attention to his other musings.
"I admire Einstein as a physicist but have never paid any attention to his other musings."
I like the way you term them "musings" as if they are not really that important and shouldn't really capture the attention of any serious person. Makes your position all the clearer.
Do you consider Einstein's ethics, such as his despise and mistreatment of women, and his neglect of his own children, as something to be admired?
Einstein was a great theoretical physicist. This says absolutely nothing about his qualities in other fields, and pretending it does is fallacious. In particular when it comes to ethics.
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/reviews/700/the-unexpected-einstein-the-re...
Your link is full of factual errors:
Good god. What idiocy. Do you really buy into this? It is totally wrong.
Einstein did not leave high school (gymnasium) in order to work at the Swiss patent office. In fact, Einstein was admitted to the ETH after failing his entrance exam the first time around, in 1895, and he did not fail the exam on the mathematics or physics sections. He renounced his German citizenship in 1896 and did not apply for Swiss citizenship until 1899. His family had moved to Switzerland before 1895. He graduated from the ETH in 1900 as a teacher of mathematics and physics.
The fact is: Einstein met Mileva Maric at the ETH, because she was a fellow student there.
If Einstein was so useless in high school that he had to go work at the patent office (in Zurich!) right after high school (in Germany!), then how did he ever manage to get a degree from the ETH? And how on earth did he ever meet Mileva in the first place?
Einstein's initial employment at the patent office after his graduation from the ETH, came about because no one would employ this brilliant young man as an academic anywhere else, and that fact was almost certainly in part due to very wide spread anti-Semitism.
In fact: Einstein did well in high school. He was a good student. His record is all public.
Mileva Maric did not create special relativity. The problem with that ridiculous suggestion is that Mileva Maric never, ever claimed to have
done it. On the other hand Einstein's accomplishments in physcis are by no means limited to special relativity.
And what on earth could you, or I, at this late date, know about Einstein's attitudes towards women?
Is the link above the basis on which you assert that Einstein despised and mistreated women and neglected his children? I can assert, with equal credibility, that Einstein loved women and treated them all very well.
It's well-known and well-documented that Einstein was a womanizer and that he had many affairs with women: but does that imply that he despised them?
Einstein certainly had a bad marriage with his first wife, Mileva. Having a bad marriage is far from unique among human beings: in fact it's probably
more the general rule. In the US, divorce rates hover around 50% I think.
As for providing for his children by Mileva Maric: Einstein did so. Better than many men can, in fact. As part of the divorce agreement between the two, Einstein promised his future Nobel prize money to Mileva, though he refused to give her full control over that money. He delivered the money after he won it. Mileva bought two or three apartment buildings in Zurich with the money.
Was Einstein an attentive father to his children by Mileva? Almost certainly not. Did he love his children? Did he treat them well when they were young? I've seen no evidence that would lead me to believe anything to the contrary.
The circumstance of having an absent father is hardly rare among children of successful men. It doesn't mean that such men despise or mistreat women.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mileva_Mari%C4%87
In addition,
which one of the Einstein quotes and political ideas you do not like Loiz et al?
``This says absolutely nothing about his qualities in other fields, and pretending it does is fallacious. In particular when it comes to ethics."
so to say
shoot the message not the messenger (if you can!)
Perhaps I'm included in the "et al"? However, I won't bother to shoot the message, because there isn't much of a message to shoot. Words of wisdom may be fun and thought provoking, but they aren't arguments. I won't shoot the messenger either - he was a smart guy. However, he has been dead for some 50 years and didn't know what we know today.
This sentiment appeared to me to be out of character for
Einstein, at least if taken as a blanket statement.
I wondered what might have been the historical context in which
Einstein said this and whether it's actually a complete and
accurate quotation.
The full quotation isn't hard to trace. It's not a blanket
statement about technological progress.
Instead it refers to specific historical events (World War
I). The above version is also not accurate. Words which
make a difference to the meaning were excerpted.
[Emphasis mine]
(Einstein to Heinrich Zangger, Zurich 6 December 1917, as quoted
in Albert Einstein, The Human Side: New Glimpses From His
Archives, by Albert Einstein, Helen Dukas, Banesh Hoffmann)
When one understands that the source is a personal letter,
written during an era in which the extremely negative uses to
which technology can be put would have been uppermost in many
people's minds, especially the minds of pacifists, the quotation
seems like a cri de coeur, an indictment of the civilization of
that era, rather than of technological progress per se.
For the record: Einstein obviously abandoned strict pacifism in
WWII, and was in favour of the post-war development of atomic
energy.
I do not see from the context that Einstein was referring only to the horrors of WW I.
In contrast, all his later writings basically seem to confirm his early pacifist views.
you write, without quote:
``For the record: Einstein obviously abandoned strict pacifism in
WWII, and was in favour of the post-war development of atomic
energy."
Where did you get this idea from. I have read only the opposite.
He even said that his greatest mistake was the letter he had signed for Roosevelt.
I take it you mean you've read the opposite: that Einstein
never abandoned strict pacifism.
I think you need to read a bit more and maybe also try reading
between the lines. You may not be aware that Einstein was
attacked viciously by some in the pacifist community for his
pre-WWII statements about Nazi Germany.
I'll include some explicit quotes below, but I will
not rigorously cite them. They can all be found, with sources,
in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (March, 1979 issue).
As you yourself point out: Einstein, after discussions with
Szilard, signed a famous letter to Roosevelt, pointing out the
possibility in principle and in practice of constructing an
atomic bomb, and recommending that research be carried out
towards the construction of such a bomb, by the US, to forestall
its construction by Nazi Germany.
Such an action is inconsistent on its face with strict pacifism,
at least as I understand the term. Strict pacifism rejects the
use of organized violence under any and all circumstances.
For example, strict pacifists refuse military service as a matter
of principle. The refusal of military service was something which
Einstein, and many other pacifists, advocated during World War
I. So signing the letter to Roosevelt was inconsistent with
strict pacifism and with Einstein's earlier views.
Einstein fell afoul of many in the pacifist movement during the
period leading up to WWII, due to changes in his position with
the rise of the Nazi Party. And of course, pacifists knew only of
Einstein's public statements on the questions of that time, they
knew nothing about a letter to Roosevelt, with Einstein's
signature, about building super-bombs!
After WWII, and after the use of the bomb against Japan, it's
also true that Einstein did express regret about his role, about
writing the letter to Roosevelt. He remained an advocate of
pacifism throughout his life and he certainly abhorred organized
violence and argued for peace where, when, and however he
could. He signed Bertrand Russell's Pacifist Manifesto of 1955 as
one of his last public acts.
But Einstein's undoubtedly genuine regrets do not alter what he
did and said during World War II. I think that his actions and
statements are inconsistent with strict pacifism, and that they
also represent a major shift in Einstein's expressed views.
To start:
Many in the worldwide pacifist movement were shocked that this
had become Einstein's current view. He had to reiterate his
position in a letter to the pacifist community:
Here, Einstein clearly advocates rearmament, something that he
had opposed shortly before. Indeed, he was attacked by pacifists
because of statements such as the above.
To which Einstein responded:
And he expanded on his views in a letter to a fellow pacifist in
1933:
As for your question about context in Einstein's quote about
technology:
I specifically referred to historical context. I may well be
wrong, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and suggest that it is
extremely likely that a letter written in December of 1917 from
Einstein to a medical colleague, and a former advocate for
Einstein's appointment to a professorship in Zurich, written
while Einstein was living in wartime Berlin during the height of
World War I, was in fact written in reference to current events:
namely the events of World War I. It's hard to imagine that the
"culture loving era" Einstein refers to in the original letter
was, for example, the time of the Franco-Prussian war.
In any case, though this version appears all over the internet, I
think it can be agreed by objective observers that Einstein is
not accurately and completely quoted there: "Technological
progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."
Thanks for the reply.
I knew most of this and perhaps the differences are all about the definition of
pacifism.
I am not only a pacifist but a militant pacifist. I am willing to fight for peace. Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war.
Albert Einstein
I agree with what Einstein wrote about the European situation had changed after Hitler et al took over in Germany.
ETC.. bye the way I remember also that Gandhi had some sayings that if the British would not accept the anti violence
strategy he would support more active form of resistance.
Anyway, after the two bombs have been dropped (why the second one?) Einstein in much of his writings
said that "humans" are not ready for the power within the atomic nuclei.
There are many other quotes from him and from later times like which fit into topics discussed here for the time after oil:
I guess you know them but it doesn't hurt to remember them anyway:
A table, a chair, a bowl of fruit and a violin; what else does a man need to be happy?
Albert Einstein
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.
Albert Einstein
Concern for man and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavors. Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations.
Albert Einstein
I believe that a simple and unassuming manner of life is best for everyone, best both for the body and the mind.
Albert Einstein
this one fits well to the one with the axe.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.
Albert Einstein
in any case it would always be nice to know the context of all those quotes ..
regards
What is the problem with using electricity to produce electricity? And no, I don't think nuclear yield less and less with more and more effort. With increasing burn-up, better enrichment tech, modularity, standardization and a multitude of other possible tech improvements, EROEI has been improving and will keep improving in the future. (Future nuclear EROEI will likely never have to drop below that of today's nuclear fuel cycle.)
Regarding GOM, our tech society is worth hundreds of those, but the nuclear fuel cycle isn't likely to produce even one comparable accident. Actually, nuclear is so much better environmentally than coal that it already saves us (widespread) GOMs every year.
In early June, I saw a great demonstration of this kind of progress when I visited the George Besse uranium enrichment facility in France. The current facility, George Besse I - a gaseous diffusion plant - is being replaced by George Besse II - a centrifuge enrichment facility. Just outside of the enrichment facility fence there is a nuclear power station with four 900 MWe nuclear power plants. Right now, the output of three of those nuclear plants - approximately 2700 MWe - supplies the gaseous diffusion enrichment process. That plant produces enough Separative Work Units to keep 59 French plants, plus some export customers, supplied with enriched uranium.
When George Besse II is fully operational, its output will completely replace George Besse I. The new facility will require just 50 MW of electricity. In other words, the new technology will result in the effective "construction" of nearly three new nuclear power stations because of the improvement in energy efficiency.
It is also interesting to contemplate that it will only require 50 MW of electricity to refine the fuel needed to supply more than 60 full sized nuclear plants.
Rod Adams
Also, such new enrichment technology allows the extraction of more U-235 from the original ore and even improves the economic prospects of re-enriching depleted uranium tails (which often retains around 40% of its original U-235). This means significantly less need for freshly mined natural uranium. Instead of a new mine, in many circumstances, one could add a new enrichment facility.
And that will be even more true for laser enrichment. This technology will squeeze the last fissile nuclei of what is currently "depleted" uranium.
Line 19, Decommissioning and Waste Disposal: This is a highly unknown cost because, to the best of my knowledge, only small plants have been decommissioned.
Maine Yankee was decommissioned to green field status, 1.3 GWe, accomplished largely within budget. A large plant, a highly known cost in this instance.
Right idea, but wrong state. These are disposed of in a large pit at the Hanford site in Washington.
@JoulesBurn - no. The reactor plants and containments are stored in Washington, but they have no used fuel in them. The used fuel cores are right where I said they are:
http://www.deq.state.id.us/inl_oversight/waste/spent_nuclear_fuel.cfm#where
Thanks. I didn't know they went through the trouble of taking it out first.
I guess INL will be keeping it for awhile, then.
At the same time that we are considering the drastic design change from single enormous reactors to small modular ones, it is appropriate to consider other parts of the design as well. A variety of fast-neutron breed-and-burn designs (eg, traveling-wave and CANDLE reactors) have been proposed which make much greater use of uranium-238 and thorium-232 and expand the available fuel by a large factor (roughly 60 if only U-238 is considered). The US and Russia together have nearly a million tons of U-238 sitting around in storage ("waste" by-product from enrichment activities). Combined with plutonium from retired nuclear weapons or reprocessed fuel from the current reactor fleet, it may be possible to fuel a substantial number of fast-neutron reactors for a long period without any additional mining.
The US fast-flux test facility demonstrated that fast-neutron reactors could achieve a number of desirable goals:
The Toshiba 4S is one modular fast-neutron design. It's considerably undersized for US use at 10 MWe; modules around 100 MWe would be better. But its high fuel efficiency allows it to operate for up to 30 years on the initial fuel load, installed at the factory. Conceptually, the module would be returned to the factory after that time for decommissioning.
I feel relatively sure of a prediction that someone is going to build and sell these reactors; they're simply too attractive to small developing countries as a source of baseload electricity.
@mcain6925 - Advanced Reactor Concepts has similar thoughts to yours. During the American Nuclear Society summer meeting held in early June 2010, that company announced their plans to develop a 100 MWe sodium cooled fast reactor similar in concept to the EBR-II. Many of the scientists and engineers on that project have EBR-II experience.
http://www.advancedreactor.net/
Rod Adams
Just use existing nuclear waste as a fuel supply: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf
It seems Uranium is one that gets tracked for scarcity. The other one that gets discussion posts, but is not widely used for commercial electricity production (yet?) is Thorium.
The latest redbook is out.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Uranium_resources_for_at_least_a_c...
Worldwide uranium resources, production and demand are all increasing, according to the latest edition of the Red Book. However, total identified uranium resources will last for over 100 years at current consumption rates.
The amount of uranium identified that can be economically mined rose to some 6.3 million tonnes, a 15.5% increase compared with the last edition of Uranium 2009: Resources, Production and Demand - commonly known as the Red Book - published every two years by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The high-cost category (under $100 per pound of U3O8) was reintroduced into the new edition of the Red Book for the first time since the 1980s in response to the generally increased market prices for uranium in recent years (despite the decline since mid-2007), as well as increasing mining costs and expectations of increasing demand as new nuclear power plants are being planned and constructed.
IAEA projections for the future of nuclear power see it expanding from 375 GWe today to between 500 and 785 GWe by 2035. Such growth would cause an increase in uranium demand from 66,500 tonnes per year to between 87,370 and 138,165 tonnes.
Worldwide exploration and mine development expenditures in 2008 totalled over $1.6 billion, an increase of 133% compared to updated 2006 figures, despite declining market prices since mid-2007. Most major producing countries reported increasing expenditures, as efforts to identify new resources and bring new production centres online moved forward
"As observed in the past, increased investment in exploration has resulted in important discoveries and the identification of new resources," the NEA said. "It is foreseen that, if market conditions improve further, additional exploration will be stimulated leading to the identification of additional resources of economic interest."
"While the status of supply and demand is considered from today's technologies perspective, it should be recognised that the deployment of advanced reactor and fuel cycle technologies can positively affect the long-term availability of uranium and could conceivably extend it to thousands of years," the NEA noted.
strange, you missed in the copy and paste of the WNA news:
"The challenge remains to develop mines in a timely and environmentally sustainable fashion as uranium demand increases. A strong market will be required for these resources to be developed within the time frame required to meet future uranium demand."
any reason why?
I provided the link to the full press release. there was nothing hidden.
You did not correct the Nigeria statement above with Namibia, when you knew which African country it was. Any reason why ?
good that there was no purpose! so you could thank me for having added the part which slipped your copy and paste!
actually I thought you wanted to talk about Niger instead of Nigeria..
but yes, Namibia makes more sense .. but it is only 5000 km or so further south.
thanks for correcting!
the statement in the original NEA press declaration is even stronger than the WNA news selected quote
(why?)
http://www.nea.fr/press/2010/2010-03.html
``Even in the high-growth scenario to 2035, less than half of the identified resources described in this edition would be consumed. The challenge remains to develop mines in a timely and environmentally sustainable fashion as uranium demand increases. A strong market will be required for these resources to be developed within the time frame required to meet future uranium demand.
In addition, current projections of uranium mine production capacities could satisfy projected high-case world uranium requirements until the late 2020s. However, given the challenges and length of time associated with increasing production at existing mines and opening new mines, it is unlikely that all production increases will proceed as planned. As a result, secondary sources of previously mined uranium will continue to be required, complemented to the extent possible by uranium savings achieved by specifying lower tails assays at enrichment facilities and technical developments in fuel cycle technology."
There is plenty of economic uranium to be had is the main point and no supply issues well into the 2020s unlike your prediction of uranium supply problems in 2013.
There are many ways to get more uranium for fuel as they note. The re-enrichment of tails which the Engineer Poet pointed out to you repeatedly.
also, if their is deeper burn then less uranium is needed.
So the point is there is that there is enough uranium fuel to satisfy the energy generation needs.
You have a bias to uranium from mining. But satisfying uranium demand by using it more efficiently or with more enrichment or with new reactor all works and means no shortage.
Here is DOE roadmap for uranium and nuclear. Which looks at different demand scenarios to 2100 with different reactor technology. In any of the curves the energy is still being generated and fuel demand is being met.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/07/us-doe-roadmap-for-nuclear-energy-and.html
We went through all this last year.
But when you post a study from the DOE it might be interesting to confront this linear consumption increase
with what nuclear growth scenario you have in mind!
I guess from the figure that the nuclear energy contribution is assumed to increase by at most 1% per year
like in the standard EIA/DOE figures.
Your picture is far above that.
But, I am glad that we agree on the status of breeders .. not before 2040!
or do I misunderstand your posting and you still think one could have breeders within the next few years?
It’s economic. No one wants breeder technology because uranium is soooooo cheap.
I was showing this only for the total amount of uranium from the DOE analysis.
There is a 600 MWe breeder now and has been since 1980.
The russians should complete their 880MWe breeder in 2012-2013.
India should complete a 500MWe breeder shortly and four more by 2020.
China should complete two of the Russian 880MWe Breeders by 2020.
the pre-2020 timeframe is far more clear and 2020 and after will have better tech. Which one of several options is chosen depends.
There will be others.
These are early generation versions.
China is pushing for the start of deeper burn breeders by about 2030.
The US will probably not have its Gen IV deeper burn breeders in any serious numbers before 2040.
so the US appear likely to lag.
First appearance and appearance in volume are different.
China should have volume around 2030. It could come earlier. But China will be introducing improvements as they go.
100-200 GWd/ton versions from now to 2020.
150-300 GWd/ton version from 2020-2025
200-500 GWd/ton version from 2025-2030
500 + Gwd/ton versions 2030-2045.
How things actually play out 20 years out is highly variable. Better technology and solutions could present themselves. Certain projects could slip 5-10 years.
Apparently China did not get the message: China tests first fourth generation nuclear reactor successfully
Strange article, especially when you compare it with the
WNA news article
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Criticality_for_fast_reactor_220710...
China has achieved criticality at its first fast neutron reactor, a small unit near Beijing, while plans are developing for a full scale fast reactor power plant in the country.
and nothing is mentioned about the Gen IV breeder type. Just they achieved criticality and not at what thermal power.
Anyway, at the end of your ``link" it says something relevant (wouldn't it be nice to mention the entire story in the post?):
``According to Yan Qiang, a researcher with Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, China currently produces around 750 tons of uranium. The demand-supply gap of uranium is expected to exceed 10,000 tons by 2015 and reach nearly 30,000 tons by 2030.
Thomas Neff, a physicist and uranium-industry analyst at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge has said that China is likely to double its uranium purchases to around 5,000 metric tons this year to build stockpiles for its new reactors. (ANI)"
There would be nuclear fuel shortages for terrestrial uranium only if all energy produced for human civilization (electricity,transportation fuels, heating fuels, industrial chemicals)were supplied by nuclear energy. However, if uranium resources from seawater are utilized, then there's enough uranium to supply all of the world's energy needs for at least 3000 to 5000 years.
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2008/10/fueling-our-nuclear-futur...
FWIW, from Ugo Bardi's article here at TOD about uranium from the oceans...
Indeed mining uranium from oceans makes sense only if we switch over to breeders, and only after ~1000 years when the stockpiles of (already mined and purified) depleted uranium would run out.
" From the paper by Seko et al (2003) we see that we need about 300 Kg of membrane per kg of uranium extracted per year. "
This was discussed previously;
This works out to six 60 day cycles per year. At 4g per cycle that is 24g / kg adsorbent / year. At this rate we only need 41kg of adsorbent to produce 1kg of uranium per year.
25,000 yen/kg equals $238/kg, equals $108/pound.
To make all U.S. electricity with our primitive steroidal submarine reactors, we need 0.72 pounds (330gm) of uranium / year / person.
We will need only 13.6 kg (30 pounds) of membrane per person using today’s primitive reactors.
Can you think of any way that hanging 30 pounds of adsorbent in sea water could cost more than digging up 13,400 pounds of coal each year and shipping it half way across the country?
Even if these cost estimates are off by a factor of 5 or 10 it is still cheaper than natural gas.
Using breeder reactors we need 0.35 pounds (159 gm) of uranium / 80 year lifetime. To produce all our electricity from fission at the U.S. rate using seawater uranium in breeder reactors our 0.35 pounds per lifetime will cost $37.80 / lifetime, 47 cents per year. We will need only 83g (0.18 pounds) of membrane per person
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5060#comment-473803
One issue that comes to mind is what to do with all of the spent fuel. Does each site just take care of its own, as long as it is able?
And is there the need for a big decommissioning procedure at the end of the lifetimes of these units.
Small PWR:s ought to be nearly identical to large ones regarding fuel issues, maintainance and decomissioning. The largest difference might be that it will be easier to handle extensive maintainance when for instanca 1/4 out of a four unit plant can be taken off line.
I would love to check if these units could fit in any of the old plans for building underground nuclear powerplants in regular granite bedrock.
Magnus - you are close, but remember, these smaller PWR's are also newer PWRs that are built with modern technology and modern knowledge of materials learned from 50 years of operating large PWRs. There are some refinements that should make a difference with regard to maintenance. Right now, the average all in Operations and Maintenance cost (including fuel) for nuclear plants in the US is just slightly more than 2 cents per kilowatt hour. That compares favorably with coal at 2.97, natural gas at 5.00 and petroleum at 12.37 (all numbers in 2009 based on FERC Form 1 filings).
For decommissioning, the issues may also be simplified by the smaller sizes of plants and components. A major cost for large plant decommissioning - and we have completed several plants already in the US - turns out to be the cost of dismantling the contaminated equipment and shipping it off site. That should be easier if the plant is small enough to transport as a single unit via rail or barge.
So far, all of the iPWR designs are envisioned as "below grade" installations, so they should fit in well with the underground power plant designs to which you are referring.
Rod Adams
Thanks for the post Rod ..
Am I correct in assuming that these modular nukes
could be sited on phased out coal power station
locations ?? Seems a viable solution going forward ..
We need to keep moving up the energy density curve
going forward if we wish to retain any semblance of BAU ..
Hope to see some actual builds during my remaining lifetime ..
Triff ..
There is Coal2Nuclear
Gail - I believe that the used fuel issue is a red herring. "Waste" is probably one of the biggest advantages that nuclear has over its competitors - its waste volume is as tiny as the amount of fuel consumed. If you put all of the used fuel that the US has produced in 50 years of commercial operation in one place, it would cover a football field to a depth lower than the goal posts. The total mass right now is about 60,000 tons and that increases by about 2,000 tons per year.
In contrast, the waste material from a single, 1000 MWe coal fired power plant totals about 30,000-45,000 tons PER DAY, depending on the plant efficiency and the fuel source. Most of that waste material, even though it could kill a large number of people if concentrated, gets dispersed into the atmosphere for all of us to share.
For used nuclear fuel, we keep it all in carefully monitored locations. At some time in the future, we will recycle it to reclaim the 95% of potential energy that still remains. We might even recover some of the rare and valuable materials in the remaining mixture of isotopes.
Earlier this summer, I visited La Hague, the facility in France where used fuel is already being recycled. Though our tour was running late and we did not actually walk onto the floor of the room under which the residues from their recycling program are stored, it is a room about the size of a high school gym. I did see the facility in the south of France called Melox where the useful actinides are recycled into mixed oxide fuel for reuse.
(Disclosure: Areva hosted my trip as part of its effort to share information with the media. Unlike many established American companies, Areva believes that bloggers are a key part of the media. They opened their doors and answered tons of questions in a straightforward manner.)
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
The problem isn't the volume of waste produced. Its the longevity. Also, our seeming inability to do anything responsibly about it and leaving that mess for future generations to clean up.
We've heard all the tired rosy scenarios before from "too cheap to meter" to "recycling the waste for its energy". These are all lies.
Meanwhile wastes pile up at nuclear reactors and Hanford, just 200 miles SE of where I type this, remains a huge clusterf@@@.
These wastes have to be kept isolated from the environment for thousands of years. The Industrial Revolution has only been around for a few hundred. We're committing future generations spanning geologic time to take care of these wastes so we can solve a very short term energy need of a few decades before we reach Peak Uranium (if we aren't there already). This is madness.
@Casey - how long does lead or mercury remain toxic?
Yes, you have heard that nuclear engineers failed in their promise to bring electricity that is too cheap to meter. However, have you also heard that nuclear energy, despite decades worth of well funded and organized opposition, is currently producing as much energy in the world as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Nigeria put together? (Approximately 12 million barrels of oil per day equivalent.)
Have you heard what the current production cost is for nuclear generated electricity in the US? (2 cents per kilowatt hour, but nearly all of that cost is a prorated share of the annual ownership cost that is incurred regardless of whether or not the plant is actually operated.)
In my economic analysis of the situation, nuclear plant owners could profitably sell their power on a flat, per month basis with an unlimited plan depending only on the size of the wire connecting to the grid.
Here is a link to an article I wrote about the subject a few years ago - http://www.atomicinsights.com/AI_03-09-05.html
Finally - please do not confuse the situation at Hanford, which is weapons program waste, with the leftovers from commercial nuclear plant operations. They are completely different in both extent and scope.
Rod Adams
I see no difference in the military versus commercial waste. It is all toxic and it has to be isolated from the environment for thousands and hundreds of thousands of years. The commercial program evolved out of the military program with the mindset of making this palatable to the public. Both share the same "who cares!" mindset regarding safe waste disposal. Its someone else's problem. So its not even factored in.
2 cents per kilowatt hour is cheap, when you don't have to figure in the costs of keeping wastes safe for geologic time. This is a huge unfunded subsidy to the nuclear power industry with enormous costs that have yet to be considered. How much would that cheap 2 cents balloon to if the cost of isolating wastes for 100,000 years is factored in? Or even a 1000 years?
Casey - if you see no difference between military and commercial nuclear waste, perhaps you need to do some additional studying and describe to me the specifics about the form of the waste. Used commercial nuclear fuel looks almost identical to new commercial nuclear fuel - it is composed mostly of uranium dioxide pellets encased in corrosion resistant zircalloy tubes formed into 17 x 17 or 9 x 9 arrays. It is stored either in specially designed pools that are regularly inspected or inside licensed dry storage containers that have been proven to be suitable for many decades worth of storage. If they wear out, they can simply be replaced - if we have not yet started recycling the fuel.
In contrast, the military waste that is causing so much concern at Hanford - though it has not hurt anyone - is generally liquid with wet sludge stored inside very large tanks that are corroding.
You seem very concerned about future costs. I am as well. Do I get to put away the money in an interest bearing account? If so, future costs in 100,000 years will disappear into insignificance.
I doubt that the exact composition of wastes will make any difference to the next terrorist who decides to aim his plane into some nuke's spent fuel pool! In any scenario its scary and potentially catastrophic!
This is why sensitive sites get surface-to-air protection. Detailed defense plans are not public for obvious reasons, but I know at least that the "La Hague" site has publicly disclosed the presence of such protection. I sincerely doubt that terrorists are going to control a commercial plane ever again in a post 9/11 environment, but they certainly cannot make it stealth. A defense system designed to counter military fighter jet will put it down easily.
You also have to remember that planes are fairly light structures that don't fare well against a thick concrete wall. Check this !
Spare the dramatics. 9/11 was an inside job :)! Terrorism always has to be brought up when discussing nuclear power...too much "24" will do that to a person. Don't worry, Jack Bauer is on the case.
Rod,
The idea of an interest bearing account, that one can count on for 100,000 years (or even 100 years) in the future is beguiling, but unless we can keep up the growth economy (in a finite world!) for that long, the extra increments aren't going to be there. In fact, the value of the paper asset is likely to disappear over time, if peak oil becomes a major problem and companies and governments become unable to pay their debts.
I think the likelihood of payment on debt after fossil fuels run out is very low. Payment may stop a lot earlier than that, though.
Gail:
If the picture you paint of the future is true, then why should I be worried about the fact that we might leave a few places where there are dry storage containers full of used nuclear fuel. I cannot see that as a major issue in a world where there is no debt repayment, no access to fossil fuels, and no prospects for growth or even maintenance of our current achievements. There will be far more important issues to worry about.
However, I do not see that happening if we can move forward with due haste to make full use of what we already have done before and continue to do on a daily basis in some places with nuclear energy.
Gail
Interest has been paid on debt way before the fossil fueled industrial revolution began. As the figures that I mentioned showed, the real interest rate that pays for the regular renewal of dry cask storage is very low (0.5% to 1%) so there is a good margin for default here.
Besides, I concur with Rod. If all the government of the planet do default with zero recovery, the increase in mortality that will arise from the societal collapse will dwarf what could be caused by a few over-engineered dry casks here and there. The "design target" of the NRC is that Nuclear should not bring incremental mortality risk greater than 0.1% of the current rate. As an actuary, it is easy for you to compute the mortality rate multiplication necessary to bring the global population to a sustainable pre-industrial level (say 800 million people) in a relatively short time (say 100 year). I believe the NRC criterion will still be met thanks to this huge increase of the denominator.
Here's the problem.
On one hand we are heading into a depression. A new depression?
Probably not, just an extension of the old one, the 'Great Depression'.
Most of the people who think about this consider it an economic phenomenon. It had no energy component to speak of, the USA and the developed world had vast resources, and the 'resource constrained' economies such as those of Japan could access resources by means of trade. (They ultimately chose not to.)
However, the real depression was a quiet and deadly conflict between the gilded age robber barons/tycoons and the public that were coincidentally the tycoons' customers.
What the tycoons offered was 'technology' although that term had not been invented during the 1920's and 30's. Radios, washing machines, grain harvesters, stock leverage funds and airplanes were the 'high- tech' of the time. The promise - as it is now - was of a utopia of 'novelty' that is, larger buildings of a 'different' type (high- rises), different kinds of roads (freeways) with lots of personal cars, 'different' (tract) housing and working arrangements ... along with an absence of chores, diseases, hardship, labor, dullness or drudgery. Etc. Etc. Etc.
The promise was - and is - a complete fraud. What really resulted from the industrial paradigm was the systematic fleecing of the public by business and finance monopolies under various guises. At some point the dynamic reached its logical conclusion and the fleecing scheme fell apart.
The 'new' stuff got built/made but the novelty wore off quickly and the reality of outcomes cost modernity its appeal. The promise of the future became a 'Blade Runner -esque distopia. Along with the robber barons the public went to war with the 'labor saving' machines the barons saddled our grandparents with.
Labor saving for whom, exactly?
The public reacted to the barons' swindles by holding on to what little money they had, the barons responded with evictions, foreclosures, police raids and confiscations while the public's 'spending boycott' destroyed banks and businesses with hard currency and ruinous competition. At issue was the way forward; to do so as the country had built and run itself for 150 years - and the rest of the world for centuries - or in the manner suggested by the barons' industrial monopolies that were established at the beginning of the 20th century.
This is the case now. The 'depression as war' has already commenced with capital on one side and the public on the other. The issue is identical to that of the 1930's ... the future.
Capital's idea of the future is one of debt slaves in lives of eternal peonage. The promise of the oligarchs is lives of ease for all, but the oligarchs' reality is always ease for themselves alone while the devil can take the rest. The instruments of capital are clever lies, propaganda and more and more swindling. Capital possesses so many obvious advantages. the largest being the public is both credulous and hopeful.
This is true until the public decides to hold onto its money then capital begins to disintegrate. Right now it is melting like an ice- cream cone on a hot sidewalk right in front of everyones' eyes.
Unlike during the 1930's the 'shots' this time are being called by Peak Oil. This makes money valuable and gives people incentives to hold onto it. At the same time, capital has overreached. This has revealed fatal flaws in the complex finance system that is necessary for capital to enact its frauds successfully. The already fatal flaws mske it impossible to collect the funds for the kinds of proposals that are discussed here.
By holding onto money the public is voting with its feet for a much simpler kind of existence with little in the way of centralized gadgetry. The public instinctively understands - even as it denies reality - that the consequences of holding money will be severe. Capital considers all funds in circulation to be the capitalists' private property. It's theirs, after all, they just lent it to their customers who have no right to keep it. Both capital and its stooges the government will go after people's money with every resource they can find; terror, confiscations, coercion, taxation, etc. The oligarchs' actions will undermine whatever argument they might make to glamorize the process. The promise of 'hope', 'larger televisions' and 'flying cars' does not align with debtors' prisons and Hoover- Obamaville tent cities.
No matter how you doll it up, robbery is robbery.
Entities like Bechtel will go out of business because of a shortage of capital. Without customers there is no final demand for their goods and the oligarchs themelves will pull the plug on these firms. USA electricity demand is falling, for instance, not an environment for building a multi- billion dollar enterprise.
Certainly not if the public looks upon such schemes as means to defraud (which is what they are.)
As for the Chinese, they are in exactly the same boat as the rest of the developed world, having jumped on the oil treadmill just as it has started to wind down. Embracing 'tycoon- ism' hasn't been a smart move, either.
More here:
http://economic-undertow.blogspot.com/2010/07/bette-davis-eyes.html
Well thats one way of looking at it! The great depression could also be seen in similar parrallels to what we going through now. It was a time of transition from the horse/steam era to the oil/electricity era in which the depression was teh clearing mechanism that swept away the old and prpared the land for the new. Much of the class structure of society was completely destroyed by the depression and this created many opportunities for a new generation of entrepeneuers to build the future based on new technologies.
Perhaps in this coming depression what will see is the sweeping away of the oil based system which is no longer sustainable and a new economy created and built on nuclear/electric energy as the dominant source.
I have my reservations about nuclear, particularly in regards to mining and processing of harmful radioactive fuel. But nuclaer may just be the technology that gets us out of the next depression in the sam way that oil did for the last one. It will of course depend on the complete EROEI that will shape that possibility and its eventual size and quality for the people alive at that time.
The struggle was between ways of living, not between competing versions of commercial industrialism. The organic methods perfected by centuries of practice were not abandoned without a tremendous struggle, that being the depression itself.
That same struggle was being played out in both Russia and China during roughly the same time period; with Stalin 'modernizing' the USSR along with Sun Yat Sen's political modernizations in warlord China.
Germany and Japan were the catalysts that ended the possibilities of an organic reconstruction of the US (and possibly the world, as well). I cannot claim that the US would have de- industrialized had the US not gone to war, but the vast military establishment created to fight Germany and Japan was an endorsement of a permanent commercial/industrial partnership which up to then did not exist in the US. Both Germany and Japan embraced the (false) promises of the robber barons (entrepreneurs if you like) and built fantastic war machines. This could be considered the 'flip side' of modernity, the need for ever- more sophisticated military capacity (which is also ruinous). The US was forced by Pearl Harbor to accept the blandishments of its own business tycoons in order for the country to produce the tens of thousands of airplance, vehicles and ships needed to fight and win the war.
After the war the oligarchs were reinvigorated and within a half- century were on the road to gaining absolute dominion over their putative 'subjects' (you amd I).
The oligarchs have to win in a paradoxical way in order for there to be any new technologies to speak of. They have to put real wealth - capital - into the public's pockets, otherwise they have no customers. The oligarchs can only 'win' by gaining and keeping all the 'wealth' to themselves. This intractible contradiction is like expecting an elephant to fly through the air by flapping its ears.
In failing to provide the pathway for modernity to enrich its customers, the dumb public will keep its cash in its pockets and capital will starve. It's already happening, just look out the window.
:)
An interesting analysis, with which I tend to concur, with the reservations that the way you describe it gives it a certain "reification", as if there had been a "purpose" or conscious driving force behind it (maybe there was, but I don't think so). It is in a sense, I think, a reinterpretation of the Marxian analysis of capitalism, with some exceptions.
@Casey -- a very good book to read on this subject is Physics for Future Presidents by Richard Muller, a physicist at UC Berkley. There is a lot of radioactivity in the environment, so much that within 1000 years radioactive fuel is no more radioactive than the ore it was originally mined from. Cesium-137 and Strontium-90 are the main bad actors, and with a half-life of about 30 years they are down to less than 1% of their initial activity within the first 300 years. Most of the other fissionable material (including one of the longest half-life components, plutonium) can be extracted and re-used, further reducing the radioactivity of reprocessed waste.
Considering that a buried boat was "found" hundreds of years after it was abandoned at a heavily-trafficked site like the WTC excavation, I think the ability to vitrify nuclear waste into telephone pole-sized logs and putting it at the bottom of a mine in the remote desert seems to be a pretty safe way to handle it for the long term -- which isn't really anywhere near 100,000 years.
Incidentally, the "costs of isolating wastes" has been paid for with a surcharge on nuclear power since 1982. The Nuclear Waste Trust Fund has $16.5 billion in the bank even after spending $13.5 billion on Yucca Mountain and various other programs. If Yucca Mountain is closed to storage by the Obama Administration there will be essentially nothing to spend it on.
Actually, Dry Cask storage is quite cheap : From a recent court case, you can find that the Columbia Generating Station spent 57$ million to store its spent fuel in dry casks that last for decades. This is not a low-ball number, but actually a "wide net" account because they wanted the government to pay for all their associated costs, The rationale for this request is that they paid 290$ million in the nuclear waste fund in exchange of the government taking care of the waste. The judgment was in the favor of the nuclear operator.
At current rates paid on long term inflation adjusted treasury bonds, these 57$ millions just represents the interest cost on 290$ million for 10 years. Even with this cost, it would still be a cheap source of perpetual funding for the Treasury. So in reality :
a) it is funded (22$ billion in the Nuclear Waste Fund as of today)
b) the funding cost for the Treasury is lower than market costs, so the subsidy in reality goes from the Nuclear Industry to the government as it is.
Note that after 500 years (I.e. after 10 to 15 generation of casks), the waste becomes much less problematic to handle : most of the heat generation, gaseous radioactive isotopes, and gamma ray generating isotopes have decayed. So the cost of containing the residual waste will be lower... if there is still some waste of course ! It is likely that U, Pu and minor Actinides will be reused as fuel as they are very valuable. If an IFR based plant gets paid to get its fuel (because of the release of the NWF) instead of paying for it, that will certainly improve its economics.
Well, the costs would ballon to approximately ... the same cheap 2 cents, since the cost is already included. Many countries, including, I think, the US, already fund waste handling with a 0.1 cent/KWh tax, which will suffice if we decide that it will. You see, waste handling costs are completely arbitrary. If we decide to keep it cheap, it'll cost close to nothing. If we (our elected politicians) want to waste billions on unnecessary research and over-dimensioned containment solutions, we'll do so. 100,000 years is nothing in a geological time perspective and the waste is extremely compact.
The US does, yes, though there's currently a dispute because the utilities aren't getting the service they've been paying for. For context, that cost works out to about $300,000 per tonne of waste. You can do a lot with that, though the Oklo reactors show that you don't actually have to.
how long does lead or mercury remain toxic?
Gee, Bout the same length of time as Uranium is a heavy metal toxin/mutagen.
Have you heard what the current production cost is for nuclear generated electricity in the US? (2 cents per kilowatt hour,)
And yet, projections don't get met.
Seems you are not here being an honest broker of information.
@eric blair - yes, uranium is very long lived. However, it is part of the biosphere whether or not there is nuclear energy. My point in bringing up mercury and lead is that the long lived nature of toxicity from certain portions of used nuclear fuel are not unique. We deal with many toxic substances every day that need careful handling and storage. Some of them have no "half life" and will always require careful handling and storage. If we, as a society, forget how to handle dangerous products with care, we will have many areas of concern that are greater than those posed by used nuclear fuel.
The numbers that I quoted for production cost for nuclear generated electricity in the US are not "projections" but actual records of cost averaged over the 104 operating nuclear plants. I am not sure what you mean by "and yet, projections don't get met."
I am doing the best I can to provide accurate information and provide links to good sources. If you have any specific questions, please let me know.
Rod Adams
Those aren't technical problems or scientific problems, they're political problems. The over-hyping of nuclear technology was also a political problem.
My philosophical view on all this is that the universe has provided us with virtually limitless energy. If we do experience some sort of crash and return to the dark ages due to peak oil or other energy issues, it's not because the energy wasn't there. It's because we were too stupid to use it correctly or modify our behavior when necessary.
Your philosophical view doesn't jive with physical reality!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vXqKGpP4jo&feature=related
And there is plenty of air one inch above the surface of a lake but if you are tangled in a rope underwater that limits your access to the surface and your nose is one inch from the surface you are still going to drown, no matter how smart you are...
Why don't we launch a space program to mine methane on Titan? Hey, maybe BP could run it...
Good Analogy.
To stretch the metaphor further into energy and human nature, it's also worth mentioning that when we have been able to access this 'one inch of air' , and particularly in highly concentrated volumes, we didn't just dole it out and keep breathing normally, we had to build ourselves these enormous lungs so we could breath just ridiculous amounts in order to 'live better'.. and so then, when we're tangled underwater in the lines again next time, we'll be in far more trouble, far faster - crying for the next precious gulps of the stuff.
It's one of the key reasons I respond to the 'wimpy' supply we get from renewables. It would force us to face reasonable restrictions on the scale of our power-use.. while getting to those levels might not feel reasonable at all.
In any case, I suspect that the limitations of Fission will become more and more highlighted on their own, and this option will rise or fail accordingly.
(..and I did appreciate your reminding this audience that Nuclear is *at least* as dependent on the FF infrastructure and economy as Renewables are often said to be. Makes me think about the race between the Tortoise and the Hare..)
Bob
I also thought about Stonleigh's recent talk about "Making Sense of the Financial Crisis in the Era of Peak Oil" and what she had to say about her studies regarding nuclear reactor maintenance in Eastern Europe after a severe financial crisis, it wasn't very reassuring.
http://sheffield.indymedia.org.uk/media/2010/06//453357.mp3
Heh! More like the race between the hundred year old Galapagos tortoise, a solar powered ancient reptile from the age of the dinosaurs, against that annoying cornucopian pink energizer bunny.
Frantically, ever faster, the bunny is beating the techno beat on its pathetic little tin drums...
BAU! BAU! BAU! BAU!
Those batteries will eventually run out and the old solar powered tortoise will just slowly plod across the finish line. The pink bunny, will end up garnishing the garbage pile as a visual assault to our senses and a reminder of all our collective hubris!
Note: that quote was made a year before James Chadwick discovered the neutron, three years BEFORE Enrico Fermi began experimenting with neutrons aimed at a variety of materials, seven years before Lise Mitner recognized that Otto Hahn's results indicated that neutrons were splitting uranium isotopes, eleven years before Fermi and his small team constructed the first self-sustaining chain reactor, and 24 years before the USS Nautilus reported "Underway on nuclear power."
In other words, I am confident that a technologically astute observer like Edison would have changed his prediction if he had lived long enough to recognize the incredible energy density made available by the discovery and development of heavy metal fission.
Edison is one of my heroes and was certainly no anti-human progress dummy. I have made several pilgrimages to his Ft. Myers winter home where he lived next door to Henry Ford and marveled at all of the incredible inventions that he thought about, worked on, and commercialized to make life better for the people he knew and loved.
Rod Adams
Poor EROEI :)
If you expand his concept more generally, energy from space has an excellent. It's just that it requires a very long term investment.
See G. Harry Stine's "The Third Industrial Revolution" (Steam was the first, computers the second.)
Stine was an optimist, but was an engineer, and so understood the engineering difficulties.
The investment is long term: 20+ years for the first solar power station, 40 years for the project to break even. Stine assumed 6% cost of money, I think, and a wholesale price of electricity of about 1 cent per KwHr. At the time the first 2 GW solar power satellite would cost about a trillion dollars (1975) and thereafter they would cost about 2 billion each for the next 50.
It required building an entire infrastructure in space; a reduction in launching to low Earth orbit by a factor of 100. His numbers at the time sounded feasible.
Not possible with today's NASA.
@FMagyar -
Actually, his view does jive with a famous equation - E=MC^2.
Both M and C are very large, numbers. M is nearly limitless.
Sure Einstein's equation most certainly jives with our views of cosmology and we know there is a lot of energy in the universe. So what? Are you going to tell me we can harness dark matter too?
'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&feature=
You could also laugh along with Dr. Albert Bartlett in his Arithmetic, Population and Energy talk,when he touches on the problem with this very kind of thinking.
One of the problems with malthusianism is that it models humans as arithmetically-reproducing bacteria and focuses exclusively on supply-side limits to growth.
Peoples' rate of reproduction declines rapidly once a certain standard of living is achieved. In fact, this self-limiting behavior works so well that it's causing serious economic problems for some nations as declining populations are unable to support the larger aging previous generation. Look at parts of Europe and Japan... it's called demographic collapse.
There may be other demand limits to growth as well. This was by far the most fascinating post that I've seen so far on The Oil Drum:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5309
We don't need to harness the power of entire suns, black holes, etc. We just need to figure out how to sustain an energy footprint large enough for humanity to live like Europeans with an eventual stable population of probably around 4-5 billion. The population will spike much higher in the short term, but if we can get the standard of living up and make birth control accessible it will gradually drop to some stable point.
That's a lot of energy, but is certainly not anywhere even close to cosmic scales.
I like your POV. I do think we have a very difficult path to tred for the next fifty or so years. Seems to me like the fossil paradigm is dying quicker than the alternatives are being developed. When you put collections of people together you get political thinking, and that makes forming a rational plan almost impossible.
Why Europeans and not South Pacific Islanders or Chinese peasants. The greatest paradigmatic problem we have at the moment is this Eurocentric vision of the future. Many places were sustainable before European influence which upset delicate balances between population and the environment by imposing western institutions such as personal property rights, political hierarchies and economic ideas that just don't fit into the culture of many other places around the world. Australia's aborigines are a shining example of how Euro ideas have swept away and destroyed a form of society that had 40,000 years of sustainability. Why choose Europe as the desirable standard of living when its short history is one of death, disease, famine and war? The average Australian aborigine seems to have had a much better life during the same period. The biggest problem for aborigines is trying to live a Euro life which is at odds with the ancient culture.
Aborigines were living the stone age life, I guess? In the stone age, the average life span was about 28 years. Of course, if you made it past five, perhaps the average was 50-ish, but anyway. I don't think we should romantizise living as an animal. The animal life is one of population overshoot and crashes, of hunger, disease, violence and hardships. Young south koreans are on average 12 cm longer than their north korean counterparts.
It is better to control population by a modern, prosperous lifestyle than by the hunger, high mortality and disease of the animal life.
"..one of population overshoot and crashes, of hunger, disease, violence and hardships.."
That's funny, I just overheard some animals describing Human life that way, too.
I had a friend teaching HighSchool in Rye NY some years ago, and she told me how shocked I would be to know just how many of these Upper Middle Class kids were Verbally, Physically and Sexually abused.. We can snicker about the Stone Age, or the 19th century and envision some wretched scenes from Quest for Fire or LesMiserables.. but the forms of hell we've devised since must put their hardships to shame.
Under-Reported or not, I wonder how many kids back in the day had the kind of Diabetes and Leukemia numbers we're getting now? Clusterbombings, Genocides, Economic Colonization.
This is no enlightened age.
So rural Pakistan/China or New York is a wash to you? Then please imagine being a 12 year old girl, not the 50 year Pakistani uncle marrying her.
The migration flows shows what people prefers.
Except that we are, from my studying of the science, deep into overshoot. It's exceedingly unlikely that 4-5 billion people can exist in perpetuity with the lifestyle that you might be accustomed to.
Besides, that affluence you say is the source of the demographic collapse in Japan and part of Europe is about to disappear.
What happens to the population then?
With breeders and uranium from oceans, there is enough energy for several billion years. That seems rather long enough, in particular as slowly brightening Sun is going to make Earth uninhabitable in much shorter time.
"Recycling the waste for its energy" is simply not a lie. Just look at western Europe where France and others recycle much of Europe's nuclear waste into new fuel. This reduces fuel costs and minimizes storage issues by greatly reducing the volume to be stored long term.
As pointed out already, the Hanford, WA site is entirely for military purposes going back to 1943 during WWII, and Savannah River in South Carolina is also unrelated to nuclear energy production.
As for Uranium shortages, so far they are only theoretical possibilities for the future. There is no current shortage and little or no price inflation. And there is the potential of fast breeder reactors which appear to be capable of producing more nuclear fuel than they consume. I don't claim any special expertise in this area, but I have heard about nuclear processing cycles which use mostly Thorium, and I believe this is a relatively abundant element around the world.
Other issues:
1) maintenance and operation. History is littered with firms cutting costs/lying in the implementation and the running of their operations.
2) lack of responsibility. Most of the firms set up sub-firms such that any failure they walk away from the LLC. Given the nature of corporations and the sociopaths running them - the responsibility does not fall to the people who actually make the decision.
3) Changes in others perceptions of nation-states. Back in the 1970's print adverts talked about how Iran was buying fission power plants. These days there is pushback on Iran having fission power plants.
4) Man's inability to make machines that do not fail.
5) being Targets in war.
(and this works best if you wave your arms around)
6) Terrorists!
So, apart from the economical viability:
Would we want a future where there are many small nuclear reactors spread throughout the world?
This implies transporting nuclear fuel and waste throughout the world, an increased chance of nuclear accidents due to maintenance errors or fuel/waste handling errors or accidents.
To me this seems a very dangerous road to take.
@Perrin - what is your alternative? A world that is constrained by limited supplies of fossil fuel that pollute our air and water and enrich some people beyond imagination while impoverishing others?
I have seen the way we transport both fresh and used nuclear fuel. I much prefer that to the way that we transport gasoline or natural gas.
I have also lived within 200 feet of a nuclear power plant that provided both propulsion power and electrical power. It pushed a 9,000 ton submarine around for about 14 years on a quantity of fuel not much more massive than I am. We are now building submarines that can operate for 33 years without new fuel. Some of the smaller nuclear plant designs are being touted as being able to last for as long as 30 years without refueling.
That beats the heck out of operating big diesel engines for electricity production in a remote area.
Rod Adams
My alternative to what? If you speak of the best way forwards, I personally prefer a future with a transition to renewables and/or managed powerdown to a future where nuclear technology is spread to every city (town, village, home?).
Nuclear fuel would need to be transported to those reactors, waste would need to be transported from those locations and all those reactors need to be properly maintained and checked.
Even with the best of circumstances (a responsible government and well-trained workers) and safety protocols, it seems to me an irresponsible road to take with radioactive transport accidents, radioactive spills and even explosions to be expected. And it would be foolish to assume the circumstances will be that favorable everywhere and all the time.
And all of this risk only to keep on using the tremendous amounts of energy/electricity we currently use. Maybe we should learn to make do with less?
@Perrin - if you are inhabiting the same planet that I am, you would recognize that the sun sets every night, but people do not stop needing power when that happens. The wind blows at its own pace, with no control by any human. Sometimes it is too much, often it is far too little.
I personally like living in a place where I have the power to do important things and the power to maintain a high standard of living. I want others to be able to experience how rewarding it can be if you do not have to spend a quarter of the day searching for firewood, another quarter of the day carrying dirty water, and another major portion of the day trying to find food once again.
We have been using nuclear energy on a large scale for more than five decades, and you hear a lot about exceedingly minor amounts of radiation. That is because the opponents of nuclear energy - who often are very interested in selling fossil fuels at ever increasing prices - cannot find any major releases to emphasize.
I recently became a grandfather and hope that my granddaughter grows up in a world that takes a much more rational approach to energy and power than the one that you apparently want us to follow.
You are right, reactors will need to be properly maintained and I plan to participate some more in the training of a new generation of well paid workers to take on that role. That beats the alternative of waiting for the wind to blow.
Rod Adams
Of course I understand your desire to keep on living like kings themselves would have envied only few centuries ago. But sometimes desires and dreams need to be adjusted to reality.
A few big power plants in a limited number of countries operated by specialists do not have the transportation, maintenance (and nuclear proliferation) problems on the same scale as many small reactors would.
The biggest nuclear proliferation problem is not power plants. The biggest problem is unsecured actual warheads from the former USSR, Pakistan, North Korea, and other toppled or toppling states. Then there's model democracies like Israel and China, which I'm sure have no war profiteering or government corruption whatsoever. To that we will soon add Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and who knows who else. Russia seems all too happy to sell doomsday machines in exchange for fat checks.
(I don't mean to be an American chauvinist either... you can't rule out the possibility of some theocratic fascist nutcase in the U.S. military stealing one of our own warheads...)
Why would terrorists or crazy dictators fry their family jewels trying to fish fissile material out of a reactor and then endure the expense and extreme danger of discovery of purifying, enriching, and machining it to build a weapon when they can just go down to the local Pashtun territories arms market and buy a slightly used Soviet warhead?
http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-gun-markets-of-paki...
So much, incessant sanctimonious bleating about this tripe. There has not been a single case of thievery or illegal sale of atomic fuel or munitions from Russia since the 1990 and before. Maybe there was a risk of this happening in 1995 but this risk is just as low as in the USSR in 1985 and in the USA today. As for sale of doomsday machines, give a single example of your claim. I guess it must be the civilian reactor sale to Iran. Xenophobia is really not evidence of anything other than the xenophobe's schizophrenia.
I guess that any thievery before the 1990(s) is OK then? What the shelf life of an average nuclear weapon anyway? Ever read Tom Clancy's Sum of All Fears? Clancy researched and wrote this book before the internet adn it even scared him just how much detailed info was in the public domain. Getting hold of the Plutonium seems to be the only real hurdle to building a nuclear weapon with just about every other component easily obtainable at Home Depot! You don't think McVeigh would have drawn a moral line in the sand if he had access to nuclear materials?
There is much more detailed information about building large commercial aircraft in the public domain. Did you notice that the terrorists did not design and build their own airplanes?
"Plutonium" is not necessarily useful for making a weapon any more than "uranium" is. There are some detailed isotopic requirements that cannot be met with plutonium that comes out of a commercial nuclear power plant. That material is far too complex and has too many non-fissile and heat producing isotopes to make it usable to produce a weapon that can be reliably stored and detonated on command. It would be far more likely to explode or fizzle at a time of its own choosing rather than when the builder wanted it to.
Even suicidal people who want to make a point by killing others prefer to control the timing of their attack.
Besides, the entire operation would require a focused and dedicated team of nuclear trained professionals - an extremely unlikely gathering for nefarious purposes.
" Getting hold of the Plutonium seems to be the only real hurdle to building a nuclear weapon"
Actually it is uranium 235 that is easily formed into an explosive device. That is why the world needs strict oversight on enrichment plants.
Plutonium 239 has a much higher spontaneous fission rate, requiring high velocity explosives to compress it into a super prompt critical mass in a very short time. Reactor grade plutonium has heavier plutonium isotopes that are more radioactive than 239 making the problems much worse.
That is why the plutonium design was tested in New Mexico and the uranium design was not tested prior to use at Hiroshima.
@Perrin - perhaps you would feel differently if the events that led to your birth had resulted in you being born in one of the countries that does not show up on your favored list.
One of the great things about nuclear energy compared to all other alternatives is that it has already been proven in the most remote places on the planet. Friends of mine have surfaced at the North Pole. I used to know people who operated the reactor that supplied power and heat to a research station on Antarctica. I have interviewed a man that helped to build the little reactor that provided heat and power to Camp Century, a research station built under the ice in Greenland.
I see no reason to adjust my dreams and desires to improve the lot of humanity downward. There is plenty of uranium, thorium and plutonium to reliably power us all for many millennia.
The neatest thing is that the systems will all be clean enough to operate inside submarines.
Rod Adams
Do you happen to have a link to the specs of the best candidate of these small reactors that can be produced on a meaningful scale before, say 2020? Excuse me if I missed it in the article!
@Perrin:
I'll give you links to the ones that I believe have the best chance of deployment in the time frame that you requested. (There might be many others if you expand your window by 5 years.)
Generation mPower - being developed by a team that includes B&W and Bechtel:
http://www.babcock.com/products/modular_nuclear/
NuScale Power - venture funded start-up company:
http://www.nuscalepower.com/ot-Scalable-Nuclear-Power-Technology.php
Westinghouse IRIS - may be accelerated (information based on a presentation at Platts SMR conference in early June 2010.)
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/iris.html
I expect that reactors that are not based on light water reactor technology will not see commercial deployment in the US until after 2020, but perhaps not much after that.
Rod Adams
What you're peddling sounds like a Star Trek fantasy.
Why don't the nuke-loving French, Chinese or Indians build your cute mini-reactors?
India just decided to go with standard Russian VVR 1Gwe LWR using uranium which they don't have much in reserve.
The economics of scale for grid electricity always favors the biggest generating plants possible.
Who could afford to buy their own 'personal reactor'?
China is building their own smaller factory mass producable reactor. HTR-PM. 210MWe. China plans to use the smaller modules where the larger units do not fit the region or the industrial application. Higher temperature matches more closely as a replacement for coal plants that feed certain factories and industrial plants.
France has its own design.
India plans its own as well for domestic use and export.
Russia has several designs and programs in the 75-300 MWe range.
South Korea has its own 300 MWe design.
Japan and the US are the builders of the plants listed by Rod.
Eastern europeans have signed contracts to buy the European.
So the major places are all getting into the competition for the future small reactor market.
But just like their is Boeing and Airbus for jumbo jets there is also Bombardier and other makers of regional jets and different makers of business jets. Their will be many markets and niches.
Wow, nuclear aircraft with high efficiency mini-reactors!
Imagine a bomber that can fly for years without refueling!
How kewl is that!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_aircraft
Wow you are intellectually dishonest and purposely trying to create a misleading conversation. You get shown facts that prove your assumptions wrong and then you purposely choose to misinterpret the airplane industry analogy.
The nuclear market is big enough to have multiple winners for large reactors and multiple winners for medium size and small reactors. Atomic energy canada has survived on making about 20 some nuclear reactors and supplying them over decades. China buys and builds its own reactors and russian and french etc... Not all of the small reactors will get built or succeed. China seems likely to favor its High temperature pebble bed.
Lighten up, nano.
You kept mixing up the airplane industry and small nukes so I just made the final connection.
Besides, lots of nukers talk about making ocean going ships all nukes, why not planes?
The shutdown of South Africa's expensive pebble bed reactor I think is the end of that technology for commercial power.
China has a planned economy so they can force thru pretty much anything they want regardless of it's practicality. Look at the behemoth Three Gorges Dam, which is just waiting for the next big Sichuan earthquake.
http://drgeorgepc.com/EarthquakesChina.html
@majorian - why should we lighten up? This is a serious discussion about perhaps the most serious question facing society today - how will we power ourselves without choking on the waste products or burning every bit of valuable hydrocarbon raw material, thus removing all opportunities to use that material from future generations.
What do you know about the difference in mass between an ocean going ship and and even the largest aircraft on the planet? Do you realize that a 1,000,000 pound aircraft is huge, but a 500 ton ship is actually quite tiny?
The ship I used to operate was a 9,000 ton submarine; it was relatively straightforward to build a well shielded nuclear power plant to propel that ship, even though the ship was completed in 1962 and used technology invented in the 1950s. In contrast, the US Air Force spent 15 years and several billion 1950s and 1960s dollars trying to determine if it was possible to build and shield a nuclear plant powerful enough to propel an aircraft.
We MIGHT be able to succeed using technologies that have been developed since then - especially the higher temperature core materials, but it would be a real stretch. In contrast, we know a LOT about putting power reactors on board ships. The technology works fine and lasts a long time.
Rod Adams
True, unless each future city-state wants to keep their city powered, when the rest of the region goes dark?
Also true that the way we are sold on large infrastructure projects is money efficiency of the large project.
I would be curious to the money efficiency tradeoff for smaller plants that are within or close to generation, users versus large plants and all the extra transmission lines required.
So you gotta get the price down. You gotta get the risk (in the Wall Street investor form of the word) low enough that these things get used in a meaningfully large scale, in a not very long period of time. And the costs have to be low even after the political machinations of anti-nuclear activists add all sorts of uneccessary precautions.
Frankly, I wish we could cool the Nuclear versus renewables war. I see them as complementary. Nuclear makes a great baseline, which is a very useful grid foundation to add renewables on top of. It shouldn't be a case of we can only have one, but not the other.
As long as society and economics hold together, I see no compelling reason why either Nuclear, or renewables would not be viable with fossil fuels. We will still be able to get around, and dig holes in the ground, and do industrial scale processing of stuff, even if we can't power any of it with diesel. It might cost more, but if that is the only alternative, thats how it will be done.
So exactly how many well paid workers will that be do you figure? Assuming that you find enough people who are sufficiently educated in basic math and science... You do know what a university education costs nowadays right? How you gonna pay for it? More debt in the form of student loans?
Hey, I know, free online degrees in Nuclear Engineering... I'm sure you'd get a lot of overseas students signing up.
That's a tired strawman argument! I'm tired of people who insist on continuing to use it. Wind is not a panacea by itself, but then nothing is, not even nuclear. However it does have a role to play as does solar and hydro and energy storage and most of all energy conservation.
How about a adopting new paradigm and a way of thinking where it's OK to wait for the wind to blow...
@FMagyar -
Actually, nuclear is a pretty good panacea. I have spent months at a time living on a ship where all of the power - 24 x 7 - came from a nuclear power plant. The only time it did not produce was when we turned it off for training.
I also spent a week in France earlier this summer and traveled the country via high speed and low speed electric trains. There both my electricity and transportation came from nuclear fission - at least the vast majority of it did. The small portion of the power that was not being produced by fission could not have been produced by either wind or solar power - those would not propel a taxi or a bus.
In an earlier part of my life, I did quite a bit of ocean sailing and have a bit of direct experience in the limitations of waiting for the wind to blow. My father was a transmission substation engineer who liked to show his kids what he did for a living while we were on vacation and visiting places all around the country. I have a pretty good idea what it means to build sufficient transmission infrastructure to attempt to supply reliable power with unpredictable, weather dependent electricity sources. No thanks.
We still live in a democracy here in the US. You are free to promote your vision for the future while I am free to promote mine. Let's see whose is more acceptable to the largest number of people. The only basic rule is that we both need to tell the truth about the limitations of the sources that we promote.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
We still live in a democracy here in the US.
The CIA factbook says:
Constitution-based federal republic
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
So either you are wrong or the CIA is wrong.
You are free to promote your vision for the future while I am free to promote mine.
And my 'freedom' to cite actual data to show you are wrong has nothing to do with the US being "a democracy". Unless you are what would be a protected political class in some other system.
Do feel free to demonstrate how under some other political system, for political reasons, I'd be unable to cite data to show you are wrong.
The only basic rule is that we both need to tell the truth
(just thought I'd repeat that)
Rod,
So have I, I've learned to adapt to the circumstance, sometimes it's a good time to climb the mast and do some maintenance or enjoy a dip in the ocean... I'm sure you agree. I'd call it an advantageous feature of the vagaries of the wind and not a bug. That gets close to what I meant about thinking within the new paradigm. Go with the flow.
Sorry not buying that one. I have no doubt that life is good on a nuclear powered ship, especially if you can discount all the external costs of living that good life. Goes back to what I said about Gail's warning that we still need all the inputs of energy intense civilization we now enjoy to implement your panacea.
Care to back that statement up with a detailed cost benefits analysis? Granted it might not make sense specifically in France because they are already heavily invested in their existing nuclear infrastructure.
BTW to be clear I have no doubt that there is a limited use for small nuclear reactors. Again I'm more inclined to see a varied mix of energy generating sources.
Visions of the future and the freedom to promote either yours or mine aside, right now we are living in a state where very obviously what is more acceptable to the largest number of people is a patently unrealistic and unsustainable desire to live beyond our means. I call it BAU.
Quite frankly I summarily reject the idea that what is more acceptable to the largest number of people is automatically what should be done. Just because most people currently find it acceptable to drive gas guzzling SUV's should we continue to allow that, even though we are aware of energy depletion and the consequences of CO2 emissions? How about if most people found it acceptable to drive drunk? Would it be OK with you if we allowed it? Hey, majority think its OK, right? Even if the majority doesn't have a clue and our way of life will forever be non negotiable.
At the end of the day you haven't as yet convinced me that this kind of nuclear reactor is indeed a panacea or that it is in any way more desirable let alone economically viable than other forms energy production to be implemented as a generally available solution to our energy needs.
We badly need transportation fuel, and electricity is not terribly good for that, except perhaps with electric railroads. Trying to keep an economy going with batteries in vehicles of all kinds sounds like an exercise in futility.
One of the issues is mining and transporting uranium. Another is getting workers to work, and food from farms to the cities. When you were on a ship, you were sheltered from all of these details.
The only form of energy that is better for transportation is petroleum. In my book, that makes electricity a good source for transportation "fuel". Perhaps even terribly good.
Only compared to using liquid fuels. Perhaps you meant "growing" not "going."
@Gail - I did not spend all of my time on ships. In fact, I have not actually deployed on a ship for 20 years. I have spend the past 9 years working in and around DC, so I am well aware of the transportation requirements that you mention.
Mining uranium can be done in several ways that are not fossil fuel intensive - there is solution mining and strip mining using electric shovels.
Transporting uranium is a relatively trivial matter - the world market right now for a fuel that supplies 16% of the world's energy is about 68,000 tons per year. That is about a week's worth of coal supply to a single large coal fired power plant.
Trains and subways are electrically powered now in many major cities. Cities like Boston have hybrid buses that operate on diesel fuel outside of the city and connect to overhead wires like old fashioned trolleys inside the city. Ships are an obvious application for direct use of nuclear energy - fully 6% of the world's oil production currently goes towards powering ships. A few percent of our oil consumption in the US is in home heating - another market where there is direct electricity competition. Around the world, there are still a number of markets that use a substantial quantity of oil for electricity production, mostly in oil producing countries. Quite a few of these, including the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Indonesia have serious nuclear energy programs ramping up.
Rod Adams
"electricity is not terribly good for that, except perhaps with electric railroads. "
...Perhaps?
Gail, you are too much!
You make it sound like electric trains are an interesting theory. They are running ALL OVER THE WORLD, Gail!
Just not here! (With apologies to the exceptionaly T, the Ell, Metro, and my dear, Misunderstood F-train from Brooklyn.. among similar brethren.. you guys work hard!)
General rule about energy politicization: people left of center and greens tend to say stupid things about nuclear power, while people right of center (at least in America) tend to say stupid things about solar and wind.
The "what will we do when the sun doesn't shine" / "what will we do when the wind doesn't blow" thing is sort of similar to the "what will we do with the spent fuel" question in nuclear power discussions. All have technical answers.
Another related canard is "but none of these supposedly miraculous nuclear/solar/wind/renewable/whatever technologies have materialized after X years! That proves they really don't exist!" No, they certainly exist. They haven't materialized because coal and natural gas are still cheap and easy enough that there hasn't been strong market pressure to change anything.
You are starting to see multiple electric cars entering the market because that's no longer true for oil. When natural gas and coal start to hurt then I predict we'll really see an explosion of nuclear, wind, solar, etc.
@AdamI - I want to challenge your generalization. I happen to have voted for the current president, support public education, have a mother, two aunts and two uncles who were union school teachers, believe that universal medical care is a wonderful thing, and support an increased minimum wage. In other words, I think most people who know me would classify me as a bit of a left leaning character.
Tell me what the technical answer is to providing power when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining? (My answer is fission power, but if we have fission power, we have no need to bother with solar and wind.)
I would twist your assertions about "cheap" oil and gas a different way - there is a good reason why all major oil companies are running advertising campaigns touting their investments in alternative energy systems and list wind, solar, biomass, algae, geothermal, and waves, but fail to mention the elephant in the room named nuclear fission. Fission has actually taken market share from fossil fuels. Its growth during the 1970s and 1980s played a major role in pushing the price of oil and gas down for 15 years (1985-2000) because the supply of energy was larger than the demand.
However, the people who sell oil and gas love having addicted customers and they hate it when the customers find an alternative that is quantifiably superior. I have found and documented numerous instances of fossil fuel related interests working to suppress nuclear energy developments. If you visit Atomic Insights, you can find these by searching on the term "smoking gun".
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Molten salt, CAES, pumped storage are all proposed or already being used. Heck, we should even throw lead acid batteries in there, too. Also long distance HVDC and other methods of power balancing.
Also, very often the wind blows when the sun doesn't shine and vice versa.
Quite frankly Rod, with the TOD audience I don't think you win any favors when you make it obvious that there are a number of conversations to which you haven't been paying any attention.
And don't get me wrong about nuclear. I've seen some people opine that nuclear is the ideal source for balancing the intermittency of wind and solar. That might be especially true in the medium term while we are still solving the storage problem.
@jaggedben
You are correct about the solutions to wind and solar intermittency. Actually I don't think there is much to 'solve' on the storage problem. The problem is not the technology, it is the cost. I am no expert, but there is a site run by Barry Brook called Brave New Climate that has some analyses that look plausible to me. Unfortunately I think that given the costs and difficulties in making wind and solar our primary energy sources will mean that we simply won't do it. We will continue to rely on coal, until we are forced to change and then the 'duh' moment will arrive and we will start building nuclear plants as fast as possible.
Steve,
I think there is wide open room for debate as to whether coal is cheaper than wind and solar. (See for example this post on EROEI, which isn't exactly the same as cost but has a relationship.)
Wind and solar are expanding geometrically. That trend may or may not hold, but I think it is way too soon to say how much change we will be able to afford within any medium to longer term time period.
In any case, of what practical relevance is the question of whether 'we' (all of humanity) will be able to afford to change (everything)? As an individual (or even someone with power in a company, government or organization) all you have to ask yourself is three questions:
-Do we have the money to build renewables NOW?
-If we build renewables NOW, will it result in a net GHG emissions reduction (or other environmental benefits) over the life of the system?
-If we build renewables NOW, will we get a net energy gain over the life of the system?
If the answer to all three questions (or even the first two) is yes, then the conclusion is to go for renewables.
Do we have the money to build renewables?
Money is easily obtained. We can just write it inot the ledger which is how the banks have been "saved" which is really an accounting trick rather than a fundamental creation of something new. Setting out to completely reconstruct the entire energy infrastructre of the whole world would require us to forgo other things. It's called opportunity cost. The world economy is not yet capable of delivering renewables or nuclear for that matter on the scale that is needed unless we divert some capaicty from other sectors. It is quite easy to identify military expenditure along with the car industry and a large part of the unecessary trade in consumer crap, overproduction of food that doesn't get eaten etc. The problem is the people working in those industries along with the capital items invested in them cannot easily switch to building renewables. There is also no phantom workforce that can easily materialise to do so, no matter how much money is made available. It is not whether we have the money. It is whether we have the political will to make it happen. I suspect that very few people will ever vote to voluntarily have less in order to build a more sustainable energy system. The depression however will rectify this.
-If we build renewables NOW, will it result in a net GHG emissions reduction (or other environmental benefits) over the life of the system?
I am afraid that this may never be a serious consideration until we have a world government that can enforce it. To have the world governmtn will require a big military etc, etc see above.
-If we build renewables NOW, will we get a net energy gain over the life of the system?
It depends on the form of the energy and what can be done with it. For example if we have the choice to grow trees or build a CSP plant on an energy return basis I would go with the trees as the inputs are very low energy, risk is lower etc. However In the end I will only really be able to harvest heat when i chop down the trees and burn them. With a CSP plant the inputs are enormous but I can get process heat or high tech elctricity over the full life of the plant. Having electricity may be more valuable as there are many ways I can use this to either bootstrp more CSP plants, keep the lights(and the internet) running etc which may have other socail effects that the tree project just cannot deliver. It also greatly depends on the market into which you are going to sell the energy. Electricity is greatif you live in a high tech country but doesn't amke much sense in a developing country where people do not have the appliances to convert electricty into useful services. The firewood project may be much more useful for them and is proabably more sustainable than the high tech option.
"Electricity is great if you live in a high tech country but doesn't amke much sense in a developing country where people do not have the appliances to convert electricity into useful services."
The developing world is benefiting from solar lighting, computers, radios and cellphones, to name some very transportable electrical appliances. Less Kerosene dependence for lighting, and then the projects creating solar ovens which help reduce firewood demand and the consequent deforestation and soil destruction/water retention..
That is a shame. There are lots of conversations that take place every day that deserve to be ignored. Just because the conversations take place does not mean that the topics discussed are settled and agreed upon by all participants.
For example, can you please tell me about the magnitude of the energy storage systems that have been deployed and are currently planned for deployment? How about a comparison between the total amount of energy that can be stored in EVERY lead acid storage battery ever built and the amount of energy that the US consumes every hour?
Sure, there are times when the wind blows while the sun is not shining and vice versa. Where are the plans to build enough of both wind and solar capacity along with the required transmission capacity to carry all of the required powered from place to place when only one or the other is available or when neither one is available for hundreds to thousands of miles?
How much will all that excess capacity and transmission line infrastructure cost and how does it affect the projected price of either solar or wind power as a reliable - vice weather dependent - power source?
I have an easy test for wind and solar advocates - point to just one location in the world where there is a reasonably modern society with clean water, refrigeration, and 24 x 7 lighting that depends on those sources for more than 50% of its power demand.
I can do it for nuclear by pointing to dozens of ships and submarines and to fully developed countries like France and Sweden, or states like Illinois or South Carolina.
Rod Adams
Rod, I was trying to help you by pointing out that there are better ways to win people over.
You asked what the technical solutions were, as if you had never heard of any, and I gave you three terms to start googling and educating yourself about. You clearly haven't spent the intervening period between my comment and yours doing that. If you want to actually convince people who have invested time thinking about those technical approaches, you're going to need to show you know at least something about them. (And if that's not what you're trying to do, I don't know why you're responding to all the comments here.)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
See, the thing is, anybody can propose to 'build enough of technology x'. You're really not doing anything different by advocating we build a lot of new nukes. And as far as I can tell (but feel free to show me otherwise) they did more thinking about the cost than you have.
(BTW, I am not arguing that the SciAm solar plan is necessarily feasible in a post-peak oil economy.)
Your plan of building however many NEW nuclear reactors is hardly less grandiose than the solar plan referenced above. Whether some countries already have a lot of nuclear built in the past is rather irrelevant to what we should do going forward. If no one had ever adopted new technologies then you and I wouldn't even be having this conversation.
And let me point out again...it's not an either/or between solar/wind and nuclear. They compliment each other in many ways. I don't know why you're going out of your way to bash renewables on intermittency. You could instead say things like "Nuclear is the ideal source for balancing the intermittency of the growing supply of wind and solar." You're trying to sell this stuff, right?
(Finally, parenthetically...)
Well, I was curious. It seems that global car production has been about 40 million cars a year for the last decade. The average car battery apparently has about a 1200 Wh capacity. So cars produced in the last decade (~400 million) have about 480000 MWhs of capacity.
According to the EIA (via Wikipedia) the US uses 3,872,598,000 MWhs/year of electricity. That amounts to average power of 442100 MW.
In other words, all the car batteries built just in the last ten years could probably power the US for an hour or so. I think if you added up all the lead acid batteries "ever built" it's probably enough to get the US through the night.
@jaggedben
Here is the difference between us - though I use google, I can recognize the difference between credible and incredible resources. I have also taken several graduate level courses in renewable energy systems taught by one of the world's recognized experts on the subject - Dr. Chih Wu, who literally wrote the book on ocean thermal energy conversion and has done ground breaking research in other renewable systems. I took those courses after having served as the Chief Engineer Officer on a nuclear powered submarine. By the end of our time together, Dr. Wu and I had published a paper on closed cycle nuclear heated gas turbines and I had filled several notebooks on the equations governing the limitations of renewable energy systems. Most of those limitations have nothing to do with technology - they are fundamental material characteristics and physical limitations. No technology will overcome them.
Actually, I am not trying to sell anything. I am trying to pay back American taxpayers for supporting my education at both undergraduate and graduate school levels. I am trying to pay them back for providing me with the privilege of serving them for 33 years, for providing me with plenty of exceptional young people to lead and for offering me a defined benefit pension as a result of keeping me employed for that long. That is how I can afford to give this information away.
The only things that wind/solar have going for them is that they are not hydrocarbons and they do not produce any direct emissions. Compared to nuclear, neither of those are advantages. It is only energy industry folks who tell people that we need to spend money on all energy systems, even the inferior ones. Perhaps that is because Siemens, BP, GE, Chevron, NextEra, and Vestas all have significant interests in both alternative energy system manufacturing and traditional energy system production. I may be completely out to lunch, but I am trying to share my honest opinion as an operational engineer. Nuclear energy systems are incredibly competent at their assigned task of providing reliable power; wind and solar cannot compete without large quantities of direct government subsidies, mandates and market set asides.
Rod Adams
Rod, do you think your credentials, particularly on renewables, are more convincing than those of the NREL authors of the Grand Solar Plan? My credentials are admittedly no where near either yours or theirs. But assuredly, credentials alone in this case give me no basis for deciding which experts are more credible. If your goal is to engage with members of the public (which is what you are doing here at TOD) you're going to need more than just credentials.
If you truly have expertise on the limitations of the energy storage systems I mentioned, then you'll share at least some tidbits of that expertise and not make a bald argument from authority. Cite a study, throw out some numbers or something. Help me educate myself. Demonstrate that you know anything about the storage methods I mentioned. Note that my original comment wasn't a claim that they would work, but an observation that you were talking as if you had never heard of them.
I can think of one thing they have going for them compared to nuclear, and that is the lack of any issues regarding radioactive waste. You must at least admit that this is a political and social problem for nuclear, even if you don't believe it's a technical one.
Another advantage that solar in particular has is that people with far less expertise than you (such as myself) can implement it en masse.
And what about subsidies for nuclear? Do you really want to talk about that? (Is there any source of energy that has succeeded without receiving financial support from the government?)
The limitations that I learned to recognize do not require a great deal of skill, education, or googling. Step outside and observe the world. Record how often clouds pass overhead. Note the time of sunrise and sunset. Try to get warm on a cold, clear day and recognize the difference in solar intensity between 8:00 am and 12:30 pm. Watch flags fly and leaves blow. Clear off the surface of a few solar collectors after a light snowfall and then do the same task after 1-2 feet fall over a 24 hour period. Become a sailor and spend a few days on the open ocean trying to get somewhere on a schedule. Heat up some water and put it in a well sealed thermos bottle and measure the temperature the next morning. Then try to do the same experiment while opening the bottle every few minutes.
Storing heat is not a real problem, but there are finite limitations, thermodynamics, and cycle efficiencies that you need to understand before asserting that it is a solution. If it was so easy to store energy, why wouldn't nuclear plant operators, who have PLENTY of cheap power and heat available on a 24 x 7 basis, have built sufficient storage so that they did not feel compelled to sell off their nighttime production at fire sale prices? Do you think they are innumerate or just generous?
That is true. However, walking is a much simpler mode of transportation than driving a car, which requires dependence on a whole army of people with some expertise in materials, thermodynamics, aerodynamics, and safety engineering. Using bandaids and aspirin is simpler and more accessible than getting help from a medical doctor and team of nurses in a hospital, but if you have a deep and gushing wound, I think you might opt for the hospital solution.
Providing sufficient energy for a world with a population of 6 billion people is a task that is worth asking a few people to study really hard and develop the expertise required to do it well, with the least amount of material input. I am sorry if you feel differently.
Rod Adams
PS - yes, I ignored the topic of radioactive waste. Can you point to a single story of anyone in the general public whose health or property has been damaged by exposure to the waste products of commercial nuclear power plants? I have been searching for nearly two decades and cannot find any such stories. That does not mean I am ignorant of the hazards of radiation; it just means that it is a problem with adequate available solutions.
Rod, the intermittency of solar and wind is not at issue between us. This subthread started because you made a technical comment about storage to which I responded. I'm certainly aware of the basic thermodynamic limitations of any energy storage, that is not at issue here either. I note that you have had three chances in this subthread to make specific technical comments about the storage methods I mentioned (molten salt, CAES, pumped storage). While I admittedly only know basic information about these methods, I've yet to see you say anything that suggests you actually know more than I do, despite your credentials.
Because, obviously I think, we live in a world dominated by fossil fuel sources of energy. Since fossil fuel is (when you really think about it) an unbeatable energy storage medium (when the energy has been stored for you by nature over millions of years), other storage methods simply aren't economically competitive these days. That may change as fossil fuel supplies decline.
I don't feel differently at all. However, putting all our eggs in a basket that requires a higher standard of living than we can necessarily count on doesn't strike me as wise. (You've noticed that education costs a lot.) I'm for a diverse approach, which is why I'm not strongly opposed to nuclear, though I have some doubts. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I am.
" Your plan of building however many NEW nuclear reactors is hardly less grandiose than the solar plan referenced "
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
Please review the comments on the Solar Grand Plan. It is riddled with serious and fundamental errors.
For example, at 08:50 PM on 02/29/08 I used the author’s numbers and references to show that the amount of biomass required to fire the CAES systems they specified was 5 times the total biomass production of the U.S.
Also the enormous transmission requirements make it highly vulnerable to terrorism.
In contrast, Rod has pointed out several regions where fission provides the largest share of electrical generation. Nothing grandiose about that.
If you include hydro, I think Norway and New Zealand qualify.
But, the real issue is the cost. I'm firmly of the opinion that PV is going to be the cheapest per peak watt. And we need more daytime power than nighttime. And, while it isn't the current mode of operation, running certain industries only when cheap power is available, will be part of the answer. If you can get Nuclear cheaper than stored solar/wind, then you got the baseline market. If you get it cheaper than peak solar/wind then you may get the whole bailiwick. But getting it cheap, in the regulatory overkill of the currently developed world may be a bridge too far. I suspect stored wind/solar will be much more expensive than that which is used as it is produced. So there are fairly strong prospects for a large future demand management industry.
That is a fine opinion. How is it working for you so far? How valuable is a peak watt from a power source that may or may not be available when the customer is willing to pay peak prices?
Given that the highest peaks currently tend to occur during massive use of air-conditioning, when PV is highly likely to be available, this problem isn't really as serious for PV as you make it sound.
I don't know where you live, but in California the highest peaks occur late in the afternoon on hot summer weekdays, several hours after peak solar PV.
For today's forecast demand see
http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html
Solar thermal with storage is potentially much better, since it could shift power into the late afternoon and evening.
I'd say you don't know much about solar system design if you think that this particular problem can't essentially be solved by facing PV systems somewhat more to the west. Time of use rate schedules tend to encourage this in California, where I do indeed live.
Or Precool buildings and Thermal Storage areas during the Solar Peak as well, the latency is an advantage with such close timing.
Nay, Hydro is cheating :
1) It is geographically concentrated. The countries, like Norway or Brazil. who get a lot of their electricity from it, are just lucky, in the same sense that Saudi Arabia is lucky with oil and Qatar lucky with NG. Because of its low cost, Hydro is a lowest hanging fruit no-brainer. It is not the result of strong political will or high technical expertise. All one needs is capital and rule of law.
2) It is geographically limited. There is only so much valleys and rivers one can dam, even if one decides to build in every natural reserve. It is already mostly maxed out except maybe some potential giant projects in the Himalayas (very sensitive between China and its neighbors by the way)
3) There is a limit for hydro to absorb intermittency : multiplying turbines to concentrate the power on specific times entails an irregular flow downstream. There are already conflicts in dam management between baseload production and agricultural production. It will be even more pronounced with more intermittent releases.
WOT? Nuclear ideal for balancing wind? That's the first time I've heard that. I think nuclear is just about the worst.
They're wrong. Hydro and open-cycle gas are the sources capable of balancing the intermittency of wind and solar. Existing nuclear plants can't ramp their power up and down that far that fast.
It is not that they can't (+/-5% power per minute is quite fast on a reasonably big grid, and that is just the nuclear reactor power, no the steam generator power), but rather that
first, it is costly to let a lot of capital and fixed personnel cost idle
second, frequent changes in temperature have an adverse effect on materials behavior.
Free - there is also a limit on how fast present day plants can ramp up based on the amount of iodine that has built up in the core. If the core has been fully shut down, the restart must proceed very slowly.
Find me an Electric Car - that costs less than $50K - that doesn't use any form of oil to provide it's juice and I'd consider buying one. Also pretty sure that the emissions of most five year old and newer cars are lower than that portion of the local coal-fired generation plant needed for your batteries.
Many thanks, Rod, for some interesting info.
Well, they're not actually out yet, but by the end of the year we are supposed to have both the Nissan Leaf and the Coda. Also, the Chevy volt, which can be run without gas if you choose to.
All of the cars mentioned above should use approximately 25kWh/100 miles, or .25kwH per mile. The reported CO2e emissions per kWh generated vary widely from state to state, but the national average is 1.31 lbs CO2 per kWh. If we use this number for the cars above we get .33 lbs CO2 per mile.
If we assume average 25 mpg for gasoline cars, and 19.4 lbs CO2 emitted per gallon of gasoline, we get .77 lbs CO2 per mile.
So if the voluntary reporting on CO2 is accurate, your statement above is wrong. And it would be wrong in even in North Dakota, the state with the worst CO2 emissions per kWh.
http://www.e-volks.com/gpage4.html
.. Some assembly required.
Batteries bring this $2800 kit up to about the $10,000 range, and the donor car adds another $1000
Many folks have bought or built EV's and E-Scooters, and charge them with PV. You can pull a great deal of the oil out of your average year at that point.
The US Navy tries to direct the top 2% by IQ tests into the nuclear power program. Some of these kids, including myself, were straight out of high school. I was on that track myself before becoming disabled. 2% of 300 million is 6,000,000 people who are intelligent enough to operate and maintain nuclear reactors after roughly 2 years of intense training. I don't have the numbers but I doubt we have over 6 million people working in the entire electric power industry let alone just the nukes. Most of our civilian workers at nuke plants were trained by the Navy at taxpayer expense. With the propose reactors being built on assembly lines there is really not that much need for large numbers of engineers just as the percentage of engineers in the auto industry is a small percentage of all the workforce. These factories would probably have more employees in the payroll department than engineers.
Hi Maygar,
It's a ways off topic , but the question as to why a good advanced technical education should cost so much is a very good one, and a mystery to me.
Maybe we should take this up some day in a future discussion;why the hell SHOULD it cost megabucks to train mathematicians, engineers, and programmers?
In certain fields of course it is necessary to work on real machinery or real people, as in the case of medicine, as a part of the training;but I have talked to numerous engineers who got a good solid education out of textbooks and classrooms.They got thier initial experience as gofers for the senior guys who assigned them bite sized chunks of the big jobs the senior guys were responsible for-paid ojt training.
Maybe engineering schools are a little too much like resorts and the professors are a little underworked. ;)
Research , yes, absolutely!
But charging the students triple to pay for it might not be the best policy.
Everybody seems to be under the illusion that as things go bad, bau will be maintained;but personally I think the days of flying the football teams and the fans of the game all over the country are soon to be over.
I'm convinced that in the not too distant future football and other athletic games such as basketball and baseball will revert to being just a fun game to play against your local teams, no more superstars selling Nike and deodorants.
As for:
Because schools have become for profit businesses no longer really interested in teaching and transmitting knowledge? They make more money promoting their athletic departments...
I imagine that since there will still be a great need for technical skills and knowledge we will find ways to transmit it without a need for individual financial gain. Science and engineering guilds with long apprenticeships to repay the master's mentoring? I don't pretend to know the future but that model has worked in the past.
Maybe football players of the future will be engineers first, athletes second, capable of designing their own flying machines to be able to fly themselves to their games >;^)
Oh, I think that the major league teams will have the money to afford plane travel for a while, after the common man can't.
It's worth noting, however, that well into the 70's NFL teams played half of their games against division opponents, in divisions that were geographically aligned. Nowadays they play about a third of their games against such opponents. I could see the major leagues revamping their schedules back in the other direction to reduce travel costs. Who knows, maybe the Dodgers will even move back to Brooklyn. ;-)
but people do not stop needing power
NEEDING?
Interesting choice of a word.
The people of Bagdad Iraq do not have 24X7 electrical power. Under your idea of needs - I'm sure you have written about how fission power would solve Bagdad's power issues......do you have a link to where you've advocated on their lack of met NEED?
@eric blair - I have not written about Bagdad in particular, but I have written on a number of occasions about the need for reliable power in developing areas. See, for example,
Nuclear Power for Remote Areas - http://www.atomicengines.com/distributed.html
or
Nuclear Energy Aspirations Legitimate, Even if You Live in an Oil Producing Nation - http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2009/10/nuclear-energy-aspirations-ar...
Managed powerdown? Hah. I don't know where you live, but in America I imagine something resembling a cross between "Mad Max," "Jesus Camp," and "Escape from New York."
How exactly is a powerdown going to be managed when management takes power?
*chuckle* That bad? I was envisioning a cross between "Little House on the Prairie", "The Waltons" and maybe a bit of "I Am Legend". Anyway, that managing part is what we have a government for..
Government is a huge inefficient energy pig. I think it would be one of the first things to go, at least at the federal level. There are a large number of systems that probably represent much lower energy throughput states. Third world style "local strongman anarchy" is probably one.
Thanks for the laugh!
Laugh?! Hey, I live in South Florida, that's reality...
More than half the world's population would prefer a future where they get to power up, not down, and they will grab at whatever gives them the opportunity to do so. One of the critical things they need is reliable baseload electricity, which is arguably more important to making use of modern technology than oil is. Renewables can, in concept, provide reliable baseload power by themselves, but require large high-capacity grids and geographical diversity of sources in order to do so. The western US, with all of hydro, wind, and solar might pull it off; a small country in SE Asia or central Africa would have a much more difficult time of it.
Modular fast-neutron reactors shipped pre-fueled from a factory, that can produce 100 MWe for 30 years, then be returned to the factory for decommissioning, will be enormously attractive to those people.
Rod, you wrote
"I have also lived within 200 feet of a nuclear power plant that provided both propulsion power and electrical power."
I think you are confusing commercial with military nuclear power (lol).
Casey
@Casey - nope. The reactors on board submarines are power reactors, not weapons production reactors. They were the ancestors of both the large power reactors that most people think of when they think of commercial nuclear power plants and also the small modular reactors that companies like B&W and NuScale will be building right here in the US.
It might be interesting for you and others to do some research on who supplies many of the components of the submarine power plants that I learned to love while serving in the Navy.
Rod Adams
Rod - I am slowly in the process of revising my opinions on nuclear power.
You cite your experience on nuclear subs as might be expected and the long term use of nuclear power plants on watercraft, especially submarines, seems especially impressive. I wonder about the possibility of simply parking a military surplus sub or two close to major load centers and running some fat cables to the nearest transformer?
I haven't heard just how much $$ the Pentagon gets to spend on their onboard reactors and various support systems. Might be a good idea to make sure the economics are still in the 'Commercial Power' ballpark before getting too far into this one.
SLBM carrying subs are rather costly power plants, however Russians are already building floating nuclear generators for exactly the purpose you mention: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Akademik_Lomonosov
I recall that such a plan was considered for San Francisco but turned down during one of California's recurrent energy crises.
what is your alternative? A world that is constrained by limited supplies of fossil fuel that pollute our air and water and enrich some people beyond imagination while impoverishing others?
And somehow fission reactors won't enrich some people while other nation-states will be forced to go without?
That the effects of using fission reactors will not result in pollution of air and water? Somehow my pointing out things like Sheffield won't change your mind Mr. Adams.
But then you are not here to have a debate with your mind willing to be changed in an honest discussion.
@eric blair - nuclear energy - unlike oil, coal and gas - is not geographically limited.
Fission reactors tend to be incredible job generators that distribute the benefits to many people who earn a living wage at a job that can turn into a career. Not only can the jobs turn into careers, but they often become multi-generational careers. In many of the US nuclear power plants, there are two or three generations who work at the facility. They cannot be moved somewhere else to supply the power that they supply to their local area. Many of the jobs provide a high level of valuable training that results in employability in many fields of endeavor if the person WANTS to seek a change of scenery.
Though we have had nuclear fission reactors operating around the world for more than 5 decades, you would be hard pressed to find any major fortunes that are associated with the technology. There have been a few executives who made more than a million, but I would bet that none have ended up with $100 million. In contrast, the oil, coal and gas world has hundreds of billionaires, many of whom inherited their wealth and power.
That is the difference that makes me believe that nuclear is better in the wealth distribution measure of effectiveness.
As you state, for political reasons - and for wealth protection reasons - there are currently some states who are forced to go without nuclear, but that is a situation that can and should be changed by caring people who resist that kind of power behavior.
Rod Adams
nuclear energy - unlike oil, coal and gas - is not geographically limited.
You are right - solar is an option for most of the planet. And wind seems to work in most places.
Fission reactors tend to be incredible job generators that distribute the benefits to many people who earn a living wage at a job that can turn into a career. Not only can the jobs turn into careers, but they often become multi-generational careers.
Once you take the time and look into solar and small wind you'll be converted to that message because of your job criteria!
They cannot be moved somewhere else to supply the power that they supply to their local area. Many of the jobs provide a high level of valuable training that results in employability in many fields of endeavor if the person WANTS to seek a change of scenery.
Again, with that criteria solar and small wind should excite you.
you would be hard pressed to find any major fortunes that are associated with the technology. There have been a few executives who made more than a million, but I would bet that none have ended up with $100 million.
GE, Bechtel, Westinghouse, Toshiba arn't major fortunes?
Huh.
Or is this like the claim that was debunked by citing the CIA's own paperwork elsewhere in this topic?
(as an interesting aside - http://www.rittersolar.de/english/index_e.htm claims the CEO entered this business because of Chernobyl)
That is the difference that makes me believe that nuclear is better in the wealth distribution measure of effectiveness.
Oh, well then, in that case you should be dropping fission and supporting solar and wind.
As you state, for political reasons - and for wealth protection reasons - there are currently some states who are forced to go without nuclear, but that is a situation that can and should be changed by caring people who resist that kind of power behavior.
I would think that any nation-state which is using Uranium in combat (placing a known mutagen into the combat area and effecting civilians - thus being a war crime) or was willing to use not one but two fission weapons VS civilians would have demonstrated the kind of "power behavior" that demonstrates they are not willing to use the atom peacefully. As long as the criteria is 'aggressive use of fission power and fission powers byproducts' - woudn't such an aggressive State be denied?
One of the best points of nuclear is that it requires little labor and one of the worst of solar and wind is that they require more labour. Efficiency is what makes us prosperous. "Green jobs" are negative.
A bad point of nuclear is that it isn't very geographically mobile, which makes it harder to locate where labour is plentiful and cheap, but the fact that it needs so little staffing makes this more ok.
You guys' perspective is all messed up. Please get a clue about what promotes a country's prosperity.
Efficiency is what makes us prosperous.
Are you sure about that?
Would you know prosperity if it came about and beat you with a 10+ trillion dollar stick?
Examine the multi trillion dollar clue by four. None that "if you spent a million dollars each day from the time of jesus you'd not be at a trillion dollars spending" and the "unfunded mandates for Social Security and Medicare is 38 Trillion". (both sourced from Jim Plapava who wants you to buy gold)
Go ahead - do point out how, in real tearms, the US of A is 'prosperous;. If that prosperity is based on backbreaking debt or spending over 50% of the National funds on the Military...its not really prosperity.
"Green jobs" are negative.
I would think dumping radioactive waste into the sea like Sheffield, yucca mountain, Chernobyl or having a radioactive source as a target in a war would be a negative.
Buy you've made the claim. Prove it with charts and graphs and data sources.
to locate where labour is plentiful and cheap
Errr, under your magical formula of efficiency - wouldn't replacing everyone with robots make all human labor "plentiful and cheap"?
You guys' perspective is all messed up. Please get a clue about what promotes a country's prosperity.
Wouldn’t that be the reserve status of the currency? Its not 'leadership'
US PPP GDP/capita: $46,000 (undisputed first place if you disregard city-states and big oil exporters).
According to the usdebtclock.org, your national assets are around $237,000 per capita while total debt is $175,000. Also, the assets are ticking up and debt is ticking down!
So, your balance is good overall and improving, while your income is world-leading! If that's not prosperity, what is?
Btw, Department of Defense spending is 4.7% of GDP this year.
I don't need to. TOD members should all know that spending more labor on the same energy output is negative.
Yes?
Eh, no.
According to the usdebtclock.org,
And the basis for their math is explained where?
If you have $10 you can buy a domain. For $7ish a month - hosting. If putting up a web page is all it takes to be authoritative.....
Also, the assets are ticking up and debt is ticking down!
Ticking up by what measure? In terms of Federal Reserve Notes?
More Federal Reserve Notes are created thus causing inflation. Inflation isn't normally called 'prosperity' but if you can't think beyond the number has increased therefore its better, well, inflation and hyperinflation is "prosperity" then.
In physical terms like roads, sewers and water systems - are they improving?
By a 'increase in numbers' status, then there must be an improvement in the quality of the sewer project in Birmingham AL - such an improvement must be an increase in the prosperity, right?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64833
If I were to suspect a debt clock project of something, it would of painting a bleaker picture than motivated. But no, I have no idea of how they get their numbers. As a Swede, I can't fight you in a US anecdote match either, so if you say Birmingham AL's sewers are getting worse, I believe you.
But hey, why don't you tell us which countries you think are prosperous, and why? A prosperity rating of the 10 most populous nations, perhaps, according to Eric?
Uh, yeah. Increasing productivity — increasing the amount of goods & services per man-hour — is the essence of increasing prosperity. The alternative — increasing the number of hours per year — is really, really hard.
increasing the amount of goods & services per man-hour — is the essence of increasing prosperity.
And I'll call bullshit on that.
"we" can make more happy meals or even be 'efficient' in making, say the movie Human Centipede. But I'm betting you'll be hard pressed to claim that is increasing the nations prosperity.
If the 'increase' of goods and services are dreck - then they do not add to prosperity.
Spending over 1/2 of the fed budget on a war machine VS spending that same amount on infrastructure and education will have different effects to prosperity. I'll let each reader try and figure out which will be better for a nation in the long run.
Prosperity is what you like, not what others like. And since you despise most everything you see, there isn't very much prosperity. Good, thanks for letting us know.
Btw, stop lying about military spending.
Prosperity is what you like, not what others like.
How very "you" centric. At least we now know how selfish you are. Good, thanks for letting us know.
And since you despise most everything you see,
Huh. Yet another baseless statement by Fission supporters.
Typical of them.
Btw, stop lying about military spending.
http://www.deathandtaxesposter.com/
Military - 63% 895 billion
Non Military 37% 520 Billion
Given a position of spending == prosperity, how do you explain an increase in the prosperity of Birmingham AL and their expensive water/sewer project?
I'm not you.
Of the president's DISCRETIONARY spending, genious! What about mandatory stuff such as medicare and social security?
Huh?
That the effects of using fission reactors will not result in pollution of air and water?
Eric - I think you are being disingenuous here - our very existence as a civilized society at this point results in pollution of air and water. The point is to make informed decisions to reduce the footprint of our energy generation and use. Up thread there are very good links that estimate steel and concrete required for wind vs nuclear, nuclear by far requires less - a strong indicator that nuclear will have less impact. Also, google CO2 emission of energy sources - not hard to find that nuclear is among the lowest emitters ie negligable after construction & approx. equal to wind after wind has been constructed. CO2 refs and construction refs have repeatedly been shown on this site also. I understand that many people have deep concerns re our civilizations long term impact - very reasonable concerns I might add - but please do not attack someone who provides good info with subtly misleading statements. Gosh even hydro has emissions due to silting up/methane generation.
PS I've worked hydro, nuclear, nat gas construction/maintenance - worked toxic waste sites also - seen pristine areas bulldozed, that's where many wind sites are going here in Maine - there are no good answers, of the workable answers, nuclear appears to be of fundamental importance to the big picture, unless you have absolutely no confidence in human nature and governance (and if you don't, the weapons are here regardless. Actually I think the world is a safer place if we have the energy available to raise the standard of living in some brutally poor areas).
Eric - I think you are being disingenuous here
No more than the creator of this topic who was complaining about the air/water pollution from other extractive industries.
If he's gonna run down source X for reason Y and his solution has the same reason Y - should you not be calling him out 1st? OR is that just a 'subtle misleading' and therefore OK?
The point is to make informed decisions to reduce the footprint of our energy generation and use.
Also, google CO2 emission of energy sources - not hard to find that nuclear is among the lowest emitters ie negligable after construction & approx. equal to wind after wind has been constructed. CO2 refs and construction refs have repeatedly been shown on this site also.
One has to take into account if CO2 matters. The driver would appear to be the Sun and there is little Man can do about that driver.
Up thread there are very good links that estimate steel and concrete required for wind vs nuclear, nuclear by far requires less - a strong indicator that nuclear will have less impact
And the failure modes for wind? For solar heat and solar PV?
The failure modes for fission power are far worse.
If man had shown Man could build plants without contractors cheating (thus making the plants unsafe) disposing of the waste responsibility, operate a plant without violations of the safety rules (thus no NRC fines) I'd be supporting the effort.
But Man can't be bothered to correct Sleeping Security Guards at fission plants until it becomes a public embarrassment.
but please do not attack someone who provides good info with subtly misleading statements
If he's making misleading statements, or statements that are outright wrong:
1) how does that lead to informed decisions
2) How is the information being given "good"
no confidence in human nature and governance
Why should I when it comes to safe construction and operation of fission power? The leaders in the industry go before Congress and demand the Government shield them with Price-Anderson. Plants have failures in construction due to fraud. Plants have sleeping security guards - and that is a failure most every human can understand.
Fission Power had its chance - and showed Man is not up to the task. Perhaps a future Man under different laws will do better.
(Note how the support had his positive experience under Military rule/Military Law If the only way to have fission power that is 'safe' is to have military rule - is that where you'd want to go?)
Actually I think the world is a safer place if we have the energy available to raise the standard of living in some brutally poor areas
Part of that equation is resource extraction - even if you had an increase in electrical power - would it change the resource extraction issue?
Fission power proved to be the only scalable and controllable non-polluting energy source known to humanity. It also happens to be the safest energy source known to humanity, in terms of statistics not media hyper hysteria.
Western civilization can choose to ignore these facts, at its your peril. Neither Chinese, Japanese, nor Koreans are falling for this fossil mogul enriching foolishness.
Nuclear energy does not need to be ideal to be the best alternative. It just has to be better then the other realistic options, which it is, by a long shot.
Western civilization can choose to ignore these facts,
When you start off with a lie, you don't get to call it a fact.
Fission power proved to be the only scalable and controllable non-polluting energy source known to humanity.
Sorry - fission power is polluting.
Solar thermal as expressed in adobe building would be the closest non-polluting energy capture/control I can think of.
Everything is polluting, but fission isn't significantly so. Also, as said, it is scalable, controllable, sustainable and cheap. Nothing else meets those requirements.
Your fear is irrational. Of course plants are going to fail sometimes. Of course humans are fallible. But you make the mistake of regarding nuclear accidents and radiation releases as unacceptable. They are not! In fact, they are a spit in the sea compared to road traffic, coal combustion and so on. We need energy and so we have to take some negative consequences - cost, risks, resource use and so on. Nuclear happens to have the best mix and the least negative consequences, the occasional nuclear core meltdown included.
Also, wind and solar are not contenders. They are luxury status items, not serious large-scale energy producers.
Your fear is irrational.
I'm just pointing out the position of the regulations.
Of course plants are going to fail sometimes. Of course humans are fallible. But you make the mistake of regarding nuclear accidents and radiation releases as unacceptable.
The NRC fines plants for releases. They seem to think its un-acceptable.
Perhaps that is why security guards are caught sleeping - the operators have your POV.
They are not!
Oh, well with the ! in there - does that make it true? If your position was the truth, why the laws and regulations saying its not OK?
Nuclear happens to have the best mix and the least negative consequences, the occasional nuclear core meltdown included.
So now the argument is at the 'yes it is unsafe - but that is OK' stage of the argument.
What's next - readings from "Toxic Sludge is good for you"?
Also, wind and solar are not contenders. They are luxury status items, not serious large-scale energy producers.
I believe the production of solar energy has been contending for years. Its how "we" have a biosphere and things like oil/coal. Multi-megawatt wind machines sure strike me as 'large scale', but given a core meltdown is OK in your worldview - I'm not sure any serious person should be listening to your analysis.
Oh, suddenly Eric "I love the US establishment" Blair hides behind regulators instead of voicing an opinion of his own. He contents that laws and regulation reflect "truth". That's a nice twist. Now I know I need not listen to him anymore - I can cover all of him by reading up on regulations.
We are in the "trying to give unreasonable guys some perspective"-phase. But I do realize I'm trapped in that phase with you, because you won't ever see reason. It would be interesting to know why, but I guess you're not able tell me.
I haven't said they are "OK". I've said they're acceptable in a sense - in about the same sense it is acceptable that firefighters and policemen die on duty. If it weren't acceptable, the unions would make sure they weren't dispatched, as the risk of death is elevated if they need to fight fires/crime. Of course, in specific cases and in another sense, it may not be "acceptable" that they occasionally die, and you may even justly punish specific negligence that contributed to a death. But overall, you must take calculated risks and do the best with what you've got, in spite of human imperfection and the certainty that stuff will fail occasionally.
What I'm challenging is the meme that nuclear accidents are so bad that they must be avoided at all costs. It simply isn't so.
Well, another nice twist. "Let's ignore the intented meaning of a word and dream up something else." How much is solar energy contending in the area of producing baseload electrical power?
Do they? How large scale are they on the days when there is no wind, then?
If we analyze the problem rationally, the answer as to why we would want "many small reactors" scattered all over would be more or less this:
We are fast approaching the time when ff depletion will result in a catastrophic crash, possibly(probably in my own opinion) preceded by a world wide resource war triggered by the economic pressures.
Nobody much who deals in day to day reality in respect to the timing of ff depletion, particularly oil, seems to believe that renewables can be ramped up fast enough to prevent the crash from happening.
If you doubt this, you must not have been reading this site very long at all.
Global warming or climate change is probably much the greater threat, as compared to accident, terrorism, or state sponsored nuclear weapons proliferation.I'm not minimizing the threat of proliferation;just putting it into perspective.I refer you here to the entire body of environmental literature, start anywhere you wish.
In short, given human nature, the nature of politics,the population problem, and the general environmental crisis, we are totally and irrevocably screwed unless we either one find some new sources of energy, or two get lucky and our problems are solved by supernatural intervention.
Conservation and efficiency measures will not be enough;new sources of energy are essential.
I put the odds of supernatural intervention at zero.
Some variation of the world gone mad and very bad is therefore vitrually certainly already baked in, unless we can put our hands on some reliable, affordable,highly scalable new sources of energy.
If these new nukes prove out,they might just get built in numbers adequate to stave off the worst of the depletion and climate change problems.
As far as paying for the waste products disposal and cleanup:
Let's suppose your kid needs a million dollar heart transplant and you must sign a note for the money.Sign now worry about paying later.
The bill will either get paid, or be written off.If the world is well populated and prosperous, it won't be a problem;if it isn't, the few people around will learn to stay away from old decaying nukes.The planet will continue to circle the sun until Old Sol runs short of hydrogen-a few more billions of years down the road.
In this case, your kid is all the kids of the whole world .
All of them are threatened by war, famine, and disease; and while the actual level of risk is debatable, no one who is informed in the general field can doubt that it is very high.
Safety is a relative thing, and we must run some risks in order to avoid others.
Nukes, considered all the way around, are an economic and environmental bargain.
Ps, As usual , please excuse my poor one finger typing skills;and so far as it goes, I don't see as well as I used to either and fail to spot a lot of spelling errors as I must watch the keyboard rather than the screen.
Mac;
"Nobody much who deals in day to day reality in respect to the timing of ff depletion, particularly oil, seems to believe that renewables can be ramped up fast enough to prevent the crash from happening."
One, that speed's based on the historic rate of Deploying Renewables, which we all know has been disincentivized by cheap oil and by OilCo and Nuclear interests pushing big $$ campaigns in the halls of power to keep renewables at bay..
Two, if it's a time issue, clearly renewables can be ramped up and installed with a fraction of the precautionary or technical hurdles that face Fission. They go in quickly, and have very modest requirements once in place.
It is easier and cheaper to build a 100 MWe CHP plant burning forest biomass then a 100 MWe nuclear powerplant. But the ammount of forest biomass growing each year is limited and it is also needed for paper, lumber and synthesis of liquid fuels and chemicals. There will sooner or later be some hard choices. Todays choise is easy, build the biomass burning CHP plant and extend the district heating network.
Convenient swap of examples, Magnus. You won't hear me pushing burnables for large scale generation, but they sure are a useful example to make nuclear look rosy.
Do the same thing with Solar Hot Water v. Nuclear, and then tell me about the tough choices we need to be realistic about facing.
Hi Johkul,
You are quite possibly correct that renewables COULD BE built out fast enough to turn the corner on depletion, so to speak, from the technical point of view.
In the messy world of people/ politics /finance/lifestyle/geography/bau inertia I don't believe there is a snowballs chance in hxll of it actually happening.
I will wiggle a little and say that an adequate renewables buildout is only politically impossible.
(All the renewables scenarios that I see involving such a buildout involve a massive and highly undesirable -from the spoiled and mostly technically uneducated public's pov-change in the way we live.)
The chances of a nuclear build out adequate to get the job done are probably not much better.
The chance of a a very reasonable and apparently doable conservation/efficiency program such as advocated by Alan from Big Easy actually being mostly or fully implemented is in my opinion not very good either.
Therefore as a realist thinking inside the biggest box I can concieve of, I advocate the fastest possible build out of renewables, the most aggressive efficiency and conservation programs possible, and a flat out effort on the nuclear front as well.
The advocates of all will get some funding and manpower;none will get enough.
I would rather not expand my box to include a massive fast die off of our species as a part of any actual planning process, being a little squeamish about all those billions of kids starving or getting vaporized or held as slaves by warlords.
Some of us will conclude that money spent on nukes won't get spent on wind or conservation or efficiency.
This us probably true to some extent.
But I believe it is also true that the total amount of money and effort-and the total results achieved- that will be devoted to the energy/environmental crisis will be increased by pushing hard in all possible fields.
Any old farmer will tell you that if you want to grow your own food and also be sure of having something to sell, you better be well diversified.
Only one quarter of our orchard acreage was hit by hail earlier, because it is in small scattered tracts;most local growers were wiped out if they were even touched.
About half of our market crops are on bottom land-subject to flooding but very easy to irrigate;the other half on high ground, very hard to irrigate but not at risk of flooding.
If the common potatos don't produce,or won't sell, the sweet potatos probably will.
Sorry I were thinking locally where biomass is plentifull but will be used for other needs when oil peters out and it is also currently politically impossible to build small nuclear powerplants at new sites.
I hear Nuclear makes water "HOT" in more ways than one >;^)
If hot water is the only thing you want from your energy system, you might be correct. However, I have actually lived in a house for a few days with a very large storage tank and solar hot water collectors on the roof. Two mornings were okay, the other two, even the first one up had no hot water because some people took showers before they went to bed in order to beat the rush.
A neighbor in Charleston SC in the mid 1980s installed a large solar hot water system on his roof after receiving subsidy payments of 20% of the installation cost from the state and 30% from the federal government. After two years with intermittent hot water and complaints from the women with whom he shared the house, he decommissioned the system. I clearly remember helping him remove it from the roof and taking it to the dump because he could not find another sucker - oops, buyer.
I am pretty certain that the technology for capturing heat energy from the sun has not improved all that much in the past 30 years.
Rod Adams
You would be quite wrong. Not to mention that the storage tanks and insulation have come a long way as well!
However if I had been one of the people at that house I would have spent a bit of time educating everyone in how the system works and how best to take advantage of it. It's part of what I talk about as paradigm change. I would punish those that tried to beat the system.
Didn't you say you were a sailor? I expect more from you as far as adapting to circumstance.
Apparently you are most likely single and not the father of daughters. My paradigm for healthy happy living is to keep the women with whom I share a home happy and healthy and not too mad at me.
You and your domineering philosophy would most definitely not be welcomed on a family vacation to the beach.
Rod Adams
Rod you seem to have a knack for jumping to false conclusions. I'm 57 years old have been married am divorced, currently in a long term monogamous relationship with a wonderful woman, I'm a father, a brother to a wonderful sister, my mom is still alive and I have a huge extended global family with aunts lots of nieces and many female cousins. There's a sprinkling of guys in the family too but they are in the minority...
I have spent more than a few vacations on the beach in close quarters with my family and friends. I doubt if most people that know me consider me domineering.
BTW in case you may have misunderstood when I used the word punishment it was in the sense of making people accountable. If I take the time to patiently explain how a solar system works and what the members of the party need to do so that everyone can take a hot shower and someone deliberately ignores that and the majority goes without, you can be quite sure that that individual will be doing chores for the rest of the group to make up for the transgression. It will be in good natured fun with lots of laughter, were not talking medieval racks with whips and chains in the basement...
You experienced one or two systems in the years when they were just trying to get commercialized under the weight of several industry players who wanted them to fail, and a workforce that was just starting to figure out how to set them up.
..and now you're pretty certain that there have been no significant improvements in 30 years? .. or that you might have experienced the Chernobyl of DHW systems? .. or that the inclinations of the Nuclear Industry HAS changed so dramatically in those 30 years..
Sorry. Your certainties might take another 30 years before you check them again, but I know folks here in Maine who get hot showers in the Hours following heavy IceStorms, and have enough surplus Hot water to offer some to their neighbors whose homes will be dark for a couple more weeks.
The sun is hot.. it's really not that difficult, even in the snowbound north.
Jokuhl - re solar you've won this point (I won't even say "I think"). Don't relax though - more to say -
Something to think about is price - most in Maine would find it difficult to afford a vacuum tube solar hot water system unless the financing was very very good. Electric hot water (family of 5) costs me $40/month - checked it monthly for about 2 years, until I had payback. I used to have oil based hot water - cost about $75/month. If I had one of the new heat pump water heaters, it would cost about $15 - $20/month. At $0.17 kwh, including delivery. The power mix used to be 20% nuclear, I'm not sure what it is now.
If the amount of nuclear in the mix increased, one thing would remain the same - the average individual would get a monthly bill for the hot water, no financing required. The bill, so far as the hot water was concerned, would probably remain low so long as they had a good water heater, mine cost under $400. A high hurdle for the solar hot water industry.
When I worked in Alaska, electricity was $0.45/kwh, 100% diesel. I bet it costs the same or more in that particular town now. I was at the northern end of a temperate rain forest - the Tongass. Mostly cloudy - pretty much all the time. Much of the population is poor - never would get a loan for solar hot water in a free market. In my opinion modular nuclear power would help most people there. Like anywhere, there are some people in SE AK who are well off and could afford to buy solar & probably could build a system that works well. I'm not sure how practical it would be if you were on the grid though.
Anyway, I think that when the numbers are crunched, so long as the grid functions more people will just plug in for their hot water than not, and we need to be building out reliable low carbon power plants - and what is the best way to proceed towards that goal? Well, that's pretty much what this post is about.
I don't think we get a choice. A modular fast-neutron reactor built and fueled at the factory, shipped to a site where it can be attached to the necessary boilers and steam turbines, to be returned after 30 years of power production for decommissioning, is enormously attractive to smaller developing countries as a source of reliable baseload electricity.
Japan, Russia, and Korea are all working on such designs. China and India can probably also develop such devices if they choose to. Someone is going to build and sell/lease this type of reactor.
I'm all for nuclear revival, but targeting the US market is, I think, a mistake. US power production is relatively stagnant, and after years of effort and $billions in government guarantees, maybe 2 or 4 new ( conventional) plants are going to go up in the next 10 years.
Meanwhile, China is looking to do maybe 10 a year somewhere in that time range. Go east, young man. Or maybe west depending on your starting point, but this is just one of many areas where from my naive view China will inevitably lead.
@dxs - with all due respect to the hardworking Chinese people, I did not spend 33 years in the uniform of the United States Navy to help a communist government take another vital manufacturing industry away from Americans.
Besides, I apparently slept through my Chinese classes and would be hopelessly lost in the ruling bureaucracy that governs that country.
We have the skills and knowledge to succeed with nuclear here in the US. We also have at least a few leaders who have not lost their competitive spirit.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
Political tangent, but Chinese communism is about as communist as American capitalism is capitalist. Both countries have the same system: corporatism.
The large majority of the banking system in China remains firmly in the control of either the central government, or state/local governments. To paraphrase that old saw, "He who controls the credit makes the rules." The top executives of the major Chinese banks are appointed by the Communist Party. Banks that fail to extend credit into areas that the Party wants expanded, or do extend credit into areas that the Party wishes to discourage, get new senior management. Quickly.
Many companies which may appear to be "private" are not all that private. Energy your thing? Sinopec, PetroChina and CNOOC are all majority owned by the government. The Haier Group? Majority government owned. China Mobile, the largest cellular provider? State owned. The Chinese government is the largest shareholder of Lenovo, with "only" a 27% stake. The forms may have changed, but at a fundamental level, the same people are calling the shots. If your majority shareholder says "I don't care about market cap or dividends, I care about domestic jobs," management is going to make its decisions differently.
That ruling commie bureaucracy seems more adept to nuclear power than your democratic US... why is that the majority of new nuclear reactors are built in countries with regulated economy? (not that I am a fan of communist style economy but it makes you wonder...)
Perhaps because they do not have an exceedingly wealthy and powerful fossil fuel industry fighting nuclear energy development every step of the way with every sneaky trick they can find to keep down the competition?
Perhaps because Nuclear thrives in countries with central controls, guaranteed public financing, and sometimes the ability to pick and choose which safety regulations need to be adhered to this year.
Or perhaps because the leadership is able to focus with a clear vision -informed by hard facts in respect to growth/survival/prosperity/environment/population ff depletion- of what the future holds.
Perhaps we can't see so clearly, being rich enough to fool ourselves, for now at least.
Mac,
As one of my favorite conservative voices on this forum, I'd ask whether you have a lot of confidence in such a Top-Down system as the above implies?
People paint subsidies for Residential Renewables as a 'Big Government' program, but ultimately, that at least puts the ownership of that power directly into people's hands. THEY own the 'means of production' if you will. Alright, that makes it a little Rosy (or Red-tinted..), but in comparison to an energy system that is going to forever be owned by massive firms and managed by the Governing laws, which vision leads more towards your personal political ideal, as far as 'Control of Power', which is to me what our response to Peak Oil really points towards.
As far as that 'Clear Vision' goes, I know people with some very clear visions of things that don't make the notions better just for their good visibility.
"It's not a question of what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so!" -Twain
Actually, I paint such subsidy programs as just one more example of taking from all people - including some who have very little - and redirecting it to people who can afford a roof that they own and who have good enough jobs to be able to finance a solar or wind toy that may not pay for its initial cost with the energy produced for many years.
Not only does the capital cost of the renewable system receive an upfront government payment, but the intermittent operation of a number of such facilities becomes a permanent shared cost over the entire system.
All of this is done to make a few chosen middle to upper middle class technologically challenged people feel better about their overall energy consumption. It is a poor investment for society to make, especially with its reverse Robin Hood effect of taxing even waiters, students and factor workers to pay for solar panels on the homes of doctors, lawyers and accountants.
Rod Adams
Hi johkul,
Actually I forgot to put a smiley on the comment about Chinese govt wisdom and foresight-it was intended MOSTLY AS a gentle dig at those who think they know the answers for sure.
But we all tend to get a little hypo thetical and theoritical in our arguments.
Reality demands that we play the cards IN OUR HANDS in the game in which we are already involved.
I trust big govt less than any other big institution, but is is actually possible for a govt to be composed mostly , for an indefinite period of time, of competent leaders focused on the long term health and prosperity of thier country-if for no other reason than to enhance thier own individual power and security.
If you don't survive in the short to medium term, you cannot survive in the long term.
It appears to me that the Chinese are doing a great job of TRYING to cover all the bases in terms of securing an adequate energy supply going forward.
Whether this is the best policy conmsidered from an ecological pov might be debatable, but I must agree with it in day to day terms.
Otoh, we are doing a comparatively pathetic job of securing our own energy future.
I don't think there are much less regulations in US that in China, France or Japan. Every developed country has an extensive body of laws and regulations. Modern society is complex and require complex rules. Nuclear is no exception. It works well only if it is strongly regulated by an independent regulator (not like the MMS). Actually, the NRC is probably on of the most demanding "rule-based" regulator in the world.
What really triggers building of reactors is the lack (or the perceived lack) of domestic fossil fuel sources. That is the case for France, Korea or even China (who is growing so fast that its coal may run out faster than expected). North America is still quite endowed as far a fossil fuels are concerned. This explains the relatively low penetration of nuclear despite a technical leadership in the domain.
Rod, I appreciate your advocacy, and I think nuclear power is really a good idea, compared to the alternatives. But realistically, although the US invented the technology, it's going to be hard for the US to lead a resurgence. The most concise illustration I found is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
China has 20 plants currently under construction. The US has one.
I know Bill Gates is getting into small nuclear.
This will bring a new meaning to the Blue Screen of Death.
Hmm, I might have to update the animation I created for BP's, little spill.
Press "CTRL+ALT+DEL" to restart: muddump.exe "Warning you will lose all unsafe rigs..."
There's a reason I still prefer open source and Linux...
@hightrekker - you are sort of correct. Bill Gates is one of the backers behind TerraPower - http://www.intellectualventures.com/OurInventions/TerraPower.aspx, a spin off from Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures.
However, the traveling wave reactor that TerraPower is developing has a minimum size of 300-500 MWe, which is at the very upper edge of what most consider to be a small nuclear plant. For perspective, 300 MWe would be enough to supply most of the electrical power needs of an American city with a population of 300,000 people. That is not a very small machine.
One more thing - the NRC is unlikely to license any reactor that has been developed with the haste and lack of attention to detail that caused most Blue Screens of Death. If Gates continues his interest in nuclear, he will learn a bit more about the importance of quality assurance.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
I have an open mind, but am also aware of the feedback loops involved, and the possible consequences.
Best of luck on this project.
The larger scale does seem reassuring.
I am reminded of the SLOWPOKE reactors, which Canada investigated retrofitting to their diesel-electric submarines.
20 kW (Chinese version 27 kW) suitable for 18 hours unattended operation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLOWPOKE_reactor
A viable alternative for commercial shipping in the future.
Best Hopes,
Alan
As I remember when I brought up such a few years ago here on TOD it was shot down over fears of security over the devices.
The long history of Pirates! or such I believe.
How do the labor requirements to operate the plant compare for the small and large nuclear reactors? To me it would seem there would be significant economies of scale.
@pasttense - there are also significant economies of unit volume. You do not have to have big units to be able to achieve scale economies, you can put multiple smaller units on the same site or distribute multiple smaller units all built to identical requirements on different sites.
You can share engineering support, training systems, spare parts, maintenance personnel, etc.
On a labor input per unit power output basis, I expect that small modular reactors will be competitive with larger reactors. Both achieve significant operational economies compared to coal or gas plants that have to purchase MUCH more expensive fuel. I kind of like having power plants that have O&M budgets that are 75% labor and 25% fuel instead of the other way around. Keeping my neighbors employed at good, high paying technical jobs is a major incentive for me.
Rod Adams
That is, I think, a hard question to answer. Much of it will depend on the design. Certainly there are designs that do have economies of scale.
OTOH, the STAR reactor design done at Argonne National Lab is intended to greatly reduce on-site labor. It targets, at least initially, developing countries where there may be a shortage of skilled labor. No on-site refueling is required; the small reactor cores are shipped intact from the factory and returned there at the end of their 15-year working life. The fast-neutron design provides autonomous load-following and passive safety systems. Circulation is all by natural convection without coolant pumps. The lead-bismuth coolant is not pressurized, does not react chemically with water or steam, and does not burn if exposed to air. The factory-fabricated steel containment unit is easily inspected, and if damaged in some fashion, would be returned to the factory rather than repaired on site. The only large exterior connections are for feed water and produced steam, which are again easily accessible for inspection.
Several of the simplifications possible in the STAR design don't easily scale up in size. It is unclear whether the complexity that would be added building a single large unit would be more or less than the complexity of managing several of the individually simpler small units.
The difficulty with new nuclear projects is not just safety, siting, and cost, but the likely competition it will face from distributed wind and solar in future. There is an 'asymmetric warfare' aspect to the choice customers will make between large central power sources and solar panels on there own roofs.
A utility considering a multi-billion dollar nuclear plant amortized over 30 years has to consider what will happen if a source of cheap solar panels comes along after 5 years. If customers say 'no thanks' and go off-grid, or worse dump peak power to the grid at cheap rates, the high fixed cost of the nuclear plant will make it un-econonical.
The current state of the art in solar appears to be the Morgan Solar Waveguide Concentrator coupled with Cyrium Technologies or Spectrolab multi-junction cells. Multi-junction cells are very expensive, but when coupled with a waveguide concentrator made of glass or plastic only a tiny area of the panel is actual cells, and of course the Henry Ford principle applies just as much to solar cells as to reactors.
These systems are reportedly 25-30% efficient, so the 45MWE nuclear plant mentioned could be replaced with a 700m x 700m square of panels, or equivalent coverage of rooftops, roads etc. Those reactors better be cheap..
Make it 1400 x 700m, to charge the sodium-sulfur batteries for when the sun doesn't shine. If multijuction cells work at night, that's a real innovation. In fact, considering that much of the country suffers from suboptimal insolation and there are things like clouds during the day, add a few extra hundred m2 and a bigger battery.
Don't forget that the earth is tilted on its axis, so there are also significant periods of time when it is dark more than half of the 24 hour day and the sun's elevation during the rest of the time is quite a bit less than 90 degrees. No matter how efficient the collector, the energy available from solar insolation is still a factor of the sine of the elevation angle above the horizon - even when the collector is pointed directly at the sun.
A 45 MWe reactor might require a building about the same size as my modest suburban home - though it would also reach about 100-150 feet underground. That is considerable less space than required for the solar collectors described.
Can anyone point me to any web sites that actually publish real performance from solar systems? At one time, Google had some performance metrics being posted from their highly publicized project at
http://www.google.com/corporate/solarpanels/home
Every time I try the link now, I get a server error.
Rod Adams
ShadowDoc, Toshiba sodium-sulfur batteries in peak-shaving applications are 75% efficient, grid-to-grid. That is, 25kV to 3.5VDC, charge battery, discharge battery, invert, step to 25kV. The battery itself is over 90% efficient in each of the charge and discharge modes. So the panel suffers no loss when the sun is shining, and 25% loss when it isn't.
atomicrod, the sine-latitude thing only applies to fixed flat panels. CPV systems use trackers, and are primarily limited by cloud cover. They need direct sunlight, but there is lots of sunny area on the planet, almost all uninhabited.
Neither of you address my point about central vs distributed, or others' about security. Any size nuclear plant will require a battalion of armed guards. If there is one in every town that only makes the security requirement more visible, and in turn encourages some to go off-grid
Any size nuclear plant will require a battalion of armed guards
This must come as a surprise to the 108 or so battalions that are not currently guarding our commercial reactor sites.
A small, ground-contained nuclear reactor is like a roach motel for wanna-be terrorists. They go in, but they don't come out, if their interest is obtaining nuclear fuel. Should they succeed in their mission, they will die before they can accomplish much of anything else. "Dirty" bombs are far more dangerous to their creators than to anyone else. Again, don't believe me, but read Muller's book referenced elsewhere in this thread.
What do you believe the NRC security and safety buffer zone requirements are for any fission reactor?
One important aspect is the amount of sunlight falling on a surface at different times of the year (and different locations around the world). This was covered in the following article;
http://campfire.theoildrum.com/node/4947
At the meta level the CAISO for the state of California lists some graphs on the power contributions of various factions, but they just have it broken down as total MW and MWs from renewables for the previous day:
1. http://caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html
2. http://www.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/DailyRenewablesWatch.pdf
The square meter ground footprint of any power station running on any principle is really a non issue in about ninety nine percent of the world with the exception of solar power intended for on site use.
When the going gets tough, there will not be any problems finding the square mile or two needed for any sort of plant at all.
If land is suited to farming, it can still be ninety percent farmed with a wind farm superimposed;solar build out intened for on site consumption can be mostly on existing non utilized roof space, especially on large buildings.
If you property is a high rise in a prosperous business district, it is probably safe from con fiscation under eminent domain laws.
Otherwise-if it is wanted for a power plant when things get tight -kiss it goodbye.
Its been about a year since I visited CoolEarthSolar. Their plan was to string inflated ballon reflectors from cables, to provide cheap (well under $1 per peak watt) CPV. The land underneath could still be used for farming/ranching. In areas with lots of sun, the partial shade would probably be an asset, rather than a liability. If something like this pans out, then very cheap (but only when the sun shines) power may become widely available.
There is probably no need to install solar on arable land. The sunniest places on earth are the equatorial oceans, off the coasts of Ecuador and Brazil, followed by the Arabian peninsula, central Sahara, most of Australia, and the Chinese western desert. Total earth insolation is about 10,000 times current human energy consumption, so utilization of these areas can be small. Canada, Russia, U.K., and northern Europe would need to look to these offshore locations, as their own solar resources are not competitive.
In the U.S., the interstate highway system covers more than the area required for domestic needs. Putting a solar roof over the existing road surface, with enough clearance to drive under, would allow maintenance access and would be handy for electric transportation too. Residential rooftops cover a similar area.
Putting a solar roof over the existing road surface, with enough clearance to drive under, would allow maintenance access and would be handy for electric transportation too. Residential rooftops cover a similar area.
This makes the list of good ideas we can't afford.
Besides the waste issue there are terrorism issues. A proliferation of reactors means there are more potential targets. Mohammed Atta flew the plane over Indian Point (or some other reactor) and could have easily crashed into it instead of the towers on 9-11.
Also, much of the corporate culture of the nuclear power industry is rife with the same corruption and mentality as big oil. The bottom line of profit is the most important thing - thus reactor components are allowed to remain in operation long after their service lives thus accidents happen. Then they tell us that the accidents are minor and nothing to worry about. The governments collude by refusing to conduct studies of cancer in the vicinity of these reactors. The nuclear industry operates by virtue of a huge subsidy by the governments, not to mention the Price-Anderson Act in the US which limits their liability in the case of a major accident (even if it was caused by their negligence).
None of this builds trust and so the industry now faces headwinds of opposition from people like me who are fed up with it.
So they try harder to market this idea to the masses and their lobbyists buy up congresspeople, probably using some of that subsidy money from taxpayers like me. None of this gives me the warm fuzzies.
The half life of Technitium is 212,000 years. What were humans doing 212,000 years go? We were barely evolving cognitive speech. What will humans be doing 212,000 years from now? Still trying to figure out what to do with the nuclear waste that we left behind.
Did you ever wonder why Atta didn't fly his 767 into the containment building at Indian Point? I'm going with the fact that he was an engineer, and knew that he would kill more people by setting fire to the WTC than by making a smear on the outside of the Indian Point containment building. Other terrorists may not be so clever, but trying to hit a 4S reactor buried in the ground with a 767 is going to be a neat trick.
Tc-99 may have a half-life of 212,000 years, but potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.25 x 109 years. You had some K-40 with your breakfast this morning.
Post 9/11, the NRC conducted a number of activities about the question of what would happen if you crashed a 767 or similar into a nuke power plant. IIRC, the containment buildings would withstand both the impact and the following fuel burn. OTOH, most plants have a spent-fuel cooling pool (circulating ultra-pure water; see here for a picture of one in France; the blue color is due to Cherenkov radiation) packed full of quite radioactive stuff. These pools are typically not nearly so well protected as the reactor itself. The Commission seemed much more pessimistic about what might happen if the plane crashed into the building housing the spent-fuel pool.
Also, much of the corporate culture of the nuclear power industry is rife with the same corruption and mentality as big oil.
I've worked in both industries and not found this to be the case. Big corporate culture difference. Worked nat gas pipeline construction, been told to stand on a hill and give hand signals to indicate an inspector was coming. Did not agree with that, but seen/heard of that sort of thing a lot in the pipeline industry. Worked nuke, saw a containment chief inadvertently block access to a fire hose with some object, told him so, saw him move it out of the way, grin in an embarrassed manner and quickly walk off. I have other similar stories - I was a little guy in either business.
The governments collude by refusing to conduct studies of cancer in the vicinity of these reactors. The nuclear industry operates by virtue of a huge subsidy by the governments
Not to be rude, but I think thee comments are merely opinion and cannot be backed up.
Nitpicky but several reactors have had their service lives extended, none have been kept in operation beyond their service lives.
Besides the waste issue there are terrorism issues. A proliferation of reactors means there are more potential targets. Mohammed Atta flew the plane over Indian Point (or some other reactor) and could have easily crashed into it instead of the towers on 9-11.
I could say a lot here, but I'm tired & heading to bed - suffice to say that containment domes are immensely strong, The concrete is extreme, it is very high PSI, dark grey in color, not normal stuff. The rerod is some odd alloy, not regular rerod, & it is thick & spaced very closely. Containment domes are to the eye half solid steel, really, really difficult to demo. And the reactor pressure vessel is not even in the dome per se, it is mostly underground. The dome contains support machinery. Atta would have caused much less damage if he had hit a civilian power reactor.
I am a nuclear Engineer and worked on design, construction and start up of numerous nuclear plants.
The size of the plants got so big it was impossible to build any two exactly alike.
The plants took up so much land no two sites had the same geography. (Please don't start giving me examples of identical sites) If they are small enough, they can be replaced below ground in any environment and location.
By making a plant small they can be exactly alike and mass produced. The training would be centralized and uniformed. Operators could be licensed and move from location to location as required. All of the testing and operations procedures would be done by the same groups.
Containment of any radiation would be simple.
I am sure there are some negatives, but I see a real future for small, uniform reactors.
One thing to watch out for would be if they found a design flaw, they would have to shut down all of the similar models. This would cause havoc. Hopefully there would be several manufacturers.
The last airplane you flew on was designed and built to the best of modern technology, and almost certainly after some period in service was found to have a flaw between irritating and disastrous.
The boffins then got together with the government and issued an 'Airworthiness Directive' to fix it.
Unless we go back to hand chipped stone tools tomorrow I am fairly confident that there will be an option to repair all but the most catastrophic issues. Even the Avro Comet, the poster child of aircraft post-service engineering flaws still flies (?) with the British as the Nimrod ASW.
And in case you're wondering, yes, I have some talent at stone-tool manufacture...
"...the Avro Comet, the poster child of aircraft post-service engineering flaws..."
You are thinking of the de Havilland Comet (the first commercial jet airliner to reach production).
The Avro Jetliner, the second (by 13 days), didn't crash.
Speaking of Canadian designs, I don't see any discussion of CANDU (Heavy Water moderated). Perhaps for a good reason.
Then let me be a concerned future consumer, and hope the control systems will be Linux based, and open sourced. :)
Velox,
I am no an engineer but I have worked in half a dozen nukes as a maintainence worker;all of were them built on relatively flat ground.
And I have had a hand in on moving large quantities of rock and soil building a highway thru a granite mountian.
This is not that big a deal in relation to the cost of a conventional nuke.
Your comment as to geography makes little sense to me-the plants could be on differently graded ground and still be in all essential details just alike-why should it make any real difference if for example the turbine building is a few feet farther away from the containment,or the mainentance ware houses and administrative offices a hundred yards away on a hill?
Getting cooling water from a lake to the plant and back might require more pipes, and maybe an auxiliary pump or two,but why should that have anything important to do with the rest of the plant?
Everything else you say makes good sense .
The Trojan Nuclear Power Plant north of Portland was at one time the largest commercial nuke in the US. It went online in 1975.
Its spent fuel pool was initially designed for 4/3rds of a core - with the idea that 1/3rd would be refueled yearly and sent off to the waste repository. Well, the waste repository never happened and so they applied to build new racks in the spent fuel pool to keep 22/3rds of a core (thus 22 additional refueling years) on site. That is about 7 reactor's worth of fuel, kept in a building outside the containment domes. Eventually they applied to expand this to 44/3rds.
I was actively opposing nukes then in an organization called the Trojan Decommissioning Alliance, got arrested etc. and had some fun with that. But I also became involved with a group of intervenors and attended many NRC hearings. Invariably, the owner of the plant got their way. Eventually, initiatives sponsored by Lloyd Marbet of Four Laws on Board (tanstaafl) were passed by the State of Oregon to shut it down and usually the utility wiggled through with some loopholed judge.
When they proposed expanding spent fuel storage, we looked at ways to block this and one was geological. We ended up dragging the State of Oregon Department of Geology into this in a hearing process. The department's own literature postulated the existence of the Portland Hills Fault running north northwest and everyone was aware of it since the earthquake of 1962. Right lateral faulting is well known on the west coast (San Andreas and the Queen Charlotte) and it was easy to guess that the PHF was responsible for the Columbia River's right lateral jog north of Portland before it heads west at Longview, a few miles north of Trojan. Other hazards were in the vicinity, such as Mt. St. Helens, only 27 miles away. The State of Oregon ruled, however, that the plant met geological siting criteria. That was in 1979.
The eruption of St. Helens in 1980 woke everyone up to the fact that we perhaps didn't fully understand the geology of the Pacific Northwest. Still the plant operated on. Questions were still being asked about Trojan's geological safety. At one point a seismic survey indicated that Trojan had been built on a thrust fault slice, part of the PHF system. Still it operated on, designed to withstand a 7.5 earthquake. The geologists figured that if the PHF went, the quake would be less than this.
It was finally the pioneering work of geologist Brian Atwater at University of Washington that we became aware of periodic earthquakes in the 9+ range along the Cascadia Subduction Zone. The last event was dated to January 26, 1700. About 18 such events have been determined with a frequency of every 300-500 years based on core data. We are perhaps due - the next one may be in 150 years or it may happen this afternoon.
There was no way Trojan could continue operating legally faced with this new fact. This finally shut it down. The site is still being cleaned up and the spent waste is still there, in several lead lined casks.
This is just one story of one nuclear plant. Similar stories exist about every other nuclear plant in the country. No wonder everyone has a nimby attitude about these! Wall Street has a similar attitude. Thus without a huge subsidy by the government for this risky business, it is a dry hole. But this is where the Military connection comes in again - their lobby never fails to get what they want and we have the best government that Westinghouse can buy.
Too bad that solar, wind and other safer forms of alternative energy doesn't get the huge subsidy that the nuclear power industry gets!
If there really is a reasonable chance for a 9.0 quake beneath the Trojan plant, it's good it was shut down. This cannot apply to most plant sites though. It sounds like the Trojan Decommissioning Alliance - a relatively small group - was shopping for any reason to shut the plant down though.
Following this story..
What would you suggest for japanese reactors?
(roughly all in strong earth quake regions)
in this context with some surprise I read yesterday this story on the
WNA news..
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Undersea_robot_for_Dounreay_2307101...
Undersea robot for Dounreay
23 July 2010
Efforts to clean up radioactive particles discharged to sea from Dounreay will be bolstered this month by the addition of a large crawler robot.
it is interesting to also look at the other link provided.
http://www.dounreay.com/
Sounds like an interesting experience in the past and almost nobody knows about it (at least I never heard of it).
Thanks, Rod, that's the best-rounded review of the 'modularity' aspects of smaller-scale nuclear power plants I've read in quite a while, and there are many thoughful comments added as well. It brings to mind discussions from a few decades ago about economies of scale and volume for petrochem plant vessels; sometimes it was just flat less expensive in the long run to arrange for a bunch of smaller trains in parallel than to design, build and ship one piece each of large equipment. And perhaps of interest, it's taken longer for commercial bio-active engineering to displace good-old chemical engineering than any of our hoary cohort expected, and I expect the the change-over in power-generation may lead or lag expectations too.
In general, I'd agree that a broad distribution of smaller power-generating units can have many advantages over a few large centralized sources. That's particularly so when the re-fueling schedule scales in decades instead of daily, and it allows for a lighter and more fault-tolerant power-grid.
The risks, however, to broader, small-module use of nuclear power, still include long-term storage not only of the hazardous actinides, but of the enclosures, vessels, piping, etc, which add up eventually to megatons of material. And, unfortunately, having more locations, even if the reactor designs are inherently less vulnerable to accidental problems, does provide more opportunities for criminal incidents.
I'd not be as concerned with, say, the theft of an entire truck-sized vessel, which could be detected by satellite surveys, etc, as with the ability of a suicidal crew to disrupt the operations, or to obtain material by theft, etc. And I don't think that local 'policing' is adequate to prevent that, in part because of the intensity and granularity of political and ideological conflicts.
... What's your take on, for lack of a better term, the 'security' issues of small-module nuclear plants?
...
I'm interested in hearing your thoughts, too.
To start off the discussion, the future I foresee is a society with increasingly less social cohesion so the security of these smaller, distributed nuclear plants is not something that can be simply hand-waved away. I've commented on occasion that building more nuclear plants at the cusp of Energy Descent may not be a smart move. I'm all for electricity and the idea of using some of the fuel waste we've created is definitely appealing.
So it was interesting for me to hear Stoneleigh (former editor of TOD Canada and now at The Automatic Earth) in her recent talk discuss her research with nuclear power as the old Soviet system collapsed.
"[Nuclear energy] is incompatible with hard times. One of the things I did as an academic was look at nuclear power in the context of the Soviet collapse. There were some truly frightening things that went on in that era in terms of how these plants were being run when nobody had any money. It's an activity that requires an absolutely vast amount of coordinated activity by people in a calm and reasonable frame of mind and that was not the circumstance that pertained there and I would argue that it's not going to pertain here in the future, either — or at least for a period of time. I am not a fan of nuclear power for the future."
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/43379&64598 (starts roughly 10:05)
Now, it's true that her comments were in the context of current nuclear designs not these newer smaller ones. But it seems that the complexity of the old designs would be swapped with ubiquity of these new plants — more targets to secure, for instance.
At these smaller sizes the current 104 reactors would need to be replaced by perhaps 600 to 1000 of these smaller ones (guesstimate). That's a lot of sites that would have to go through the permitting and public acceptance process.
So here are some predictions:
If anyone sees a different future, please chime in.
André
www.PostPeakLiving.com
Yes, security requirements currently imposed are substantial, and are able to be afforded through large scale operations. Might they be scaled affordably to smaller installation? Doubtful.
Nuclear Power Plant Physical Protection, US NRC, 2009
Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities, Congressional Research Service, 2009
Efforts Made to Upgrade Security, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Design Basis Threat Process Should Be Improved, GAO, 2006
Thanks for those links...I just skimmed as I don't have the time to read them just now. I will dig in later tonight.
I'm not so concerned about an airplane being flown into these new smaller installations. But a small group of highly trained men with the kinds of weaponry easily available in the U.S. today could take over a small installation with little trouble, I imagine. It would be wonderful if someone could show me that this conjecture isn't true.
Yes, I'm pretty sure that armed men could seize control of a cement pod buried in the ground with three-foot thick walls. What, precisely are they then to do?
If they open it, they expose themselves to lethal doses of radiation.
If they try to take the fuel, they won't make it far before they die from radiation sickness, assuming they can get into the pod and then into the containment vessel.
These small stations have no pond with spent fuel.
Melting it down is pretty tough, these small modern reactors are designed specifically to avoid meltdown.
They cannot reprocess the fuel on-site to make a nuclear weapon. It's not enriched enough, and assuming they had the money to build chemical and isotope separation plants they could probably just buy their own self-contained reactor without trying to steal anyone else's.
I agree that there is no accounting for stupid and one of the functions of humanity seems to be making a better idiot when we believe things are idiot-proof. Nevertheless, the problems for any armed group attempting to seize a small nuke of these designs become much more significant once they have control, not easier.
Thanks for the response.
Well, suicide missions aren't exactly rare these days and I expect that as time goes on there will be many more disaffected people than there are now.
If someone went in knowing that they wouldn't survive, what sort of damage could they do?
It isn't clear to me what plausible security concerns there are for small modular nuclear reactors; provided they are made to not melt-down in the absence of cooling.
If the reactors are underground and have a 30 year life, you cover the access point over with dirt, concrete and big boulders so to remove them you need to excavate.
If the only access to the reactor is via elevator, you can limit the size of tools that can be used to try and make holes in it. If you limit the elevator to 150 kg, and require a person, taking large amounts of explosives would take many trips which can be limited.
If the reactor is welded shut at the factory (the way all submarine reactors are), how are terrorists going to open it up? If they did open it up, the radiation from the irradiated fuel would kill them in minutes. If the elevator doesn't allow radioactive material to go out, how do they get irradiated fuel out?
I am assuming that security personnel can get there in ~24 hours or so.
A 50 MWE reactor with a 20 year life is going to have the value of a corresponding amount of coal. At ~$25 per ton of coal, that is ~$100 million.
Twenty five dollar coal is mostly already a thing of the past;GOOD COAL, the kind with high heat content already costs more, and the shipping of the cheap stuff runs more than the mine head costs if it goes very far overland.
I believe it is quite reasonable to expect coal prices to double in terms of constant money and delivered energy obtained in ten years or less.
Indeed. Assume a liquid-metal-cooled fast-neutron reactor designed for factory refueling only. Inside the concrete structure is the reactor vessel proper, at least two-inch-thick stainless steel. Filled with umpteen tons of molten lead-bismuth. So in most of those designs they have to, in some order, lower the emergency control rods, drain the coolant, cut off the top of the vessel and extract the reactor core. Presumably, at some point the local military shows up to harass them while they're about all that.
Personally, I admit to parochial interests. I think the US is going to need nuclear electricity, and for a number of reasons, I would rather see this type of modular approach instead of what we have done historically. One of those reasons is a desire to have all the direct handling of fuel elements moved off-site into a controlled factory environment. Worst case, if the US military can't take a few billion dollars from their budget to provide site and transport security, something is seriously wrong. And I'm a fast-neutron advocate because, among other reasons, I live in a state that struggles regularly with the toxic stuff that leaches out of uranium mine tailings, and the US has 480,000 tons of refined U-238 that I would prefer to burn before we do any more mining.
Just because the reactors talked about here are small doesn't mean that the installations will be. I suspect that for many reasons (security, grid access, etc) that most installations will be large and contain many small reactors.
@HankF - I happen to agree with you that most installations of smaller, module reactors in the US will be large installations that have some technical resemblance to Google server farms.
NuScale and Generation mPower representatives shared the same vision at the recent Platts Small Modular Reactor conference that I attended in Washington, DC earlier this summer.
There are still many advantages of deploying large power supplies in unit sizes that more closely resemble the rate of demand growth and that are somewhat easier to finance and operate because you avoid the single shaft risk where a failure of one component can remove 1200 MWe or more from the grid - and stop all revenue from that installation until the component is repaired and tested.
However, I do foresee many places where smaller markets will benefit from the economy of scale that the suppliers achieve by building many identical units. In some places, the challenges of providing security will not be as difficult. For example, individual units can be placed on military bases or already secured industrial sites.
Also, in some remote areas where there is only need for the output of a single load following unit, the cost competition is a diesel engine burning fuel that costs $12-40 per million BTU and producing electricity that costs as much as 50 cents per kilowatt hour. The cost of employing local people to provide security in that case might be far more acceptable than spending that same money for fuel purchases.
Rod Adams
The CRS report points out that in 2007 new, stronger rules were issued for nuclear plants that:
• expand the assumed capabilities of adversaries to operate as one or more teams and attack from multiple entry points;
• assume that adversaries are willing to kill or be killed and are knowledgeable about specific target selection;
• expand the scope of vehicles that licensees must defend against to include water vehicles and land vehicles beyond four-wheel-drive type;
• revise the threat posed by an insider to be more flexible in scope; and
• add a new mode of attack from adversaries coordinating a vehicle bomb assault with another external assault.
Learning a bit about the security and safety of small modular reactors from:
NRC's Ostendorff: “Small Modular Reactors – Challenges and Opportunities”
http://nuclearstreet.com/blogs/nuclear_power_news/archive/2010/07/01/nrc...
For instance, the industry wants to allow one person to control three modules in the control room and to substitute concrete for guns and guards. The commissioner is not sold yet but is open to looking at that.
It is clear that Russians did dreadful things with Nuclear Material, but I am not so sure it is that correlated to the societal collapse that happened in the 85-00 period. It has more to do with the totalitarian regime. The biggest catastrophe (much bigger than Chernobyl , 36 times exactly !) occurred in the fifties when the regime was at its peak. I would say on the contrary that the increased transparency toward the international community after Chernobyl contributed to enhance the safety culture and rectify some risky designs. Has it reached western level ? I don't know.
One more thing about collapse : when I visited Russia several times in 91/92, at the height of the crisis, a lot of the energy infrastructure was operating poorly (frequent disruption of the gasoline or natural gas supply). By contrast, Nuclear Power plants were still delivering electricity reliably.That may not be that surprising : A carefully maintained nuke with spare part and extra batches of fuel can last a very long time without much external supplies.
I don't doubt that the nuclear plants continued to operate. I'm interested more in their safety record and the probability of them staying safe during Energy Descent.
I've found only one of Nicole Foss's papers on the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies site (haven't read it yet):
Nuclear Safety and International Governance: Russia and Eastern Europe
http://www.oxfordenergy.org/pdfs/SP11.pdf
Here is a short blurb about Nicole at the Carlton University site:
Nicole currently lives in Canada.
Here is a letter she and her colleague wrote to the Independent in 1998:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letter-the-fallout-over-chernobyl-1...
Edit: She says more about her studies of nuclear energy in the interview she gives here (July 5).
If you to have a bet on predictions I am up for that.
1. Current reactors will run to the end of their licenses with only 5 or less not doing so for random reasons
2. Over 90 of the 104 reactors will get extended to 60 years. So about 40 more than the 50 or so that have already been extended. Over half of those will get extended to 70 or 80 years.
3. I predict no accident more severe than three mile island worldwide. Even if accident does occur then just like gulf spill does not cause revoking of deep water licenses and previous nuclear accidents did not cause revoking another would not either.
4. Small reactors and reactors in general 75% will be built outside the OECD. Mainly in China, India, Russia and other asian countries. NIMBY will not be a problem in those places.
5. The US will have a build but at a slower pace and will follow the buildout of China. At least 7 new reactors in the US by 2020 and 25 by 2030. Possbility of a lot more if the small factory mass produced models are proven in China and other places. The US will not be the leader. Although early US adoption of small modular reactors could occur at US military bases.
Great!
Do you know the tests that need to occur before a reactor's life is extended? Does there have to be a rebuild in that timeframe, for instance? Or would that trigger a whole new licensing procedure?
Though I'm not a nuclear expert, this still sounds like a stretch. Doesn't the steel have to be replaced at some point?
I hope you're right but I doubt that you will be as we go down the energy curve.
It seems to me that a future with continued electricity supplied by nuclear plants depends on the plants being extended another twenty years because if they start shutting down en masse after 60 years we won't have enough replacements ready.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Water_Reactor_Sustainability_Program
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/11/20/20greenwire-as-nuclear-reactor-f...
With nuclear providing always-on electricity that will become more cost-effective if a price is placed on heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions, utilities have found it is now viable to replace turbines or lids that have been worn down by radiation exposure or wear. Many engineers are convinced that nearly any plant parts, most of which were not designed to be replaced, can be swapped out.
"We think we can replace almost every component in a nuclear power plant," said Jan van der Lee, director of the Materials Ageing Institute (MAI), a nuclear research facility inaugurated this week in France and run by the state-owned nuclear giant EDF.
"We don't want to wait until something breaks," he said. By identifying components that are wearing down and replacing them, he said, suddenly nuclear plants will find that "technically, there is no age limit."
Indeed, as U.S. regulators begin considering the extended operations of nuclear plants -- the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects the first application for an 80-year license could come within five years or less -- perhaps the largest lingering question is one of basic science: How do heavy doses of radiation, over generations, fundamentally alter materials like steel and concrete?
"It's taken many years for us to understand the problem," said Gary Was, the director of the University of Michigan's Phoenix Energy Institute and an expert in aging materials. "Thirty years ago, we didn't have techniques to see these changes."
Until recently, such research has not been a priority. But within the past few years, the Department of Energy began a program looking at "long-term operations," as it is known in the industry. And provisions in the Senate's climate bill call for DOE to increase these investigations in the hope of extending plant lives "substantially beyond the first license extension period."
DOE collaborates in this research with France's MAI and the U.S.-based Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), a nonprofit funded by many nuclear utilities. U.S. leadership in the field is natural, given the sheer age of America's reactors, many of which are already coming close to exceeding their intended operating lives.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/37qp2126856368l0/
http://www.brc.gov/Reactor_Fuel_Cycle_Technology_SC/docs/Pres-1_DOE_RD_R...
extending to 60 years
http://books.google.com/books?id=S3iGqbgPo6wC&pg=PT64&lpg=PT64&dq=extend...
Most of the small nuclear plant designs I have reviewed are envisioned as being put into containment vessels that are "below grade". In other words, they are buried underground, with a thick concrete access cover.
They are all being designed in a "post 911" world and the people in charge of the projects are very conscious of the security and safety requirements that have been added. I am pretty confident that they will be quite resistant. Even the US military does not have good "bunker buster" munitions; there are no terrorist organizations that are better equipped in this area, so the new nukes should be pretty safe.
There are plenty of far easier targets to attack.
Thanks for the response.
Can you describe the exact security measures that they use other than being below grade? As I mentioned above forced entry is certainly one way into the installation that the designers must be considering.
As for plenty of far easier targets to attack, that may be true but there is nothing quite like the shock effect of taking over high-profile targets.
Edit: After countless assurances that there was little danger of a blowout in the Gulf before the current disaster, you likely can understand why I seek more information so that I can make my own risk assessment.
The first rule of security:
"Never discuss your security program."
One thing I am going to bring up is that the security at facilities such as nuclear power plants all have places designed as 'entrapment areas.'
In other words - the barriers are designed so that you can get in to a specific pre-determined place. But then you cannot get any further in - or get out.
The military refers to these kind of places as 'kill zones.'
One of the reasons why terrorists have never attacked a nuclear power plant is because they know that they will be walking into a series of traps.
This subject is far more complicated than is covered by comments to this thread. There are still numerous threats not explained or countered. Simply brushing it off is similar to BP's approach to safety...
Of course it is more complicated. That is why I have a BS in security management.
I am also working on a Master's in Homeland Security. As a result I understand how terrorists select targets and how they plan operations. (Hint: terrorists attack poorly defended targets using simple and straightforward plans.) Nuclear power plants make a very poor target from a terrorist perspective because they are well defended and will require a complex attack plan with a large number of variables.
In fact the most likely threat to a nuclear power plant will be extremists from the environmental movement. (Terrorist typically pick targets that are symbolic to their cause.)
This type of thing really builds trust. (Not!)
see http://www.americablog.com/2010/07/bp-photoshops-fake-photo-of-command.html
I don't see much difference in how the nuclear power industry operates and how BP operates. And remember the "truths" that first came out by utility spokesmen when Three Mile Island had its 'little hickup"?
Can we really trust this industry, other then their profit motive?
Fission has failed to deliver what it has promised. It keeps failing...its why fission plant makers go to Congress and ask to extend the Price-Anderson act.
I'd say let some other technology have a shot a failure.
http://www.coldfusionnow.org/
http://www.lenr-canr.org/
or even
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
Oh boy. Cold fusion is a blast from the past, I remember Jed Rothwell from the early days of usenet. A tireless advocate, if nothing else.
It's been 20+ years. Holding your breath for conventional (hot) fusion might be more productive.
Go read up on the topic.
It seems the results are reproducible *BUT* because the US Patent Office has declared the technology is unpatentable places like Johnson Mathies have the secret sauce on making the mix of palladium a trade secret.
A 1st step that a citizen could do is ask their congress-kritter to reverse the USPTO position.
Ok, who is Johnson Mathies? Seems to be invisible to google, whoever they are. A brief perusal of your cited sources showed very slim pickings on current work.
OK.
Err, where are they?
We have the supply, the desire, the demand, the economic rational. But that trivial detail of a functioning closed loop nuclear cycle - like the unicorn - can be precisely described but has never been seen by a reliable observer.
The last I heard about nuclear recycling was when the Japanese workers decided to speed up the batch by doubling the recipe. I can see that; I do it with cookies all the time. Unfortunately this is just evidence that even the most well educated workers might be a little - shall we say - "unclear on the concept".
My understanding is the US, Britain and Japan have closed their reprocessing plants/reactors. The French don't use the separated isotopes and the Russians um, have one, I think.
I'm not being snarky here, I'm just asking why the single, blatantly obvious solution to the world's energy woes - as described by all knowledgeable supporters - does not seem to a) exist or b) be under development.
This is the one aspect of nuclear power that I support unconditionally but I feel like I'm a fan of the team that never gets to the play-offs.
Can I get some enlightenment from out there?
There seems to be stagnation in the development and deployment of new and better technologies not only in the nuclear sector, by in wind power, and solar technology, coal, gas, oil…the entire energy sector. Companies will milk their technology base for as long as they can get away with it and will try mightily to torpedo the competition…and more generally, all conceivable threats to their market position. Government will not innovate because they do not want to get in the way of … or otherwise compete … with industry. Innovative engineering is on its death bed; it is not part of the corporate business plan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal
You will see the same solar panel technology deployed 100 years from now…once the Chinese come to monopolize the renewable energy market that is.
"You will see the same solar panel technology deployed 100 years from now…once the Chinese come to monopolize the renewable energy market that is."
Oh no the Corporatist controlled Governmental powers that be would Never suppress technology that could free mankind from the artificial shackles of paying for energy.
If you cant meter it you cant charge for it....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7365305906535911834#
I challenge all of your collective's intellectual integrity to watch this video and look into some of the more promising experimental (suppressed) technologies.
https://ssl.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbwssl.cgi?Gw=t+henry+moray
https://ssl.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbwssl.cgi?Gw=joe+cell
@bryantheresa - I guess that the fuel recycling facilities that I visited at La Hague and Melox this summer did not get the memo that they were shut down. They seemed to be chugging along quite well in extracting the useful material from the used fuel assemblies at La Hague and then blending new MOX assemblies at Melox.
I know, it must have been a virtual reality show that put me on a plane, flew me across the ocean, put me on a train and van to visit the facilities that were perhaps created by Imagineers. I still wonder about those mixed oxide fuel pellets that I saw actually going through the assembly lines where they were pressed and heated and then stacked into fresh zircalloy tubes.
Unfortunately the virtual reality tour was running behind schedule so we could not actually walk across the high school gymnasium sized room that contains the access points to all of the left overs from 30 years worth of supplying a major developed country with most of its electricity.
Oh well. Maybe on my next trip.
Snark aside - I think you were perhaps referring to fast reactors, but those are not the only kinds of reactors that can recycle used fuel and make use of the extracted plutonium and uranium. There are 39 reactors currently operating in France, Switzerland, Japan and Belgium that are running on at least 1/3 Mixed Oxide fuel, and all of the new EPRs will be able to run on a 100% MOX load.
Rod Adams
Thank you Rod - I don't recognize those facility names (being a seaplane pilot in a remote town of 3000, I once saw a reactor somewhere around L.A.) but I'll look them up.
Yes, I was thinking of fast breeders (can I call this nuclear nuclear recycling?) and now that I think about it the Japanese were in a chemical nuclear recycling plant. That was also what I was thinking of in France, and a recent article (I suspect you keep better track of this that do I!) said the cost of production of recycled fuel was vastly greater than the cost of raw fuel. That implies they are doing it for reasons other than economics (which is probably a good thing) but it makes it hard to convince the rest of the world to follow.
@bryantheresa - My hosts at Areva did not want to talk about the specifics associated with the cost of the recycling process. What they did say was that the costs were competitive with the once through cycle.
I recently read a study titled THE ECONOMICS OF REPROCESSING VS. DIRECT DISPOSAL OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL that was conducted in the US by the BELFER CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS. That study was completed in 2003.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/390139/ifr/Harvard%20Report%20on%20Reprocessing.pdf
Here is a quote from the Executive Summary of that study, which would support your assertion - if you did not read any futher:
However, if you pressed forward just a couple of pages for more details you would find the following statement:
Take a hard look. The study showed that recycling used fuel added about 0.13 cents per kilowatt-hour! Does that really sound terribly expensive in a country where the average wholesale price of electricity is about 8 cents per kilowatt hour and where an increase in natural gas prices of $0.22 per million BTU also equates to an increase of 0.13 cents per kilowatt hour?
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Let's be honest. The recycling program in France has been launched at a time where Pu Fast Breeder were meant to be the next generation of NPP (with SuperPhenix as the pilot plant). The French tried to salvage the investment and the know-how by promoting MOX for existing plants and EPR, but it still barely makes sense economically as of today. It is more an investment in gathering the operational know-how for a future revival of breeders using Uranium Oxyde fuel. The french will certainly have a new try at a sodium cooled breeder in the next decade, and if nuclear takes off in Asia as much as we see now, Uranium will probably go in the 100/150 sector that makes breeders economical.
If Uranium prices do not take off long term because of unexpected supply (the Japanese are making big progress in seawater extraction), this whole recycling exercise may turn out to be a bad idea. On the other hand, if it does take off, it can become a very profitable fuel producing business because of the big technological and capitalistic barrier to entry.
As a reasonable well educated layman (and no, a degree in biochemistry and microbiology isn't a good basis in nuclear physics) I hope I'm not the only person on this website that failed to make the distinction between chemical and nuclear processing of nuclear material.
So if there are answers to the obvious technical issues then there is still the question of why do so few countries (here I'm thinking of the USA) actually do it? The obvious answer is 'politics' but that may be more insurmountable than the physics.
@bryantheresa - nuclear fuel recycling is not more frequently practiced around the world for a large variety of reasons.
Fuel from virgin material is somewhat cheaper and easier to produce.
Nuclear fuel manufacturers do not have a well ingrained sense of resource conservation and will not engage in recycle merely because it is the right thing to do.
Jimmy Carter, a man who ran for office under the well promoted falsehood that he was a "nuclear engineer in the Navy" made several multi-billion dollar investments in nuclear fuel recycling factories worthless with the stroke of an executive pen. With that kind of sovereign risk, no rational businessman is excited about introducing the technology again in the US, which despite all opposition is still the world's largest market for nuclear fuel and the largest potential source of raw material supply for a recycling program.
Finally, the politics associated with fuel are actually as much about power economics as anything else. Fuel supply is the world's largest and most prosperous business. It is most profitable when people have the impression that fuel is getting scarce, even though Einstein's famous equation for the convertibility between mass and energy indicates that energy is virtually unlimited. By keeping nuclear energy under wraps and restricting the deployment of used fuel recycling or more efficient ways to use our existing fuel supplies, the world's fuel suppliers have maintained - so far - the perception that fuel is scarce and should be expensive.
It has been apparent in my 3 plus years of reading TOD conversations - intermittently - that there are plenty of contributors here who like that notion as well.
Rod Adams
South Africa has spent a fortune trying to develop a small pebble bed reactor, based on a design the Germans abandoned.
http://www.pbmr.co.za/
They have recently all but given up the effort. I believe engineering the graphite pebbles is one of the main difficulties.
Personally, I am in favour of nukes and as a South African I'd like to see them continue within budgetary guidelines, if possible.
Freeman Dyson, Nobel Laureate, had the correct view IMO. He contrasted nuclear power with commercial aviation. The basic physics was worked out at about the same time, yet aviation has made huge strides in providing cheap safe travel, while nuclear power which had enormous potential to provide electricity "too cheap to meter" has bogged down into huge cumbersome and expensive plants.
Why did the one progress and the other not?
Dyson believes that aviation was allowed to make its mistakes until the most efficient aircraft gradually evolved. These days all aircraft are similar, like all motor cars. That's because engineering plus experience has shown these to be the best configurations to meet current demands. But nuclear power was seen to be so hazardous that the regulators stepped in early and strangled development by imposing restrictive regulations.
The Chinese seem to have taken his advice to heart. I believe they are trying a bit of everything. In a few years they'll be making a second generation of Chinese nukes that incorporate all the lessons learned in an evolutionary way, and they'll dominate the market. Possibly they'll have a couple of Chernobyls as well. Maybe it will be worth it in the long run.
@aardvark:
"Freeman Dyson, Nobel Laureate"
Actually, he hasn't won a Nobel. Many think that he should have. His ideas of an energy future, last I heard, involved algae (not Dyson Spheres).
Very nice commentary. I'd like to make one small, but extremely significant correction. You stated that the Hyperion concept uses uranium nitride fuel elements. This is incorrect. This concept has proposed the use of uranium hydride fuel. Uranium hydride is fascinating stuff, with many unusual properties, importantly including a variation in the stochiometry (ratio of U/H) of the compound which is dependent on temperature. Given that hydrogen also moderates the nuclear reaction, the Hyperion concept uses this two features to give a type of self-regulating nuclear reactor with no primary control rods.
This is novel, untried, and has a large degree of technical risk associated with it. Not the least of which is that the nuclear fuel would have no primary containment. All current reactors have the nuclear fuel contained in a cladding, and clad fuel pellets are assembled into fuel rods. The licensing of a reactor with unclad/uncontained fuel is exceptionally non-trivial. While the Hyperion concept is an interesting technical concept, it has a long way to go to prove engineering viability.
the first patent was for uranium hydride but the actual detailed design that they are moving forward with is uranium nitride.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/11/hyperion-power-generation-reactor.html
Ah, thanks so much for the update and correction then. I retract my statement that the info was in error, it was I that was outdated.
I would speculate that the issues with unclad fuel played a role in the reengineering of the Hyperion concept.
got this from a book by Stewart Brand- Whole Earth discipline
What does it take to produce 13 terawatts of carbon free energy- the amount that has to be generated if we are going to keep atmospheric CO2 at below 450ppm in the next 25 years/
2 TW of photovoltaic (15% efficient)-100 square meters every second next 25 years.
2 TW solar thermal (30% efficient)- 50sq meters highly reflective mirrors every second
2TW bio fuels- 4 Olympic size pools of genetically engineered algae every second
2TW wind-a 300 ft turbine every 5 minutes
2 TW geothermal- 3 100 MW turbines every day
3TW nuclear- 3 reactor 3 gigawatt plant every week,
Surface area for all that- about the size of America.
If he is right then if appears to me that the planet is screwed.
3 GW of new nuclear capacity every week... why is that so impossible?
This would be the same as, roughly, 30 small modular reactor units to be cranked off an assembly line per week.
For comparison purposes, consider this: in 2007, Boeing was producing 37 aircraft per month. These are multi-hundred million dollar units, massively complex with all kinds of regulatory controls with strictest safety standards. I suggest that manufacture of these aircraft would be comparable to the mass manufacture of small modular nuclear units, with similar scale of unit costs and concerns for safety and the degree of regulatory oversight and certification controls.
So, given the example of what ONE major manufacturing corporation can do in a highly regulated environment, would a factory-mass production scenario for nuclear units, cranking out a few dozen standardized modular units per week globally, be so difficult to contemplate? Not for me. Standardized, factory mass produced units of manageable size would be perhaps the most efficient/logical way of doing it. Indeed, I think this is the only realistic way to produce such an INCREDIBLE amount of new carbon-free energy capacity, which will have the smallest cost in terms of raw material and other natural resources inputs, which is a consequence of extreme energy density of nuclear fuels and the high power densities of reactor cores.
Claims to the effect that people have an "irrational bias against nuclear energy" really bug me. Look, I have no clue about nuclear energy. But as an engineer and generally a bright guy who has been around the block the few times in industry, complicated technologies make me nervous. My bias is not irrational, it is based on the experience that more often than not, much hailed complex technologies create more problems than they solve, and they also create unanticipated risks.
There are always "experts" proclaiming that things are safe and assure us that the most brilliant minds have worked out all the risk. But in the real world all too often things turn out to be different from these claims. The real world is BP and Challenger. In the real world, people get complacent, they do sloppy work, corporations cut corners on safety both to save time and to add a penny to the bottom line, pay off corrupt regulators, and so on and so forth. We cannot possibly guarantee that everything always will work as designed and people will behave in the way we imagine they should behave. Having many more reactors spread across the globe only increases a risk that there will be someone cutting some corner somewhere (in manufacturing some part of a plant or inspecting it or constructing the plant or operating it). Are we ready to experience nuclear Deepwater Horizons?
Please don't ask me what "my alternative" is because "people need energy". At least I admit that I don't have all the answers, which is something the techno-optimists seem to have great trouble with.
"more often than not"!
The real world for Triga inherently safe reactors - 50+ years - no meltdowns. At one time there was a Nuclear Engineering Department at UCSB in Santa Barbara CA. The department and its reactor were shut down. Among other things, Triga reactors are currently used for production of radioisotopes for nuclear medicine.
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/inmemoriam/HenryJ.Fenech.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIGA
Everything you states has a real ring of truth but I would like to point out the problems are generally errors of design and operation.
Engineering has been a real problem to this point not because of its lack but rather because of confusion caused by competition and profit.
I'm 60 so I won't be seeing the energy-wise future.
Jimmy Carter tried to nudge us in the right direction and that failed because
of lack of interest. Now 40 years later we are in virtually the same place.
America needs to do something different and Smart Nuclear power is just the ticket.
Most are worried and Nuclear waste and I'm worried about an asteroid hitting the earth before I die.......we are even.
"Jimmy Carter tried to nudge us in the right direction and that failed because of lack of interest."
As I recall, there were four things that came together to put the kibosh on the nuclear industry:
Rod had this note:
Have you ever sat down and contemplated the probabilities that these seemingly unrelated events could happen in such quick succession just at a time when selling fossil fuel was becoming increasingly profitable as the price of a barrel of oil increased by a factor of four in 1973-74 (from $3 to $12) and then again by a factor of three (from $12 to $40) in 1979-81?
Think about just how much money the oil industry spends on the advertising supported media, especially during a time when we were all repeatedly told to "put a tiger in our tanks". Think about the incredible coincidence of a having an otherwise forgettable movie playing in the theaters with a line about contaminating an area "the size of Pennsylvania" at exactly the same time as a unique, real life event - with several unexplainable operator errors - occurred in - you guess it, Pennsylvania.
Not talking about any plan here, just thinking out loud about incredible coincidence. It is, after all, a time of day when most people in my time zone are slumbering.
Rod Adams
PS - just in case you think that nuclear and oil never compete, remember that the "oil industry" is really the oil and gas industry. In the US, electricity production consumes a bit more than 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas every year. At an average price of $4 per thousand cubic feet, that is $24 billion. At an average of $8 per thousand, that is $48 billion and at the prices available in 2008, when the balance between supply and demand was quite tight, the oil/gas industry made more than $60 billion selling fuel to power plants in the US.
Also, please take a hard look at the electricity supply data history available from the Energy Information Agency.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0802b.html
In 1975, oil burning power plants provided 15% of the electricity in the US, consuming about a million barrels of oil per day. (At about $12 per barrel, that was a pretty decent revenue stream for the time.) In that same year, nuclear power plants provided 9% of the electricity.
In 1978, oil peaked at nearly 17% of the electricity market, nuclear had also increased from 9% to nearly 12%. By 1985, when the plants begun in the 1970s had mostly started operating with some amount of reliability - after a lot of imposed delays following TMI - oil's electricity market share had dropped to 4% while nuclear's had increased to 15% and was still growing.
By 1995, nuclear fission was producing more electricity in the US than the entire grid produced the year I was born (1959).
Another ranks pretty high up the list: Before 1973 demand for electricity in the US was growing at about 7% per year; after 1973 it grew at maybe 2%. So after a few years of that, utilities realized that they weren't going to need most of the new power plants they'd planned on building.
Another thing, what were interest rates then ~20%? Construction work in progress was not allowed, so the capital to build a plant had to be raised before it could be started. Interest on the debt was the largest cost in the project. Delay the project a couple of years and at 20% interest your largest cost doubles.
The real world also contains hundreds of millions of automobiles that start on the first turn of the key and transport their operators safely to their destinations. It includes thousands of complex aircraft operating all over the world that deliver their passengers and freight loads with an impressive safety record.
Believe it or not, there are some very dedicated and quality focused engineers, technicians, and operators out there who recognize the value of their job, do it correctly and resist the efforts of any bean counters to cut corners. Pessimism might be your favored way of looking at the world; I actually like most of the people I deal with each day and respect their dreams and desires for a better life.
Are there mistakes made? Yes. Do we need to fight those greedy folks who worship money above all else? Yes. Does that mean that we should all take a vow of poverty and stop using empowering technology? No.
Rod Adams
Well, is a 1950-ies technique to boil water using lumps of metal who get hot when close to each other really that complex, then? I think not.
But whether nuclear is complex or not, I don't think that's the issue with "irrational bias". The problem is that people think nuclear accidents are unacceptable, and much because there is invisible death rays that you can't control and very long time frames.
You yourself say: "Are we ready to experience nuclear Deepwater Horizons?"
The answer should be a resounding: "Yes, of course!". Why? Because in the grand scheme of things, that's a small sacrifice for human civilization. Because most every other type of energy source is worse on average. Because Chernobyl might eventually kill the same number of humans and animals that global traffic does in a single day. Because the coal fuel cycle is at least as bad as two Chernobyls or GOM a year. And so on.
The "irrational bias" is the same irrational bias that those who are too afraid to fly has - they think they are in control while driving their car, and they accept the accidents that happen on the road. But they don't feel in control in the airplane and they don't accept the spectacular accidents of flight, even though they kill some order of magnitude less people per passenger kilometer than road traffic.
Gail,thanks for your part in getting this and other articles on nuclear energy posted.
Apart from being educational for those of us who are either in favour of nuclear enegy or are open minded about it,the postings also serve to get the antinuclear types to demonstrate,in an open forum, their irrational response.
Some of these people would make an interesting psychological study.Historically,the parallels with religious fervor are striking.
Nice move, calling healthy debate of a topic an "irrational response" and "demonstration". Seen from the other side of things postings such as the article above seem like just some more propaganda from the Nuclear Power Industry.
The facts are incontrovertible:
1) We do not have a permanent waste repository, nor are we likely to anytime soon. Its been said that "if you can't build it in Nevada, you won't be able to build it anywhere else".
2) Accidents will happen, whether caused by bad design, poor maintenance, incompetence.
3) The large corporations who build and run these technologies run risks in favor of the bottom line ($), increasing the likelihood of #2
4) The Nuclear Power Industry gets a huge bailout from the US Taxpayer with the Price Anderson Act. Their "contribution" costs are passed on to rate payers
5) Nuclear waste products remain lethal for thousands of years. We will at best only get a century or two of power from them. What then?
The investors realize that all it will take will be the next inevitable Three Mile Island or Chernobyl to run away from this investment. Remember the default of WPPSS? Companies who own nuclear plants will see their stock prices drop like a stone when an accident occurs, the way BP's did with the spill. There are less risky investments with shorter return times. Energy-wise we face huge deficits in the future - which is why we are reviving some of these dead technologies. But we shouldn't do these in favor of more common sense approaches such as conservation, etc. The nuclear power industry gets a huge subsidy while the other technologies get a pittance and it has been this way since the 60s and look where it has gotten us? We have a pile of aging and leaking reactors with piles of waste and no where to put it and no political will to deal with it and soon no money to pay for it. And this is supposed to be a good investment?
I rest my case.
Casey - can you tell me how much the US taxpayers have paid to the nuclear power industry as a result of the Price Anderson Act? (Answer - they have not paid a dime.)
Can you tell me what the act requires all nuclear power plant owners to do in the case of an accident at any of the operating facilities that causes damage exceeding the current required insurance coverage - which happens to be more than $300 million per plant? (Answer - they all pony up to the tune of about $100 million per plant to provide a pool of $10 billion to pay off any claims. So far, no accident has ever required this pool contribution since even TMI was well within the liability limit of the insurance purchased by the plant owner.)
The often repeated canard that Price Anderson is a subsidy for the nuclear industry is disputed by facts.
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/safetyandsecurity/f...
Rod Adams
Maybe not but the potential is there. Look at Chernobyl. Also, look at the potential for loss of life, loss of habitability, etc.
$10 billion seems like a lot - but then, look at the costs so far for the BP oil spill - $4 billion and still counting - and all of a sudden $10 billion doesn't sound like a whole lot of money. What if this was a major nuclear accident and radiation release rendering an area the size of Connecticut uninhabitable and the unlucky site just happened to be Connecticut or some other populated state? $10 billion would be pennies on the thousands of dollars of staggering economic loss if everyone had to move away suddenly. Of course this is a worst case scenario but like deep water drilling accidents - these just never happen and the industry has the capability to handle them if they do, or so we are told.
Also, where are each of these plants going to get $100 million? Do they have it in the bank? I doubt it. They'll have to borrow it. In our current economic climate that might be difficult.
@Casey - we have already done the experiment in the US on the worst case that can happen to a US designed and licensed nuclear plant. The location was near Harrisburg, PA and the date was March 28, 1979. Many unplanned failures occurred, the operators made a number of key errors including turning off the pumps supplying make up water, and the politicians provided clueless leadership.
We have also done all of the final accident analysis and the post event wash up, including litigating all claims.
Final result - one destroyed plant. No injuries, no property damage outside the plant boundaries. The "China Syndrome" started since the core experienced a 30% melt. The "corium" melted and slumped down to the bottom of the core pressure vessel to being its journey to "China". After it had penetrated the 7-8" thick vessel to a depth of less than 5/8", the corium froze solid and stopped its journey.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html
In other words - this stuff is adequately safe, especially when compared to all other forms of energy production.
Rod Adams
That might be the official Nuclear party platform belief but google "Three Mile Accident Victims" and you will see several entries about victims trying to sue.
Other victims such as Vets suffering from Agent Orange Exposure or Gulf War Syndrome have been similarly denied due process, until their plight was officially recognized.
In the Pacific Northwest there is a certain group of people known as "Downwinders" who lived downwind from Hanford and suffered greatly from it. Class Action lawsuits finally gained some recognition of the Downwinders' plight. Mt brother who died at age 46 was born during some of the worst releases at Hanford - and his early childhood was traumatized by skeletal and muscular deformities. I suspect he was a victim. We grew up on Columbia River Salmon and I wonder when its going to be my turn with cancer, or my sisters' turn. To me the issue of Nukes in my backyard is personal. Fortunately the Cascadia Subduction Zone will prevent any from being built west of the Cascades.
My neighbor took in a visiting "Child of Chernobyl" from Belarus. These are kids born after Chernobyl and they have suffered horrible birth defects, etc. The program was designed to bring them here to give them a leg up on nutrition, health care, immune system boosting etc. There are thousands of them.
I know I am citing things other than the US commercial nuclear program - such as the Iodine releases and a badly designed Soviet reactor. However, these are examples of what can happen when huge releases of radioactive materials are released into the environment.
Believe what you will about the safety of Nuclear Reactors. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary if you are willing to dig beyond the official industry line. There are many, such as myself, who don't want them who vote, and who will fight the industry at every step and jam up the works in hearings and lawsuits, and prevent these from going on-line, or at least delay them far into the future. Unless we revert to some sort of dictatorship and have these rammed down our throats by the corporations and governments, our concerns will have to be addressed.
According to recent surveys, more than 60% of the people in the US favor the construction of new nuclear power plants. That percentage increases to 80% if you survey the populations within 25 miles of existing facilities. Many of the communities that host our current plants are actively promoting projects to construct new facilities on the existing sites. I have attended and reported on public hearings on that topic for Calvert Cliffs Unit 3.
http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2010/05/nrc-and-army-corps-of-enginee...
Have you ever stopped your active opposition to nuclear energy long enough to figure out who makes the most money when people work hard to stop the entry of a new supplier into a market? (That is right - the existing supplier who is protected from the competition that might ensue over market share. In power production, that is most likely the coal and/or gas plant's fuel supplier.)
I plan to fight you and your friends hard to enable the construction of useful power generating facilities that do not consume fossil fuels and do not produce a continuous stream of hazardous waste products from their smoke stacks.
Game on.
Rod Adams
"According to recent surveys, more than 60% of the people in the US favor the construction of new nuclear power plants. That percentage increases to 80% if you survey the populations within 25 miles of existing facilities."
This is a product of human psychology not reasoned consideration. The common example of this behaviour is a study of people living downstream from a dam. The rate of people reporting concern over the possibility of the dams' failure increases as you approach the dam, but then suddenly drops to zero in the last kilometres. People can only worry about things so much before they have to act or stop thinking about it. The people at the base of the dam chose the latter.
Or they thought about it and acted — by moving out from under the dam. Anyway, the point is that existing nuclear plants don't really have a NIMBY problem. The people trying to shut them down live elsewhere.
The health effects of Chernobyl are vastly overblown. And the rest of the issues you mention doesn't even exist. But don't worry - you aren't the first nor the last to attribute an ailment to an imagined or non-related environmental factor. We'll keep building a prosperous and humane society while you nag and whine.
I think your concerns should be addressed separately on the military and the civilian side.
Agent Orange is a chemical, so I don't really understand why it pops in this discussion !
Gulf War Syndrome is also, at least partially, a problem cause by chemicals. This being said, I find the usage of Uranium munitions particularly stupid as :
first, it wastes good fuel for breeder,
second, however depleted the Uranium is, there will always be some trace of potent fissile U235 or contamination with transuranics if the DU has been recycled. This later fact, combined by the pyrogenicity of the compound, is obviously a pathway to inhalation.
Chernobyl : the main reason why RBMK was an unsafe design was that it was a hybrid between a civilian reactor and a military plutonium producing reactor. Military grade plutonium production require frequent loading and unloading of the fuel (if it is stays too long, one doesn't have the right mix of Pu isotopes for bombs). As a consequence, convenience for loading and unloading conflicts with safety (especially regarding containment).
Hanford was also a plutonium producing plant that operated in the middle of WW2.
The US is probably the one that is the less to blame because Hanford occurred very early in nuclear development, where the radioactive threat was not very well understood, and during a period of open war where public perception of risk when soldiers were dying every day in the Pacific and in Europe was necessarily different from the one we have today. I am sincerely sorry for what happened to your brother and for the psychological stress, if not the actual diseases (that I hope you will avoid), that you have had to suffer. You are really a civilian victim of ww2, and I think it is a shame if you have not been recognized as such. The same goes for the numerous conscripts who have been exposed recklessly during nuclear tests in the 50's and 60's.
The common thread between these four events is that the unaccountability of military decisions that naturally arises during conflicts encourages reckless behavior. The problem is that nukes are too powerful for recklessness. It is very unfortunate that such behavior was so common within ALL the nuclear powers during the 40-60's weapons development era (France with "Gerboise Verte", UK with Winscale, USSR with the Techa River, US with Hanford and Bikini, I don't know anything about China military program but I fear the worst...). It is even more unfortunate that this recklessness slipped into the civilian practice, notably in authoritarian countries. I personally look no further for the cause of Chernobyl, and I think it is still an important safety issue in some countries. This is not to say that military is necessarily bad : Rickover showed that military discipline and safety can be compatible, but there is a real problem of counter-power here.
However, putting today's civilian independent regulatory agencies in Western Countries in the same bag is just guilt by association. Claiming that 4000 people are engaged in a vast con to hide the real risks of nuclear power (including the TMI accident) is as preposterous than claiming that Global Warming is not real, not caused by humans and just a climatologist plot. Extraordinary scientific thesis must be backed by extraordinarily good science, with extraordinarily deep reviews, and I don't see it in both cases. I certainly couldn't find any by googling "Three Mile Accident Victims" !
"Look at Chernobyl ..."
Non sequitur: the graphite-moderated water cooled RBMK reactor design was dismissed as inherently unsafe by Western nations for use as civilian power plants. It had a positive void coefficient, unlike the Hanford N reactor, a graphite-moderated reactor which produced both electrical power and weapons material.
5) "Nuclear waste products remain lethal for thousands of years..."
I dislike repetition but believe that somewhere in the discussion of nuclear power posts there should be mention of T. D. Luckey and others who believe that there is more evidence for radiation hormesis than for the LNT hypothesis.
The nuclear power industry is the ONLY industry that responsibly manages it's waste (fully considering the long term), not the other way around. It is the only industry that is required to contain its (tiny volume of) wastes for as long as they remain hazardous. Other industries just dump their wastes directly into the environment or casually shallow bury it, with no analyzes or steps taken to ensure that it doesn't migrate over the long term. On top of that, these other wastes are much more voluminous, are in a much more dispersible form, and many of them remain toxic for longer periods, if not forever.
Given all the above, the health and environmental risks over the very long term (thousands to millions of years from now) for many other waste streams are vastly greater than those of nuclear waste. Coal ash and petrochemical wastes, definitely. That nuclear waste is unique in terms of long-term risk is a myth. The requirements placed on its burial are what is unique. Nonetheless, the industry is (was?) poised to demonstrate that even those unprecedented standards could be met. All indications were that Yucca Mtn. would have passed NRC review, if pure politics hadn't intervened. Ensuring containment for (shorter-lived) wastes from a closed fuel cycle would be even easier. It is clear that we have a technical solution to the nuclear waste problem. It's purely a political problem. Another point is that once the repository is sealed, we don't have to do anything more. There is no "task" left to be done. It does not need to be "babysitted", any more than any of our other buried waste streams. The repositories are designed to perform with no interventions.
Accidents? The consequences of an absolute worst-case accident at any Western/modern (non-Soviet) plant would be orders of magnitude smaller than the ANNUAL impacts of fossil fuel power plants (hundreds of thousands of deaths, annually, along with the largest single source of global warming emissions). Even Chernobyl caused at most a few thousand (eventual) deaths (i.e., ~1% of fossil plants' annual impact). The consequences of a worst-case Western plant accident are far lower. On top of this is the tiny (one per million year) risk of such an event occuring. Outside the Soviet block, the indsutry has a ~50-year record with no significant releases and no public health impacts. That, despite being run by all those evil, short-cutting corporations. This impeccible record belies Point #3 above.
Even opponents of Price Anderson calculate that the "subsidy" amounts to a fraction of a cent/kW-hr, at most. Total dollar estimates range from $600,000 (CBO) to 2.3 million (nuclear opponents) per reactor year. With ~100 reactors, and ~800 billion kW-hrs per year of annual output, this works out to a range of ~0.01 to 0.03 cents/kW-hr. Some subsidy! If the fossil industry isn't willing to give up their massive "free pollution" subsidy (estimated to be worth 4-8 cents/kW-hr), why should nuclear give up one that is tiny to non-existent?
Finally, it's well known that on a per/kW-hr basis, subsidies to renewables are far larger than those received by nuclear. On top of that (in case even those massive subsidies are not enough), there are mandates (portfolio standards) that require a certain (large) amount of renewables to be used, regardless of their cost or practicality. Effectively an infinite subsidy.
Here's the link for the Price Anderson "subsidy" costs. Go to the bottom of the page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity...
Harumph!
"The nuclear power industry is the ONLY industry that responsibly manages it's waste.. "
.. or did you mean to say 'manages its statements about waste'?
http://vtdigger.org/2010/07/20/report-entergys-corporate-culture-led-to-...
As with the long delays in getting BP to come clean, or Massey Energy to act like adults.. here is clearly another industry here that has every incentive to sweep uncomfortable news under the rug.
What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that?
('Noone ever expected a breach of the Levees..') You guys might be sincere in your pronouncements, but really, look again..
Incredible. You put a minor seepage of 0.35 curies of tritium that never left plant boundaries into the same category as a "clean natural gas" explosion in a coal mine that killed 39 people and another "clean natural gas" explosion that killed 11 people plus contaminated a significant portion of a productive body of water teeming with plant and animal life.
http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2010/03/how-much-tritium-leaked-from-...
Vermont Yankee has plenty of greedy enemies that would love to have the opportunity to sell power into the market if they are able to force Entergy to shut down an emission free, already constructed and paid for nuclear power plant that last year produced a quantity of electricity that equaled 85% of the consumption of the entire state of Vermont. Vermont was purchasing some of that electricity for 4 cents per kilowatt hour under the terms of a contract negotiated at the time that Entergy purchased the plant in 2002. That contract for electricity at far below the market rate expires in 2012, when the plant's license expires.
Entergy had plans to raise that to a wopping 6.1 cents per kilowatt hour, which is still far below the market rate. Some competitors want to sell power for as much as 20.7 cents per kilowatt hour (Cape Wind, as long as they receive the full amount of current federal subsidies.) It would be difficult to convince the rational people in Vermont - and there are still a few there - to pay 20.7 cents for something that might be available for 6 cents. That is why some believe that the Vermont Yankee plant must be shut down.
Interestingly enough, a potential future supplier aiming for the market opportunity that might be opened up if the 620 MWe Vermont Yankee plant is forced to shutdown is a natural gas fired 620 MWe power plant being built in Middletown, CT, just a few dozen miles downstream of Vermont Yankee on the same Connecticut River. The plant owners are quite interested in being ready and in the market by the time that the plant's closure is currently scheduled. Unfortunately for some of the workers building the facility, there is a considerable amount of pressure on the construction schedule. That pressure led to a few short cuts, which led to an explosion, which led to the deaths of 6 workers and the need to start construction again. (Sunday, February 7, 2010.)
http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2010/02/deadly-explosion-at-kleen-ene...
There is plenty of money on both sides of the nuclear argument, but there happens to be far more of it on the side opposing nuclear. If you hate corporations, whose windmills do you intend to buy - GE's, Siemens's, Iberdrola's or Vestas's?
Rod Adams
Red Herring after Red Herring.
A pattern of chronic lying about safety issues and avoiding basic maintenance that allowed a leak to get within meters of the CT. river, that allowed a cooling tower to start collapsing.. is not justified by 6-cent electricity, is it?
My post was not Anti-corporation, it should be clear that it was Anti-lying. If Vestas is lying, they should be held fully accountable as well. If their turbine falls into the Ct River, how many persistent mutagens and teratogens will end up in the water supply?
Without knowing the particulars, it sounds like you're the victim of a media hausse, or you're dramatizing yourself.
I posted sources. The behavior of Entergy, Massey and BP are hardly secrets at this point anyhow. There are numerous examples of how big energy firms are treating safety precautions, and what they're willing to admit to publicly.
Who's the Victim?
More than the amount associated with the Vt. Yankee tritium leaks. Wind turbines do use oil as a lubricant, after all.
Words can't describe how trivial these leakage "issues" are. I suppose you just have to be a scientist, who has some nuclear background and can understand numbers, in order to understand.....
Have you ever dripped a tiny amount of gasoline on the ground after you finish filling (perhaps overfilling) your gas tank? Each time anyone does that is a more significant environmental/health event than all the Vt. Yankee tritium, etc.. leakage issues/events that you've heard oh so much about in the press. After all, as the signs say, gasoline is a "known carcinogen"! If anyone is a "master of statements" (as opposed to facts and real perspective, i.e., the truth) it's the anti-nuclear side.
Seriously, the concentration of radioactivity, even in the worst part of the plume, is no more than that found natually in many foods (that people happily eat, with no health impacts). The released amounts, concentrations, and resulting public exposures are several orders of magnitude less than what would be required to have any chance of causing a single sickness (let alone death). Speaking of gasoline compare this to the issue of leaking fuel tanks under a large number of American gas stations. That issue is clearly a million times as serious, but it gets no press coverage....
Rod,
Very good post.
What I am interested is not electricity but heat & steam. It can be used for mining and water heating. I think that small units are very suitable for that. Also mining usually remote...
Can you expand on that?
-Leonard
@Leonard - I am not sure how to answer you. Light water nuclear steam supply systems are essentially just boilers that can provide a large quantity of steam if fed with suitable feed water. The steam temperature would be in the range of 450-600 degrees F.
There are designs underway for a higher temperature reactor. A major example is the Chinese HTR or the US NGNP project. The aim of those is to be able to produce dry heat at a temperature of perhaps 700-900 degrees C.
Before losing its government support, the PBMR project in South Africa had been reconfigured to be a 200 MW thermal heat source for industrial process heat.
Rod Adams
I live in Africa, in the only country in the world to voluntarily decommission our entire stockpile of nuclear weapons. In Africa we have some of the poorest people on earth. Due to lack of development, (the reasons for which are probably the subject of a separate debate,) we have millions of people struggling with lives of hardship and squalor unimaginable to those living comfortable lives in the industrialized west. Infant mortality, rampant disease, frighteningly short average life spans and widespread hunger, malnutrition and actual starvation are the norm in many parts of the continent. Cheap, abundant energy is our best hope to materially improve the life of these poor people. People spending hours a day hunting for firewood, destroying what remains of our natural forests; cooking over smoky fires in their huts while breathing the smoke; lighting from expensive to run paraffin lamps; drinking contaminated water they have to carry for miles, their life is one long struggle for mere survival. The suggestions here from some that western countries deliberately dismantle their industrial civilizations and return to a reduced standard of living strikes me as shockingly perverse. This from a country where the typical problem of being poor is to be too fat! The availability of cheap power would have a transformational effect on the lives of everyone, with cheap power, almost anything is possible.
We are still running our big nuke plant at Koeberg, But I hear we have sold much of the technology for our locally designed small pebble-bed Modular reactors to the Chinese. Anybody in the industry know how far the build out is going, if at all? I’m personally agnostic on Peak Oil thought, just don’t know enough to give an opinion, but we have been running large oil-from-coal plants successfully for many years. It does not look as if we will be running out of coal anytime soon.
@Ross McLeman - Thank you for joining in on the discussion and adding your touch of reality. I was beginning to think there were no contributors who actually understood some of what I was saying about the importance of developing an abundant energy supply system that can be shared around the world.
The recent decision to abandon the PBMR concept is a bit dismaying, but I believe that the project leaders got steered in the wrong direction early and never managed to get back on track. The challenge that PBMR faced was that it was trying to do two difficult things at one time. The PBMR design required South Africa not only recover the technology for manufacturing high quality reactor fuel that could withstand temperatures in the range of 800-950 C on the surface of the spheres, but also to figure out how to do something that had only been done on paper before - build helium cooled turbo machinery that could produce 100-165 MWe. General Atomics in the US has been "building" such reactors on paper since the 1980s, but never actually produced a working machine.
The Chinese have taken a much more reasonable path forward - their plants circulate helium through a steam generator and use a steam turbine to produce electricity. That is a proven approach that worked on a large scale at both Ft. St. Vrain and at the Thorium High Temperature Reactor in Germany.
I hope that the intellectual property gained by South Africa's success in fuel manufacture is not lost, but I fear it might be. The power needs that encourage PBMR still exist and might be met with the SMRs that I discuss in the above article. I certainly hope so.
Rod Adams
4 countries born from the breakup of the Soviet Union were "born nuclear" with weapon stockpiles as well. 3 of these - Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan voluntarily returned their weapons to Russia. This is a significant accomplishment which should be recognized and included along with the decommissioning by South Africa.
I would ammend the statement that South Africa was "the only country in the world to voluntarily decommission our entire stockpile of nuclear weapons".
AtomicRod - Is it possible that the scaling rule
"The cost of a piece of production machinery would vary by the throughput raised to the 0.6 power".
failed because, in the nuclear industry, cost ceases to be a function of traditional elements that normally drive cost of industrial machinery (cost of materials, labor, office space, manufacturing facilities, energy, taxes, etc) but has come to be dominated by the cost of how we regulate the building of nuclear reactors. The regulatory cost is not just the license fees or the cost of certifying new reactor designs, but is also strongly related to the impact of regulation on schedule (time is money). At the dawn of the nuclear age, the first commercial nuclear reactor, the Shippingport Atomic Power Station, was built in the United States in less than 4 years. Today the combination of regulatory obstacles to introducing a new nuclear reactor, large or small (reactor certification, combined COL license, environmental impact studies, fuel qualification certification, cooling water utilization plans, etc) can cause new projects to stretch out into over a decade's time to where nuclear ends up impractical for many communities to consider.
AtomicRod - If the scaling rule works well in many production machinery industries and doesn't work well in the nuclear industry I would ask why you think that is?
-Great article AtomicRod!
1) Well funded lobbying of competing fossil energy providers
2) Greater inertia vis-a-vis new design due to safety requirement. This is were standardization and small modules really help. At some point, one has to stop to tinker the design and just crank up the production in numbers. This is what France did in the 70-80's to reach 85% nuclear electricity generation in 20 years, and my bet is that it will be what China will do in 5 or 10 years once they will have realized the impasse with coal and made a choice on their local Nuclear technology.
From what I have read I believe China is well on it's way to making a choice regarding their standard design --- a somewhat larger variant of the Westinghouse AP1000 called the CAP1400. First one is scheduled to begin construction in 2013. They are building up the supply chain now. Standardization is the ticket for large reactors as well. We will see how it turns out, but I think the rate at which China will build reactors is going to astonish the world.
Right now the CPR-1000, a Chinese design derived from a collaboration with Areva is the most used design and has a clear head start. They really squeezed Framatome/Areva really hard. I am sure that they will use their EPR experience to evolve the CPR for a bigger version. This being said, considering the thirst for power in China, they can certainly afford two designs and achieve economies of scale on each.
I am not a nuclear power expert, but have been involved in various electronic engineering projects, some rather energy- intensive. I live about 40 miles south of an old, rather dangerous nuclear plant, and it worries me. Generally, nuclear power plants must be located on rivers or coastlines to obtain cooling water. Air cooling is possible, but probably is extremely inefficient and hazardous. People also congregate around bodies of water.
Everything I have learned (not that much) about nuclear power plants indicates that they are akin to space shuttles — they operate at the hairy edge of technical viability. I understand that the fuel rods in the plants need to get almost to their melting point to be efficient — Damn scary! Then — what to do with the eventual waste? Fusion power plants would be much safer, since they generally don't require radioactive heavy metals such as uranium, which has an extremely strong affinity (binds strongly to) DNA. (This is why heavy metals such as platinum are used in oncology.)
I am much in favor of the aneutronic (no fast neutron production) Focus Fusion (Proton Boron) approach which produces no radionuclides and seems to be making great strides:
http://focusfusion.org/
If all else fails, we may go back to wind energy with raised-weight storage and centralized electrical generators. No fun, but better than a fission reactor on every block!
You might be interested in my little entry on the Focus Fusion forum:
http://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/393/
"I live about 40 miles south of an old, rather dangerous nuclear plant ..."
Which plant?
"Air cooling is possible, but probably is extremely inefficient and hazardous."
Look at this like discussing Heller dry cooling and existing applications, including a reactor in Siberia. (It's hard to pump frozen water.)
http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/AdvancedCooling/PresentationsDay1/17_EPRI%20Paper%202008_animált_Balogh.pdf
Man .... this post seems to have caused all the hard-core anti-nuke greenies to come out from the woodwork! I see many names here for the very first time, and they are virulent in their anti-nuke rhetoric.
About a hundred years ago (well actually 1966 -1967) I took two course in nuclear engineering. It was the 'hot' thing at the time (so to speak), with visions of LBJ turning the Southwest into a garden of eden, with too-cheap-to-meter nuclear desalination plants. Well, things didn't turn out so great for nuclear power, did they?
There are many reasons. While I have spent most of my working life in the environmental field, I must say that the politically-active anti-nuke ideologues were extremely effective in keeping the public's fear level ratcheted up, as least in the US. Then there was Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl, together which put the final nail in the coffin of US nuclear power. Given the regulatory, political, and legal climate, is questionable whether nuclear power can make a comeback in the US.
Yes, nuclear power is dangerous and poses many risks. But one must then ask: compared to what? The US currently has an energy policy (if you could really call it that) of attempting to militarily dominate the Middle East and Central Asia. So far, it has not been working out very well and has been costing trillions of dollars, not to mention American blood.
So, as I have said here several times before: if one insists upon worrying about dying from radiation poisoning, then one's worry energies should rather be focused on some future resource war that gets escalated beyond control and in which someone somewhere pops a nuclear weapon.
Nuclear power, in conjunction with wind and solar, represents one of our last hopes of keeping alive any semblance of modern civilization. Maybe the greenies think it's cool to go back to ox carts, but I for one can't get too enthused about that sort of thing.
We seem to have widely disparate views of what the future will (or should) be like.
Ideologies are usually based in beliefs. Many who are anti-nuke such as myself base their opposition on the simple fact that after 60 some years we have yet to come up with a working plan to manage the wastes, which keep piling up. That is not a belief - that is a fact.
Come up with a viable solution to this and make it happen, as well as design reactors that cannot undergo runaway meltdowns or pose as targets for terrorists, and I'd be all for it.
The idea that we can plan to build all these new reactors with wonderful designs into the future and keep them secure from accidents and terrorism and societal decay sounds more like a belief system to me. There was even a name coined for this: the Atomic Priesthood.
Unfortunately the future energy scenario is not rosy and we all know this. Many of us anti-nukes such as Amory Lovins and Lloyd Marbet have known this for years and have a deep understanding of the four laws of thermodynamics, especially the last (there ain't no such thing as a free lunch). Many were trying to sound the alarm after the 1977 energy crisis before the Reagan years his Morning in America message silenced all that in favor of bigger cars and other wasteful energy practices up to the present. We were at a point then, according to Lovins, when we could start the transition from hard to soft energy paths - and still have the raw materials, energy resources and economic base to fund this transition. We no longer have that safety net.
Instead Detroit kept building bigger cars resulting in the failures of the big automakers. We off-shored our manufacturing capability. Oil and many other raw materials peaked sooner rather than later. Now we are stuck with two large wars and a Middle East powder keg and an oil spill of epochal proportions not to mention a deficit of epochal proportions. All of the nuclear waste generated since the 1940s remains where it was generated, and there is no permanent safe storage on the horizon anywhere. Too bad our ideas weren't taken more seriously back then. This is the legacy of decades of bad decisions and denial. It may be too late to undo the risk and damage to our future.
Its not going to be easy. We may be looking at a future like Beyond Thunderdome. Or the one James Howard Kunstler envisioned in "World Made by Hand". Do we really want unsecured nukes in such a possible future? I'd rather have the ox carts!
@Casey Burns - ah ha, now I know that you are a Lovins disciple. Yes, I consider myself a full fledged member of the Atomic Priesthood, but unlike priests who set themselves apart and above their flock, I was raised in a more open tradition. I often call myself an Atomic Evangelist and I have a desire to share knowledge and convert folks, not minister to them from behind a pulpit.
Quite some time ago, I wrote an article about Lovins - in fact, I have written a number of them.
http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2007/12/blast-from-past-from-clean-co...
Did you know that one of the key prescriptions in Lovins's seminal 1976 article titled "Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken" was a recommendation to DOUBLE the coal consumption in the United States? That was actually the only part of his predicted energy supply graph that actually came true.
Lovins has also provided the following candid description of his career during a July 18, 2008 interview on Democracy Now!
Finally, I have a hard time trusting the prescriptions of a man whose personal integrity is demonstrated by the fact that he has always claimed to be "educated at Harvard and Oxford" and who calls himself the Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, yet he does not have a single earned degree from any institute of higher learning.
I know plenty of people who have succeeded in life without a degree and I never hold that against anyone, but the title of "scientist" in the modern world is generally not applied to a college dropout.
Just in case you resent my "ad hominem" attack - when someone pulls out an "appeal to authority", an "ad hominem" but truthful background report about that authority is the proper debate response.
Rod Adams
I was unfamiliar with Amory Lovins' work though of course I had heard of him at least by name.
I gathered from your comment that you do not much care for the man.
I was curious as to the validity of that statement and I looked him up and found this information:
BTW, For the record Oxford University does confer M.A. degrees for the following subjects:
http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/statutes/regulations/307-072.shtml
Master of Arts, or Master of Biochemistry or Chemistry or Computer Science or Earth Sciences or Engineering or Mathematics or Mathematics and Computer Science or Mathematics and Philosophy or Physics or Physics and Philosophy with effect from the twenty-first term from matriculation2
They are supposed to be the equivalent of what are generally considered to be Master of Science degrees at other universities and would be required as a prerequisite if one were to pursue a Doctorate in those subjects at Oxford.
So unless that Wikipedia information is indeed false and I didn't go so far as to actually check with Oxford to see if he does or does not have an M.A. in physics form there, it would appear at least at first glance that he does indeed have at least one legitimate earned degree.
You say you wrote a book about him so I assume you actually checked with Oxford and found that he did not earn this degree?
Indeed, Lovins got his MA "by Special Resolution to allow them to become members of Congregation" (or as was quoted by a "virtue of being a don"), as opposed to earning a degree by fulfilling the required coursework.
http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2006/05/amory-lovinss-academic-career...
I'm not so much of a Lovins' disciple as convinced by the good argument in his book "Soft Energy Paths".
We are in this current energy crisis primarily because we failed to take the actions he proposed 30 years ago, kicking this can of troubles down the road along the way. We are now up against a horrific wall of realities. We are far beyond the myth that technology will save us someday. To quote the song by Guy Lombardo "Enjoy Yourself. Enjoy Yourself! Its later than you think!"
Did you overlook the part in the article on which the book is based that advocates a doubling of coal consumption? What about the more recent quote about him working for the oil industry for the past 35 years? Don't you think that indicates a bit of interest in keeping out the competition?
Rod Adams
There certainly is plenty to nitpick in that book and an increase in coal horrifies me. We are feeling the effects of China here on the West Coast. But the core premise that we were at an important crossroad in the late 70s and needed to do something about our energy choices is the primary point of Lovins that I agree with. We are still at that crossroad and our time is running out fast. It may be too late to do the transition gracefully.
Nuclear may or may not be part of the solution. One thing - I am not convinced that we will have the nuclear fuel. It would be great if they finally figured out fusion but for now that is the stuff of Livermore and part of the dream that technology will some day save us. Isn't much of the fuel now in use recycled from former warheads?
Its what comes out the other end that really concerns me the most. Your earlier comment about lead and mercury I suspect had to do with coal. Its true that these and many other metals are released in its combustion (especially as we get into lower grades of the stuff - so much for the oxymoron "Clean Coal"). But at least these toxins can to some degree be bioremediated out of the environment and we already have the techniques and infrastructure for that.
But nuclear fuel just keeps piling up without any solution for long term disposal. Yucca Mountain is dead in the water. Vitrification is one possibility but then you still have to bury the vitrified wastes somewhere. Not at Yucca Mountain so where? Since the 50s the Nuclear Power Industry and the Governments have been promising to clean up this part of the act and we have yet to see this happen. Reminds me of BP promising that their Top Hats etc. I am tired of unfulfilled promises.
Perhaps the Government should find the solution! Well, they tried that with Yucca Mountain. At taxpayer expense. A dry hole. Elsewhere the Government's "deft" (I am being ironic here) handling of radioactive wastes (such as at Hanford) continues. There are some interesting things going out there. Such as the "solution" for one waste tank that sprang a leak and hot stuff started pluming down towards an important aquifer. Well they dug all of these tunnels diagonally underneath it to surround it with an inverted cone of tunnels, stuffed refrigeration equipment down each one and turned this plume into permafrost. That was in the early 90s and they still have the freezer turned on full power. How long do they have to keep it this way? Well until they figure out something better - thus, practically forever.
The money spent at Yucca was only a part of a special fee collected on the sale of each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced and sold by nuclear power plants. Since the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, (http://epw.senate.gov/nwpa82.pdf) the US government has been collecting 1 mil per kilowatt hour. That does not sound like much, but since nuclear power plants produce about 800 billion kilowatt-hours per year, the fee has resulted in approximately $800 million in payments to the government every year.
At the last count that I recall, the cost of the research done at Yucca Mountain was a bit more than $10 billion; the Nuclear Waste Fund still contains a positive balance of about $25 billion.
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/costs/
No taxpayer money involved - except for the fact that every rate paying customer of a nuclear power plant is also a taxpayer.
BTW - at the time that the Waste Policy Act was signed, there were a number of utilities that resisted the idea of a government solution, but the act gave them no choice. It established the federal government as the monopoly supplier of used fuel management services and forced all nuclear power plant owners to begin paying into the fund without any other choices of suppliers.
Rod Adams
There are viable waste-management plans. A simple container and a good burial site is all it takes, but the current plans are extremely overdimensioned with multiple barriers of copper, clay and rock which will last until the Earth is swallowed by the Sun. Claiming there is no solution just because you haven't got around to implementing a plan is ignorant or intellectually dishonest. Nuclear waste management is technologically simple.
Terrorism and meltdown - why should we safeguard 100% against those? Let's just do the rational thing - implement designs and safety protocols that are in proportion to the risk and accident size? (This means we should probably scale down requirements and protocols quite a bit.)
I respectfully disagree. The waste is piling up and there is no waste repository on the horizon. This is a fact that cannot be disputed.
That's merely (the lack of) political action. I'm confident you yanks can dig a deep hole in a suitable bedrock when the time comes. If you can't, it doesn't matter anyway.
There is incompletely burned nuclear fuel and it is sitting in containers. How many people has the unburned nuclear fuel killed ?
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/02/coal-power-and-waste-details.html
Coal waste is not being bioremediated.
so I will lay out the case of how coal waste is killing and damaging health and causing health problems now and then you can describe the actual deaths and injury from the nuclear repositories. I would be interested in those nuclear horror stories, because it would be news to me.
* Before burning, coal is crushed and washed, creating waste water filled with toxins. Another form of liquid coal waste is acidic mine runoff. Both forms of liquid coal waste are disposed of in a landfill at the mine site. Each year coal preparation creates waste water containing an estimated 13 tons of mercury, 3236 tons of arsenic, 189 tons of beryllium, 251 tons of cadmium, and 2754 tons of nickel, and 1098 tons of selenium
* Each of the USAs 500 coal-fired power plants produces an average 240,000 tons of toxic waste each year. A power plant that operates for 40 years will leave behind 9.6 million tons of toxic waste. This coal combustion waste (CCW) constitutes the nation's second largest waste stream after municipal solid waste.
* 721 power plants generating at least 100 MW of electricity produced 95.8 million tons of coal ash, about 20 percent of which - or almost 20 million tons - ended up in surface ponds. The rest of the ash winds up in landfills or is sold for other uses.
There are more than 1,300 surface impoundments across the U.S., each of which can reach up to 1,500 acres.
In 2007, 50 million tons of fly ash was used for agriculture purposes, such as improving the soil’s ability to hold water, in spite of a 1999 EPA warning about high levels of arsenic
* Coal ash pile in Orange County, FL may be leaking radioactivity (2009). The ash pile is 70-feet tall and holds several million tons of coal waste
One out of every six women of childbearing age in the United States may have blood mercury concentrations high enough to damage a developing fetus. This means that 630,000 of the 4 million babies born in the country each year are at risk of neurological damage because of exposure to dangerous mercury levels in the womb.
US Coal plants 98,000 pounds (44 metric tons) of mercury into the air each year. Power plants yield an additional 81,000 pounds of mercury pollution in the form of solid waste, including fly ash and scrubber sludge, and 20,000 pounds of mercury from “cleaning” coal before it is burned. In sum, coal-fired power plants pollute the environment with some 200,000 pounds of mercury annually.
In the United States, 23,600 deaths each year can be attributed to air pollution from power plants. Those dying prematurely due to exposure to particulate matter lose, on average, 14 years of life. Burning coal also is responsible for some 554,000 asthma attacks, 16,200 cases of chronic bronchitis, and 38,200 non-fatal heart attacks each year. Atmospheric power plant pollution in the United States racks up an estimated annual health care bill of over $160 billion.
While the annual number of worker fatalities on-site in the 2,000 U.S. coal mines has fallen to around 30, pneumoconiosis—commonly known as black lung disease—kills an estimated 1,500 former coal miners a year.
Train and truck accidents and deaths moving 1 billion tons of coal in the United States
40% of freight rail cargo is coal.
There are about 900 rail fatalities per year Coal statistical share of that is 360. The 2 billion tons of coal also sometime travel in large trucks. There were about 5000 large truck fatalities per year in the united states.
There are about 24 mining workers driving fatalities per year and 621 workers per year died from material moving (1.24 billion tons of coal in 2002
Coal share of that is probably about 100-150 workers.
Sulfur Dioxide [acid rain] $52 to 122 billion in property damage
visability/airline delays $12 billion
About 4 percent of deaths in the United States can be attributed to air pollution, according to the Environmental Science Engineering Program at the Harvard School of Public Health.
310,000 Europeans die from air pollution annually.
The large number of deaths and other health problems associated with particulate pollution was first demonstrated in the early 1970s and has been reproduced many times since. Particulate Matter pollution is estimated to cause 22,000-52,000 deaths per year in the United States (from 2000) and 200,000 deaths per year in Europe.
Recent studies have shown that some fly ash samples contain a very high proportion (as much as 50%) of hexavalent chromium, a very potent carcinogen. Moreover, all of this hexavalent chromium is water soluble and would readily be liberated in lung and stomach fluids.
Arsenic and Flourine
So many toxins and pollution from coal that tens of thousands of tons/year of the poison arsenic are not even in the top five concerns about coal waste. Many thousands affected by arsenic poisoning and millions from volatized flourine and it ends up towards the bottom of the list of coal crimes.
Arsenic cannot be destroyed in the environment [no half life]. It can only change its form, or become attached to or separated from particles. Farmers sometimes even pay to get coal ash to mix into soil to help crops grow. The EPA has warned them that Arsenic levels are too high.
Zheng et al. describe chronic arsenic poisoning, affecting several thousand people in Guizhou Province, PRC. Those affected exhibit typical symptoms of arsenic poisoning including hyperpigmentation (flushed appearance, freckles), hyperkeratosis
(scaly lesions on the skin, generally concentrated on the hands and feet), Bowen’s disease (dark, horny, precancerous lesions of the skin), and squamous cell carcinoma.
The health problems caused by fluorine volatilized during domestic coal use are far more extensive than those caused by arsenic. More than 10 million people in Guizhou Province and surrounding areas suffer from various forms of fluorosis, and coal combustion induced fluorosis has also been reported from 13 other provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities in China. Typical signs of fluorosis include mottling of tooth enamel (dental fluorosis: Fig. 1b) and various forms of skeletal fluorosis including osteosclerosis, limited movement of the joints, and outward manifestations such as knock-knees, bowlegs, and spinal curvature.
Newly Identified Persistent Free Radicals
Scientists have long known that free radicals exist in the atmosphere. These atoms, molecules, and fragments of molecules are highly reactive and damage cells in the body. Free radicals form during the burning of fuels or in photochemical processes like those that form ozone. Most of these previously identified atmospheric free radicals form as gases, exist for less than one second, and disappear. In contrast, the newly detected molecules — which Dellinger terms persistent free radicals (PFRs) — form on airborne nanoparticles and other fine particle residues as gases cool in smokestacks, automotive exhaust pipes and household chimneys. Particles that contain metals, such as copper and iron, are the most likely to persist, he said. Unlike other atmospheric free radicals, PFRs can linger in the air and travel great distances.
Once PFRs are inhaled, Dellinger suspects they are absorbed into the lungs and other tissues where they contribute to DNA and other cellular damage. Epidemiological studies suggest that more than 500,000 Americans die each year from cardiopulmonary disease linked to breathing fine particle air pollution, he says. About 10 to 15 percent of lung cancers are diagnosed in nonsmokers, according to the American Cancer Society. However, Dellinger stresses additional research is necessary before scientists can definitely link airborne PFRs to these diseases.
World Pollution
More than half of the world’s population rely on dung, wood, crop waste or coal to meet their most basic energy needs.
Every year, indoor air pollution is responsible for the death of 1.6 million people. (World Health Organization statistics)
Exposure to indoor air pollution more than doubles the risk of pneumonia and is thus responsible for more than 900 000 of the 2 million annual deaths from pneumonia.
Women exposed to indoor smoke are three times as likely to suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), such as chronic bronchitis, than women who cook and heat with electricity, gas and other cleaner fuels. Among men, exposure to this neglected risk factor nearly doubles the risk of chronic respiratory disease. Consequently, indoor air pollution is responsible for approximately 700 000 out of the 2.7 million global deaths due to COPD.
Air pollution is a major environmental risk to health and is estimated to cause approximately 2 million premature deaths worldwide per year.
The mortality in cities with high levels of pollution exceeds that observed in relatively cleaner cities by 15–20%. Even in the EU, average life expectancy is 8.6 months lower due to exposure to PM2.5 produced by human activities.
An estimated 600 000 Chinese coal miners are suffering from black lung disease. The
number of Chinese coal miners with black lung is estimated to increase by about 70 000 each year.
But Coal is the Past, Solar and Wind can take Care of Our Energy Problems. Right?
Coal is still the fastest growing energy source. Wind power is at about 1% of world energy and solar is at 0.1%. Nuclear power is at about 16%. Coal provides 50% of electricity for the world and the United States.
But Being Killed or Damaged By Coal is Not as Bad as a Nuclear Death. Right?
Firstly, dead is still dead and the numbers dead from coal usage are staggering. Do not just look at the large numbers and shrug. 25,000 each year in the United States is five times more than six years of the Iraq war. It is eight times more than 9/11. For Europe the 300,000 every year is more than the deaths from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear weapons that were made more tens years before the first nuclear power plant. Nuclear power does not lead to nuclear weapons. It is the priority of nations that it is nuclear weapons first then nuclear power. Many have nuclear weapons but no nuclear power.
People in the US complain about out of control medical costs. 30% or more of the medical costs are the result of fossil fuel air pollution.
Oil waste and pollution has a similar story.
Deaths per TWH
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/07/summarizing-deaths-per-twh.html
recent energy deaths in 2010
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/07/recent-energy-related-deaths.html
No doubt coal is nasty stuff. So is Heroin. But justifying the use of Crystal Methamphetamine because Heroin is really nasty doesn't make Crystal Meth any better.
Its not an either/or argument here that if we don't do nuclear, we automatically have to do coal. I'd rather do neither.
Using coal's problems to justify nuclear power while ignoring nuclear power's problems is not a logical argument. There are so many other ways to generate power. But perhaps not by big corporations. Thus it might be the reality. I remain unconvinced that this is our only choice.
You have your analogy but I see virtually no actual deaths. Where are your facts about actual deaths ? I get that you have an irrational fear. the analogy is more like a WW2 war between Germany and Russia and Russia ahttp://www.theoildrum.com/comment/edit/684187nd China. Germany and Russia have a war that is actually killing people. A war with Russia and China could kill people but no one was fighting, there were no deaths.
Did you notice the link to death per TWH. Nuclear has low numbers like wind and solar and Hydro (not in china). Hydro becomes far worse when you include the Banquiao dam failure which killed about 150,000 people. but even with that even on a per TWH basis hydro is still 5 times safer than natural gas and 15-150 times safer than coal and 30-50 times safer than oil.
In terms of the other energy alternatives. Great where are the funded projects that will roll back coal and oil and natural gas and biomass increases ?
Because I see nuclear increased and offset fossil fuels since 1975 onwards.
the offset from wind and solar was far less.
I also see oil, coal and gas going up. so that means we need everything else that is better. And nuclear is among the things that are about 100 times better.
Wind and solar are not perfectly safe either, but they are all a lot better than nuclear.
Show me the effective energy alternative that is stopping coal and oil and natural gas powerplant builds and resulting in the decommissioning of coal plants.
It is like in WW2 you have the allies decide to dump the Russian army when Germany and Japan and Italy were at their peak. You need all of the allies to win the war for sure and to win it faster and to lose fewer lives.
Coal and oil pollution are killing 3 million per year. Ending that ten-40 years sooner matters.
The potential is huge however.
Just because a major nuclear accident causing thousands of lives (if we ignore Chernobyl for the moment) hasn't happened yet, doesn't rule out that someday it will.
The same type of reasoning that major accidents haven't happened before, thus lets continue on (and maybe take a few chances here and there) led to the BP well disaster.
I also ponder the morality of generating all this nuclear waste which will have to be dealt with for several future generations. We are looking for a short term fix for our problems and burdening our ancestors with the deadly waste byproducts. In the current trend we will have less money and less resources in the future to deal with this. There is just no way of justifying around this predicament.
The nuclear power industry looks at the power generation for profit - cloaked in a bullshit altruism of preventing global climate change. The public is easily swayed by the corporate media which broadcasts similar messages as the industry so sure the public supports it, since Glenn Beck told them to. As to the waste, the industry feels its somebody else's problem and has always felt this way. Or they are waiting someday for technology will eventually rise to solve this. We are told the same kind of lies we were told about top hats, junk shots, etc. by BP.
Also, the nuclear wastes and releases at Hanford did cost lives. Possibly my brother's early demise for one. My best man at my wedding lost several relatives (numbering in the dozens) to leukemia. They were less than 50 miles from Hanford. Yes that was all military - but it illustrates what happens when this shit is released into the environment. Suppose all this waste stored at nuclear plants is still there after society has undergone a collapse and it starts migrating from casks that were designed only for decades. This is a possible scenario that future generations face. We are doing nothing to solve this yet we are generating more and more and pledging ourselves to generate magnitudes more. This is just immoral.
We need power and it stands between coal or nuclear. Since nuclear seems to generate around one Chernobyl per 60 years and coal generates about two per year, nuclear is about 100 times better or more.
Among the most valuable gifts to our children we can produce is a nuclear power plant. It generates really, really cheap energy for their entire lives with virtually no environmental impact. The waste is really easy to get rid of.
No, it really IS coal or nuclear, nothing else will do. Using nuclear is the opposite of short-sighted and immoral. It is wise and just. What is immoral is your nonsense about waste.
That is sort of like saying that it is immoral for anyone to be concerned about the oil washing up on the beaches.
I don't see our energy future as an either/or between coal and nuclear. A plan of conservation (including cutting down unnecessary night time lighting), newer technologies such as low voltage LED lighting, passive solar heat, retrofitting, solar cells, wind, etc. and basically learning to live on less and make things needed locally ourselves that last instead of our current wasteful outsourced manufacturing practices might be the combo we need. And a little coal, oil, nuclear, natural gas, hydro, geothermal, etc. All of these require real labor work (not sitting at a desk) and it seems to me that there are at least 10.1 million Americans (many of them construction types) sitting idle right now. Small businesses invested in these appropriate technologies could revive the economy. Whereas we have poured trillions of subsidy down the nuclear hole, generated wastes that we have no place to store, and have 101 "legacy" nukes that are all rapidly approaching decommissioning that are all basket cases with problems galore.
China just surpassed the USA in terms of its oil. I wonder how much of their energy need is to fuel their new manufacturing capability, so that they can keep selling us cheap plastic crap made from oil?
No, sorry, better houses and turning off the lights at night won't make wind an alternative to efficient baseload power generation, and it won't do much to reduce energy needs. Neither will dreams of higher quality goods made in USA.
Also, doing inefficient energy generation using more labor will make you poorer and less environmentally sound.
It's still nuclear or coal.
2000 downwinders in the lawsuit for Hanford. But as noted this was a byproduct of the Manhattan project and the production of 60,000 nuclear bombs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site#Environmental_concerns
20,000 nuclear bombs existed before the first commercial nuclear power plant.
Perhaps you want to blame wind turbines that are made of steel for deaths caused by steel knives ?
They are both steel, the same material. The wind turbines could be taken down and made into knives and kill millions in a repeat of what happened in Rawanda or Darfur. This would be in the Road Warrior future which we must use as a primary scenario in our current energy planning.
In Road warrior future the hydroelectric dams would no longer be maintained and would break and flood and kill millions.
We should not build any powersources but build the devices that will help us inside Thunderdome.
One of my relatives died from cancer. So it must have been energy related. A nuclear plant or a coal plant which also released carcinogens. It definitely was not the smoking or an inherited disease. It probably was Hanford. At one point they may have been within 1000 miles of it.
It also could not be any of the hundreds of other hazardous waste sites and sources like the ones listed here from the Dept of Ecology Washington State.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/1009042a.pdf
Leukemia risk factors
* Previous cancer treatment. People who've had certain types of chemotherapy and radiation therapy for other cancers have an increased risk of developing certain types of leukemia.
* Genetic diseases. Genetic abnormalities seem to play a role in the development of leukemia. Certain genetic diseases, such as Down syndrome, are associated with increased risk of leukemia.
* Certain blood disorders. People who have been diagnosed with certain blood disorders, such as myelodysplastic syndromes, may have an increased risk of leukemia.
* Exposure to high levels of radiation. People exposed to very high levels of radiation, such as survivors of a nuclear reactor accident, have an increased risk of developing leukemia.
* Exposure to certain chemicals. Exposure to certain chemicals, such as benzene — which is found in gasoline and is used by the chemical industry — also is linked to increased risk of some kinds of leukemia.
* Smoking. Smoking cigarettes increases the risk of acute myelogenous leukemia.
* Family history of leukemia. If members of your family have been diagnosed with leukemia, your risk of the disease may be increased.
Again you need to remember 3 million per year to a poorly correlated few thousand sick and dozens dead over decades. But you still have not found the commercial nuclear.
funny diagram
can you explain how it comes that while hydropower makes more TWHe than nuclear fission power world wide
that the diagram shows the opposite?
I guess you know the numbers of the IEA data base to get the numbers
but we have roughly 2600 TWhe from nuclear and 2900 TWhe from Hydro power!
(and on top of it peak load delivery from hydropower instead of baseload)
Excellent post;
" Arsenic cannot be destroyed in the environment [no half life]. "
I would say infinite half life. Same for mercury, lead, cadmium etc.
Perhaps LBJ's natural gas industry supporters had different visions. The last administration that actually took actions that supported nuclear energy development was led by a guy from Massachusetts, not Texas, California, or Arkansas. Perhaps that is now changing with a leader whose political base does not include people who make most of their money as fossil fuel pushers.
Thanks, Ron, for a great post (from an old 688 Class MM1), and all of the other contributions!
Once one gets past the technical mysteries of nuclear power sources, the next question to ask is how much confidence do you have that BAU will continue, that the societies that deploy/expand this technology will remain stable and viable and that the funding, political will and regulatory stability required to see this technological commitment through to its completion (eventual decomissioning in an environmentally responsible way) will persist for generations.
The deployment of new nuclear plants has the potential to help solve only a few of the many problems facing humanity. If things don't work out, one can't simply "turn in the keys and walk away" or let nature reclaim what were originally good intensions and misspent funds.
We assume that future generations will benefit from furthering this technology. Can we also assume that they want or will even have the capacity to accept the responsibility that comes with it? These are the questions that Oppenheimer and Einstein would be asking.
How many of these cans will we kick down the road? Do we have the right to make these decisions for the yet-to-be-born (or is this hubris, playing with fire)? Do we just say "F'it! This genie's already out of the bottle,,,,,but this time we'll get it right"?
Hubris, at least to me, is keeping all the energy to ourselves when there are billions of people out there who could enjoy a better life if they had a fraction of the energy we have. Who are we to deny the fission technologies that we have to them? Who are we to deny them the life that they desire? Is that not arrogance of the highest order?
Besides, they're going to build it with us or without us. China's just put the finishing touches on their newest 1000 MWe reactor, and something like 30 more are in the immediate pipeline, including at least 4 of the latest American exports, the US AP1000, which, after a few more, will be wholly built under license by the Chinese. A few hundred are planned...in China. They're bringing them in under budget and faster than schedule in China, at $1 bn per gigawatt. Here, we're building them at $4+ bn per gigawatt, due to anti-nuclear machinations and a regulatory bureaucracy suffering from arteriosclerosis. Believe it or not, highly-skilled and paid union labor and higher-cost materials don't really account for much of the cost here; it's mainly bureaucrats and lawyers. Pure deadweight loss. (Of course, the lawyers don't agree. But they will be the doom of this country. Along with too little regulation of what needs to be regulated, and too much regulation of what doesn't need to be regulated.)
The Koreans are at an advanced stage of what the Chinese are now doing (50 years ago, South Korea's per capita income was around $400, less than North Korea...how things change...) now they're nearly 50% nuclear and rising fast. The Japanese, while we were wringing our hands over spent fuel, decided to license GE's best designs for plants and built them at a breathtaking pace in the 80's and 90's. They're 35% nuclear and rising. A new reprocessing plant is nearing completion, and advanced reactors are being developed.
The Chinese don't seem to be really worried about the uranium supply. But they are getting very worried about air pollution and water pollution, which is why they're building nuclear. Oh, and the Indians, well, they seem to be going nuclear in a big way too, air pollution is one of the major reasons, and they want to electrify the nation. Rumors have been heard about them buying out AECL - Canada's nuclear company - all together, as most of their nuclear infrastructure is built around Canadian technologies which Canada has developed but anti-nuclear sentiments have prevented them from deploying. Lot of people to feed in India, lot of water to pump, lot of cooking fires to replace with stoves, lot of modest homes to air condition. Plus, the Indians are harnessing the power of Thorium - named after the Norse god of thunder - a technology pioneered in the US - an advanced nuclear fuel, which there is something like 4-8 times as much of as there is uranium.
So, the real "clean energy future" is being born there, in what was once the Third World.
That the US was the leader of human civilization for a while was due to our industry, our progress, and our innovation. But, remaining the leader is an active task. Eventually, if we stand still, the world will move on without us, and leave us behind, it will be hard, but they will do it, because the species will survive, and will develop; life finds a way, it always has, it always will. Technology cannot be stopped; it can merely be delayed; it might be able to be held back in one nation, but, hold it back too much, and then technological progress will just move to another one.
Unless we change our course about nuclear power, the world can move on without us, and the world will. The US seems to be on a course to be the masters of windmills (windmills serving as a nice facade for the coal plants.) A has been. A fitting legacy to those who talk about "the limits of growth" - because the only limit to the growth of intelligent life is the particle horizon of the Universe itself.
(BTW, don't worry about the population situation...it takes care of itself. When kids don't die in childhood, and aren't needed to tend the crops, people have fewer children.)
This thread has been informative and thought provoking. I like the idea of passively cooled systems that are small, modular and not reliant on complicated pump recirculation. Such systems seem to me to be inherently better than large scale plants.
As Antoine de St. Exupery said about airframes and other things:
"... in anything at all, perfection is finally attained
not when there is nothing left to add, but rather when
there is nothing left to take away."
Any idea what China, India, and Korea plan to do with their nuclear wastes?
Recycle the "waste" by separating the useful nuclear fuels from fission products, which are rare materials with unique properties and plenty applications in industry, medicine, and sanitation. We would be doing it as well, and would be selling them the technology, if it were not for Dick Cheney and alike in Ford & Carter administrations.
Interesting article. Thanks.
One point though. It would seem to me that the likelihood of a serious nuclear accident is more a function of the number of nuclear power plants in service than the size of the individual plants. Would that not argue for a smaller number of large plants rather than a very large number of small reactors?
It also seems to me that building large numbers of small nuclear plants supposes safety standards that are probably beyond human capability. Probably the two areas where people have achieved the best records for safety are bridges and commercial airlines. But bridges do fail from time to time. And airliners do crash -- even in Europe, Japan, and North America.
Don't get me wrong. I'm in favor of nuclear power because I don't think renewables can or will provide the 300,000-400,000 btu per person per day that are used by energy efficient developed countries for 9 billion people. But here in Vermont, we have a nuclear plant run by people who probably should not be running a nuclear plant. Not only do they have a dubious record for honesty, they don't seem to know how to read their plants' blueprints. I don't see how one can keep companies like Entergy from running some percentage of nuclear plants, so it seems prudent to me to build as few plants as possible.
We must accept that nuclear plants fail too. Just as with airplanes, we still want to use them because their tremendeous use far outweigh the damage of failures.
The probability (or frequency) of accidents would go up, in proportion to the number of plants, but the consequences scale down with plant size. Thus, whether small or large reactors are used, the total risk (probability X consequence) scales with the total amount of nuclear power generated. That said, the small size of these reactors may yield higher inherent safety levels (harder to overheat), which may result in no increase in accident frequency, but still the reduction in maximum possible consequence.
Suppose we do finally slide down an energy slope?
It certainly won't be an even homogeneous process ... Bhutan, Nepal, Zambia etc will fade away as will poor areas in the West.
However places like Cambridge in the UK could remain centres of civilisation .. and they will need power.
In a country 90% powered down I think that the distributed National Grid concept could fail.
However small nuclear power plants sited in the 'civilised areas' could well be kept running.
(We are of course entering Mad Max territory here).
Reminder: Tomorrow
Timetable
http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceTimeTable.py?confId=73513&ttLyt=room#all
By going to the title you will get an abstract.
There is something for everyone.
[B]If you have the time, there will be LIVE WEBCAST.[/B]
====
Fission, fusion, or perfect liquid. Its all atomic energy.
We need energy to be able to maintain our future social structures.
The LHC may shine the light on where to proceed.
jal
can you explain a little more on how the LHC helping to enlighten us about the energy problem?
By using the energy faster and making the energy problem more obvious in a shorter time scale?
Interesting point!
can you explain a little more on how the LHC is helping to enlighten us about the energy problem?
I agree that small modules greatly reduce risk and increase the experience curve pace. However, in the United States, you get a permit/license to build which is a political problem. If you can batch (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station) several generating units on one site, you only have to convince the neighbors once. And if you can employ thousands of people and have a large concentrated benefit (30% of Arizona's power generated on one site), then you might be able to build enough lobbying momentum to get a site approval. Good luck doing that for many more 50 MW sites (1/64th as large). Sites like Palo Verde are ready for adding more capacity. Also, the atmospheric CO2 problem is so big that we as a planet will be adding many thousands of very large nuclear plants --- the US needs over 1000 GWe to displace all fossil fuels. 1 GWe is not large in this context. I do think that building a few hundred 10 GWe sites out of 100 per site 1/10th GWe factory built modules might make sense. There are some additional legitimate uses for small reactor modules: powering large ships and small remote population centers, but I still think the large majority of all nuclear power will be supplied by very large, centralized "power parks" similar to Palo Verde.
Chris
Chris, I do not disagree with your logic and neither do the smaller modular reactor manufacturers who seem closest to reaching commercialization in the US. Both NuScale and Generation mPower envision their modules as being put onto a site large enough to house a number of modules with a build out that progresses in a stepped fashion. They expect to have a number of shared costs - like security perimeters - but also the advantage of being able to add revenue generating electric power capacity in smaller chunks that more closely matches the pace of load growth.
The smaller chunks are also easier to finance and prevent what some have called "the single shaft risk" where one component failure can result in loss of a complete production unit. If the unit is 45 MWe (NuScale) or 125 MWe (mPower) the revenue hit from having to purchase replacement power is far less than it would be if the unit size was 1140 MWe (Westinghouse AP1000) or 1600 MWe (Areva US-EPR).
Perhaps you recognize the value of having interchangeable parts and the ability to scale up supply as the demand increases. You might be familiar with similar models in other industries - large data centers built out of rooms full of identical cheap servers, for example.
There are some administrative NRC rule changes that might be needed to enable this kind of model to work, but those rule changes are being supported by the Nuclear Energy Institute, the Tennessee Valley Authority, FirstEnergy, B&W, Bechtel, and Westinghouse so far. Senator Webb, Senator Alexander, Senator Voinovich and Senator Mark Udall are also on board. By the time that the rule changes are really needed, I am pretty confident that they will be in place. Here is a paper indicating that the NRC staff is already working on solutions:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/secys/2010/secy...
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
I still prefer aneutronic nuclear fusion, because it is clean and safe, almost no neutron emissions, being unsuitable for production of nuclear weapons.
Reading this article and its comments has given me a very comprehensive view of the current state of nuclear power. I did note, however, that there was no mention of any further development of the IFR (Integral Fast Reactor) that was developed at Argonne during the 80's and was de-funded in 1994. I had always understood that it was compellingly good technology. Can anyone comment?
Up toward the top there's a brief mention of GE's PRISM design which is more-or-less a version of the IFR. But it's a bit bigger than the designs which were the subject of the original post.
For (much) more about the IFR, see
http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fast-reactor-ifr-nuclear-power/
I still prefer fairy dust, because it is clean and safe, absolutely no neutron emissions, being unsuitable for production of any weapons.
Very good post. I agree with the author that smaller modular reactors have numerous advantages over large nuclear power plants. Every large nuclear reactor in the United States is essentially a prototype. The scale alone demands it due to variations in local geography and the availability/quality of cooling water. No one has every achieved anything close to the efficiency of modern mass production in the nuclear industry. Smaller modular plants with interchangeble parts can achieve this.
There are physical reasons larger plants aren't more efficient. AS the size of the containment dome increases the strength the containment dome needs to contain the same pressur increases with the cube of the diameter. By the time Palo Verde was built in AZ (which was one of the last built in the US and I think the biggest) the thickness of concrete and the amount of steel reinforcment required was well into the realm of the ridiculous.
For those unaware about the state of the current reactor fleet in the US (104) - here is a good article:
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/03/09/09climatewire-aging-reactors-put...
Many are seeking to extend their 40 year operating lifetimes. It will be interesting to see what happens.....
Here is an interesting quote in that article: "The resurgence in interest [in nuclear power] is dependent upon the sustained faith and reliability performance of the current fleet," NRC Commissioner Kristine Svinicki said last year. "The nuclear industry remains ... just one incident away from retrenchment."
Keep your fingers crossed Rod.
I admit that newer nuclear reactor designs described in your original post are better than keeping these aging behemoths functioning with bailing wire and duct tape. But we are about to get a lesson in decommissioning costs. Once these stop generating they become an energy and money hole with no benefit, except for the jobs produced. And the waste still remains. And if an accident occurs (this will become more likely with age) - it will again kill the industry. If I was an investor aware of these risks I would put my money elsewhere.
@Casey
Would you be interested in a tour of one of the "baling wire and duct tape" behemoths? If you are intellectually honest with yourself, I think you would be impressed that the actual condition is FAR better than what you have asserted.
The count right now is that 59 out of the 104 operating reactors in the US have already completed the rigorous process of renewing their license for another 20 years of operation.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html
We have decommissioned several facilities already to a greenfield status and have a good idea what the costs are for that evolution. It is also apparent to me that there will be few additional greenfield decommissioning projects since many existing sites are excellent future homes for new nuclear power plants. That lowers the cost considerably or pushes it out into the future where the decommissioning funds have more time to grow. (You are aware, I am sure that nuclear plants have been required to put away sufficient funds for decommissioning ever since the passage of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. This is not a public burden or a new burden for the power plant owners - they already have isolated funds put aside for the task.)
I am an investor and well aware of the risks associated with nuclear energy. However, my portfolio includes a number of nuclear focused plays because I am confident of the value of the technology and the competence of the owners/operators.
Rod Adams
I'd be afraid to.
The first time they diid refueling at Trojan north of Portland they invited a bunch of reporters to watch. What the reporters missed right under their noses was that some of the fuel bundles were transferred from containment to spent fuel pool before workers could clear the area. Some workers received major doses or radiation. This was revealed after other workers saw the newsfeed and someone leaked what happened!
One of the WPPSS reactors near Satsop was built using blueprints that were printed backwards. Had they attempted to start it up it would have been a major disaster - and it was already a major disaster as they were looking at having to redo it all. These never got started, thanks to the WPPSS municipal bond default (google it and you come up with several articles about the default such as http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=274). It now sits as a semi-abandoned weird industrial ghost town, though some of the site has been converted to other industrial purposes. I can post photos if anyone is interested. You can also see it with Google Maps - search for Satsop or Montesano WA. The plants (there are 2 of them) are on the ridge a few miles to the south.
What I read about places such as Vermont Yankee and other plants leaking tritium into the groundwater or having corroded coolant plumbing do not instill confidence. I hope they can keep these things together without a major accident. But in a corporate culture where profits are more important than anything else including risk aversion, I suspect that accidents will eventually happen again. The corporate line is that accidents won't happen and the corporations have convinced the regulators who are themselves probably former industry people. Where have we seen this before? (BP and the MMS come to mind....).
I'd be afraid to.
The first time they diid refueling at Trojan north of Portland they invited a bunch of reporters to watch. What the reporters missed right under their noses was that some of the fuel bundles were transferred from containment to spent fuel pool before workers could clear the area. Some workers received major doses or radiation. This was revealed after other workers saw the newsfeed and someone leaked what happened!
One of the WPPSS reactors near Satsop was built using blueprints that were printed backwards. Had they attempted to start it up it would have been a major disaster - and it was already a major disaster as they were looking at having to redo it all. These never got started, thanks to the WPPSS municipal bond default (google it and you come up with several articles about the default such as http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=274). It now sits as a semi-abandoned weird industrial ghost town, though some of the site has been converted to other industrial purposes. I can post photos if anyone is interested. You can also see it with Google Maps - search for Satsop or Montesano WA. The plants (there are 2 of them) are on the ridge a few miles to the south.
What I read about places such as Vermont Yankee and other plants leaking tritium into the groundwater or having corroded coolant plumbing do not instill confidence. I hope they can keep these things together without a major accident. But in a corporate culture where profits are more important than anything else including risk aversion, I suspect that accidents will eventually happen again. The corporate line is that accidents won't happen and the corporations have convinced the regulators who are themselves probably former industry people. Where have we seen this before? (BP and the MMS come to mind....).
Another factor in this whole discussion worth pondering: the workforce. See ftp://public.dhe.ibm.com/common/ssi/sa/wh/n/eul03009usen/EUL03009USEN.PDF
If we keep large-scale road traffic, I suspect accidents will eventually happen again. Yes, of course nuclear accidents will happen! But so what? The scale and frequency of accidents is more than tolerable in relation to the benefit we get and in relation to the adverse impact of other power sources.
Also, please realize efficiency/profits are important. If too much resources is spent on nuclear safety, that's less resources for other stuff we need.
I concur.
I've read the links advancednano provided on extending the operating licenses and a number more and stick with my original prediction. Some accident in one of these plants with the extended license will alter the future he predicts. At some point we may even discover that the licenses were granted using relaxed rules in some important way because the alternative was shutting them down with no replacement. It will come out that the decision makers said to themselves "we had no choice, we needed to buy time to build new ones."
The capacity for us to fool ourselves about safety is large, especially when the stakes are high (c.f. the Challenger incident).
Time will tell.
Unless global warming is getting felt more, or until peak coal. Then we'll just have to be rational and accept incidents in this area just as we do in all other areas of life.
Just as we accept the Gulf Oil Spill?
I don't think so!
Yes, just as we accept the GOM spill and will let deep water drilling go on. And just as we accept the enormous problems associated with coal and road traffic. It's simply important to our way of life, which takes precedence over the drama of a few accidents.
Despite having it demonstrated to you repeatedly that (a) the risks of nuclear are way overblown and (b) other alternatives will not be able to scale in time if ever, you are still hell bent on discrediting the nuclear industry. It seems you are doing this for no purpose other than to bring the end of civilization to the US.
I'm glad I don't have to share the country with you as I live in China. (Actually I live in Hong Kong and would call myself a Hong Konger, but this thread makes me proud to call myself Chinese for once)
This may sound naive, but as a former Radcon at a major US Shipyard - it seems to me if reactors for ships and subs can be turned out well enough, why not just hook similars up on land and draw the power ...
@delver23 - there is nothing inherently naive about your comment. However, since you have shipyard experience, I am sure that you recognize that there are certain components needed on board ships that are not needed for land based plants. There are also certain opportunities on land that are not available on board ship - like using the ground itself as part of your security barrier by putting the plant below grade.
Commercial nuclear fuel is also different from fuel used in propulsion reactors - it is also quite a bit cheaper because it is manufactured on a much larger scale and uses less costly raw material (low enriched uranium vice highly enriched uranium).
The light water based machines that I mentioned would look quite familiar to you, but they will have certain design changes that make them more suited for their chosen locations and allow them to take advantage of the scale of the commercial nuclear fuel enterprise.
Joining this thread very late (peak biking here in the often frozen northland) but I thought it might be interesting to offer a few conclusions I’ve reached after reading probably 90% of the comments. It should be noted that I hang around TOD mostly because I have NOT arrived at a strong opinion as to how the next couple of decades might play out. I lean towards the more pessimistic possibilities mostly because I fear that no really effective solutions will be implemented until the problems (PO, GW, species extinction, environmental degradation, etc) are sufficiently understood – I see scant evidence that that this understanding is occurring at any meaningful level. Anyway, here are some thoughts (very humbly offered) about this essay and the comments:
Rod Adams seems to be a very competent advocate for the smaller scale, distributed nuclear energy proposition. Comments from other advocates add positively to his position. My general take away from this discussion is that this type of energy source should be included in any national/global energy debate for the formation of policies going forward. I should note that Rod’s nasty comment to Fred was a big turn off – doesn’t affect policy, just diminishes my esteem for Rod as a person.
The arguments regarding the security issues of small scale nuclear seem overblown. Any implementers should have Casey on their team to make sure they have at least listened to his concerns and taken the best protective measures.
The cost of nuclear fuels, in general, does not seem to be a major concern in terms of helping us through the “bottleneck”.
The actual large scale manufacture of these gadgets is far more problematic. Assuming we gloss over the issue of whether or not there is the political will to implement this technology, then we need to consider the Boeing Aircraft example. It is not clear to me that all of the materials, logistics, engineering, financing, etc will produce the same result as the jumbo jet analogy. My experience is primarily in area of developing complex, large scale computer software systems for industrial use – I just don’t have a lot of faith in developing any complex systems in the relatively short time frame that seems to be needed here.
And then there is the big picture. What if we found a great supply of unobtainium (see Avatar) that could provide for limitless electrical energy with a low carbon foot print? It seems to me that the end result would be more extraction of more scarce resources to build all kinds of stuff, increased population, more environmental damage for a variety of reasons (no time to fully justify this opinion). I just don’t see that any technological fix is going to “solve” the predicament that humans caused for our planet.
I’m very skeptical of the kind of argument Rod puts forth about the grand scope of his technological vision. I think it contributes to the delusion that we can somehow prop up BAU indefinitely. On the other hand, in the right context, I think this technology has the potential to mitigate many of the worst consequences we may be facing in the next few decades.
For me, the right context is spelled out in the “Plan C” book (which any TOD commenter should read :-). This approach calls for “Curtailment” – read book, conservation and efficiency before placing our faith in new technologies. The author has a long list of low-tech suggestions that should come before the high-tech ones.
As others have noted in this thread, we are gambling with the lives of future generations by thinking that any technology is going to keep our BAU model going. My personal vision is to implement Plan C and along the way invest in Rod’s vision to the extent that it proves to be reasonably safe, effective and free of unintended consequences – which normally take a long time to discover.
Strange position. The fertility rate of women seem to go below replacement rate w/ reasonable prosperity/modernity, so nukes should help. Sure we can build more stuff, but we can also use abundant cheap electricity to decrease environmental impact of our activities. For instance, we can desalt water and pump it considerable distances instead of depleting "fossil" water reserves.
Hi Jeppen,
Wish I had more time to explore this with you - maybe when the snow flys again.
Bottom line is that fertility rate is not a good metric for this issue. Only "growth rate" really matters because it includes all the other real world factors of birth/death and migration. Affluent women may have fewer children but they may also encourage immigrant labor. The fact is that the human population is growing and there is a direct relationship to that growth and the availability of cheap energy.
I'm sure that you are right that cheap, clean energy can be a positive factor for decreasing environmental impact. However, I suggest that this promise can only be realized in the context of an overall energy policy that clearly understands how energy should be used. I absolutely reject the idea that the simple existence of a cheap energy source is sufficient to bring humans back into balance with the finite resources of our planet.
Ok, so you only care about the US, not the globe, and you "care" about the US in such a way that you would like electricity scarcity and coal pollution to increase its death rates so as to fix the US "over-population"? How nice of you. I prefer the longer-term solution of prosperity and below replacement fertility.
No, there's not.
It will help.
For some odd reason you have made some very invalid conclusions about my comment. Not much point in even trying to address this nonsense.
Please play around with google's gapminder for a few hours, you'll be much wiser afterwards (since your knowledge gaps seems to be enormous).
"The fertility rate of women seem to go below replacement rate w/ reasonable prosperity/modernity, so nukes should help."
Indeed:
Gapminder.org: www.bit.ly/cXFXJ7
Your Gapminder chart does not in any way change the fact that the US and global populations continue to grow.
The only reason why US population is not declining (a single exception in the developed word), is the exceptionally high immigration rate.
The only cure for population growth is prosperity. (It actually happens within developed countries - high birth rate in poor neighborhoods vs. low in affluent ones. There was an article in BBC few days ago detailing it in UK, cant find it now sorry.)
Hi loiz,
I'm always open for a constructive discussion of global population. I just don't have time for folks who are more interested in deliberate distortions, insults, etc.
Assuming you have a sincere interest, I suggest starting with this web site that another TOD person suggested some time ago (although there are several others that show much the same data - the CIA data base is also good but not as simple to see the big picture - https://www.cia.gov/index.html):
http://chartsbin.com/view/xr6
I further suggest following the link that defines what is meant by "Population Growth"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
So, this second link suggests that you are correct that immigration is one of the factors in the formula. I tried to point that out earlier.
Back to the first link: we see that many first world countries are still growing - US, Canada, France, Australia, UK, Ireland, etc. We see that countries such as Mexico, Brazil, China, India, etc are also growing. And then there are some African countries plus places like Afghanistan and Pakistan that are growing rapidly. On the other side of the equation is Russia and several former Soviet Union countries that are actually declining. This chart shows global population growing 1.17% - a rate that could lead to the 9 to 10 billion often projected between mid and end of this century.
This chart was last updated 11 months ago but I have not found significant discrepancies in looking at other sources. Of course this World Meter is always interesting to look at -
http://www.poodwaddle.com/clocks2.htm
My point about birth rates, fertility rates, and death rates is that they are only part of the equation that leads to actual growth rate and projections of future population growth. Once you get into the business of predicting population size in the future, obviously there are many variables and uncertainties.
Regarding your point about "the cure", this idea has been covered very well in the Plan B book. Brown argues that prosperity is a factor but the real lever is education and freedom of women. It should also be noted that prosperity does not always result in rational family planning - these folks feel that 12 children is a good idea: http://www.quiverfull.com/digest.php.
I see that you have been a TOD person for nearly 2 years - I don't know if you have seen my comments about population before. Essentially, I subscribe to the ideas put forth in both Plan B and Plan C. First, we need to recognize that there are many reasons to reduce global human population (if this is not apparent then we need a whole different discussion). Next, we need to think about the best strategies for the most humane reduction over some defined time frame (both books deal with this). And then we have the role of the US to consider - it seems to me that the US can't preach about this topic unless we take a very aggressive lead - "lead by example" is kind of shop-worn, but I still think that is a critical notion.
I recognize that my tiny voice is nearly insignificant in trying to get the US to develop a population policy (right now it is a tacit - growth at any cost). All I can do is advocate a rational approach to friends, relatives, elected reps and maybe a person or two who reads message boards like this. I also suggest sending a little money to http://www.populationconnection.org/site/PageServer as they reflect my goals of "Protecting the Planet", "Defending Women's Rights", and "Ensuring Social Justice".
hi Dave,
good point about "Defending Women's Rights". As you mentioned, education of women is perhaps the single strongest factor which can mitigate the high number of children per women in developing countries in the shortest time. India just released a $39 touchscreen laptop, I firmly believe technology stuff like this will help enormously. For instance cell phones changed lives of women in Saudi Arabia and alike - now they can talk with other women, even though they still cant leave the house.
One can quantify the issue of prosperity variously, here are two talks which IMHO add to the discussion beyond what you mentioned:
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgKfS74hVvQ
I am frankly very skeptic concerning any efforts to control population, in particular in the US. Even if there would be a workable policy (which I doubt), it would be a PR disaster, and a persistent point of mockery from both left and right mainstream. Getting the conservatives to stop blocking birth control prescriptions for teenage girls, moderate the impact of anti-choice lunatics on policies, and remove funding for abstinence only programs - this seems the best one can hope to achieve in a geologically short time frame the US, IMHO.
Hi Loiz,
Enjoyed the TED talk - good presentation idea. Not sure about his final conclusions - would be very interesting for you, me, Gail and the speaker to sit down with a few beers and speculate on the state of the world in 2050. No bets, however, as I will not be around to collect any winnings :-(
Started the youtube - need to put that in my queue for later.
I completely support your skepticism. Actually, I try to avoid the word "control" as I'm sure any heavy handed approach will totally fail - self motivation is critical. However, I also think that governments should not provide incentives for having children or support something like that abstinence-only nonsense. I would like to see wide availability of very affordable birth control (including abortion and morning-after pills). I very much agree with you on the politics of this issue. As mentioned before, I think Population Connection has a good approach and is worthy of our support.
Could someone comment on this statement by John Michael Greer
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=27481991&postID=725992653441637...
"DaShui, one of the other problems with nuclear power is that it produces very little net energy. Think of the amount of diesel fuel and other energy that has to go into mining the ore, manufacturing the fuel rods, building and maintaining the reactor, etc., etc., and it becomes clear why no nation has had a nuclear program without massive subsidies. Nuclear power is basically a roundabout way of burning fossil fuels to produce energy; as the fossil fuels run out, I don't expect the nuclear programs to survive long."
Here is a very detailed response to that point: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html
Rob - this post is a fine one. The replies, from others and you also, as a whole are excellent too. Thanks.