Nuclear Energy - I need to vent/rant

[geni]

There's no point in including Soviet nuclear programs if you want to talk about how a reactor can be safe. The Soviets blatently disregarded even the most basic rules of safety and reliability. If nothing else, it shows why one must be careful with the technology

I was going to bring up the example of most of the british hunter killer fleet haveing to undergo a series un unsceduled rapairs a few years back

That was one press release I found on google last night. I can try to find some better articles. However, the science is perfectly sound. The binding energy of a given isotope varies and with 8mev+ gamma rays it becomes possible to break down almost any heavy element. Elements past the atomic mass of about 57 will yeild energy when broken down and will be likley to result in very short lived products.

While technicaly cobalt would fission to iron the odds fo being able to extract any useful energy are limited.

 

[Dilb]

Solar intensity is about 1000 W/m² at the equator. Even as far north as Canada, it averages to 1/2 to 1/3 of that depending on the time of year. Solar power has an advantage here, that it's collecting power based on the area of it's shadow, not the area of the panel, so by mounting it at an angle the performance is better than the solar intensity would suggest.

Of course, when I did calculate how many solar panels it would take to supply the USA with energy, I calculated it would take about 20% of its total area to do so.

 

[shecky]

The biggest problem I see with nuclear power in the US is plain old NIMBYism. You just can't get far, even if everyone espouses nukes, as long as it's in someone else's State.

 

[Hamradioguy]

Solar intensity is about 1000 W/m² at the equator. Even as far north as Canada, it averages to 1/2 to 1/3 of that depending on the time of year. Solar power has an advantage here, that it's collecting power based on the area of it's shadow, not the area of the panel, so by mounting it at an angle the performance is better than the solar intensity would suggest.

Of course, when I did calculate how many solar panels it would take to supply the USA with energy, I calculated it would take about 20% of its total area to do so.

And one has to consider that solar panels are not 100% efficient. The technology is improving, but it's still a long, long way from 100%. This and other issues are nicely covered in Petr Beckman's "The Health Hazards of NOT going Nuclear" which I think I have recommended in other threads. Not too technical, funny at times, and highly recommended. Good source material for anyone willing to go head-to-head with an anti nuke person.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Excellent rant, DRBUZZO! I agree completely.

I too have never understood the knee jerk anti-nuclear stance of the "environmentalists". Expecially after the advent of Global Warming. Here is a powerful source of energy which produces no CO2, no smog, no oil spills, no nothing, except massive energy and a contained waste product. And there are plenty of deep holes in the ground to store this waste.

BTW, I'm an "environmentalist" myself, in the sense that I've been a member of the WWF for quite a number of years and support 90% of what they stand for. I even had my own personal sponsorship of a whale for a while. With pictures and reports every few months on how she was doing.

I've also noticed that the only significant point of contention so far raised against your OP was geni's statement that there was only "about 20 years worth [of nuclear fuel] if the world switches to nuclear burn."

Would you have a linky on this, geni?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

@dilb and Hamradioguy

And one has to consider that solar panels are not 100% efficient. .

I think dilb already factored in a lot of inefficiency. IIRC US total annual energy usage just crossed 100 quadrillion btu from all sources a few years back. Unless I'm dropping some zeros somewhere that works out to about 30 trillion kwh annually. That's about 3.3 trillion watts around the clock for a year. Area of the US is about 9.6 million square km, or 9.6 trillion square meters. So, if I did the arithmetic properly that's about 1/3 watt/meter. Well under the 100 to 1,000 watts/meter various people have cited for solar flux.

[someone double check my arithmetic please]

 

[htf666]

The measure of a civilised society is how it treats the world that it's offspring will inherit. To continue to use nuclear power when there is no way of disposing safely of the waste it produces is in my opinion greedy, selfish, criminal and a sad indictment of the species that is supposed to be the wisest on the planet. To even suggest that it should be buried in caverns or dumped in the sea is so breathtakingly stupid that the people who put forward this solution surely must be insane? Anyone in the U.K. who lives near Windscale,sorry, Sellafield,( They changed the name hoping the appalling safety record would change with it) knows that the industry is untrustworthy,deceitful and generally dismissive of the public's fears.
The Irish goverment are none too pleased with the place because the fish on the coast opposite are beginning to resemble the one in the Simpsons. Find a way to treat the crud safely and I will be in front of the nuclear parade tooting my horn. Until then, keep building those windmills.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

To continue to use nuclear power when there is no way of disposing safely of the waste it produces is in my opinion greedy, selfish, criminal and a sad indictment of the species that is supposed to be the wisest on the planet.

But there are ways to dispose of it, even recycle it.

And doesn't what you just said apply even more to CO2? Which appears to be harming us more, CO2 or nuclear waste?

 

[DanishDynamite]

The measure of a civilised society is how it treats the world that it's offspring will inherit. To continue to use nuclear power when there is no way of disposing safely of the waste it produces is in my opinion greedy, selfish, criminal and a sad indictment of the species that is supposed to be the wisest on the planet. To even suggest that it should be buried in caverns or dumped in the sea is so breathtakingly stupid that the people who put forward this solution surely must be insane? Anyone in the U.K. who lives near Windscale,sorry, Sellafield,( They changed the name hoping the appalling safety record would change with it) knows that the industry is untrustworthy,deceitful and generally dismissive of the public's fears.

Since there are lots of safe places to put the waste, what exactly is your real objection to nuclear energy?

The Irish goverment are none too pleased with the place because the fish on the coast opposite are beginning to resemble the one in the Simpsons. Find a way to treat the crud safely and I will be in front of the nuclear parade tooting my horn. Until then, keep building those windmills.

No idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you could provide a link to your source of misunderstanding?

 

[geni]

The measure of a civilised society is how it treats the world that it's offspring will inherit. To continue to use nuclear power when there is no way of disposing safely of the waste it produces is in my opinion greedy, selfish, criminal and a sad indictment of the species that is supposed to be the wisest on the planet. To even suggest that it should be buried in caverns or dumped in the sea is so breathtakingly stupid that the people who put forward this solution surely must be insane?

We know from the Oklo reactors that deep cavern storage works.

Anyone in the U.K. who lives near Windscale,sorry, Sellafield,( They changed the name hoping the appalling safety record would change with it) knows that the industry is untrustworthy,deceitful and generally dismissive of the public's fears.

No that would be the unions. The industry appears to want to quit the place.

 

[DanishDynamite]

geni, any progress on the link I asked for?

 

[Solitaire]

Why do people blame the environmentalist for the lack of nuclear power? It makes no sense.

Nuclear power simply costs too much, according to this article, Negawatt Power by Reed McManus. And, that's the reason Wall Street will not fund the construction of new nuclear reactors; however, the federal government spends a bundle on it, according to this article, Why Not Nukes by Paul Rauber.

 

[Hindmost]

With 20 years working in Nuclear power, I certainly agree with DRBUZZO's rant--he did a good job. One of our problems in the industry has been poor advertising...we have Homer Simpson as our mascot...

Now, a point that DRBUZZO made about the safety of the industry that I would like to expand upon...if you compare nuclear power with other industries, its safety record is excellent. Add up all the deaths from the nuclear industry--it just isn't that many. Chernobyl was an absolutely horrible design...having a positive water coeficient...and pointing to it as some sort of standard is just not reasonable. Having lived in New Orleans--around oil refineries and chemical plants--nuclear looks really good. I actually couldn't get to work a couple days because the ethylene glycol plant next door blew up a some noxious tanks. My wife had similar problems with the oil refinery near her work. The New Orleans nuke had to design the control complex of the plant to withstand chlorine and amonia releases from neighboring plants. Much of the waste coming from chemical plants will never go away whereas the vast majority of nuclear waste is safe after 200 years or so. The long lived isotopes can be fast fissioned in next generation breeder reactors.

With only around 6 to 8% of energy needs worldwide coming from renewable resources, something needs to be done. A combination of many technologies with nuclear contributing is going to be necessary. However, with the very slow growth of nuclear power over the years, there are not enough trained engineers to build a significant number of plants...the long construction time and the cost don't help. In the US, the industry has stagnated and the engineers are all getting close to retirement. The ability to build a plant is being lost.

Combinations of new breeders and advanced lightwater plants can provide a significant amount of energy for a very long time without long term waste issues. Inherently safe fuel designs--which exist right now-- will eliminate Three mile island type of problems. Hopefully, fusion will become a reality in the needed time frame. A reactor about the size of a bedroom can provide enough electricity for about 1 million homes and can operate without refueling for 18 to 24 months.

glenn

about 2.5 billion people on the planet use biomass as their primary fuel.

 

[geni]

I've also noticed that the only significant point of contention so far raised against your OP was geni's statement that there was only "about 20 years worth [of nuclear fuel] if the world switches to nuclear burn."

Would you have a linky on this, geni?

The exact numbers jump about a lot and depend on what you consider switching over to nuclear burn to mean and which uranium resurves you include. For example greenpeace go for 4 years:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/solutions/nuclear_fallacy

However I suspect they are ignoreing everything other than known low cost reserves which is unreasonable.

As for the upper end of the scale that can almost be as high as you like as long as you select big enough figures for unknown reserves and aceptable extraction costs.

This guy goes for 10-20 years:

http://www.energybulletin.net/3322.html

The numbers don't matter since they only apply to pure light water reactors senarios.


Problem is that fast breeder reactors tend to have issues (mostly with liquid metal cooling and cost).

The US hasn't really run one since the partial meltdown at Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station in the 60s.

The british Dounreay Fast Reactor worked but was never followed up and since the reactors were rather experimental in design followup would be needed.

The soviets ran various designs and the BN-350 and BN-600 reactors worked but people don't always trust soviet tech (I think BN-600 may be the only fast breeder reactor in operation at present time BN-350 was shut down due to lack of funds) but the japanese have purcased the technical info in any case.


The french Superphénix looks good on paper but there were problems with sodium leaks.

Japan's Monju was closed in 1995 due to a fire and sodium leaks.

Both germany and India have built test fast breeders but none have any running at the moment.

Untill we can get fast breeders to work nuclear isn't really a viable model.

 

[geni]

Why do people blame the environmentalist for the lack of nuclear power? It makes no sense.

Well probably because one of them admitted fireing a rocket at Superphénix.

They also forced the shutdown of the fast breeder reactors in germany.

 

[pvt1863]

Until then, keep building those windmills.

Allow me to correct you. You should have said, "Until then, keep building those coal plants." That more accurately reflects reality. Coal and natural gas are being ramped up far quicker than renewables.

The measure of a civilised society is how it treats the world that it's offspring will inherit. To continue to use nuclear power when there is no way of disposing safely of the waste it produces is in my opinion greedy, selfish, criminal and a sad indictment of the species that is supposed to be the wisest on the planet. To even suggest that it should be buried in caverns or dumped in the sea is so breathtakingly stupid that the people who put forward this solution surely must be insane?

Just another example of someone who insists on viewing nuclear power in isolation. You pick a drawback which has never been shown to actually harm anyone in this country, and based on that you dismiss an entire technology. Never mind the fact that the alternatives are spewing their waste into the air for all of us to breathe and get sick off of.

And bonus points for dragging personal insults into the conversation. Everyone who disagrees with you is insane, right?

Waste is an issue, but one that is not nearly as large as people make it out to be. We have a great track record of storing waste, the waste can easily be stored in one or two central repositories because it is very small (compared to other industrial waste), and the waste can be recycled.

Almost all of the problems with waste are political, not technical. If the politicians stepped aside and let the scientists and engineers handle it with a reasonable amount of regulation, it wouldn't be a problem at all. But no, politicians (and many environmental groups) love to stick their nose in it and exaggerate the problem because they gain more from making a big deal out of it than they do from solving it. They seem to have no problem with our continued dependence on fossil fuels as long as they can scare people into voting for them. The way some politicians use this issue as a personal political weapon is practically criminal in my mind.

Some of these issues were discussed in this thread. I suggest reading it.

I'm a proud member of the American nuclear industry.

 

[Lonewulf]

I find it intriguing that people love to rant about the evil nuclear waste, and then ignore the evil waste that's produced from creation of solar panels.

Oh, but it's GREEN, so it must be good!

 

[fishbob]

I find it intriguing that people love to rant about the evil nuclear waste, and then ignore the evil waste that's produced from creation of solar panels.

Oh, but it's GREEN, so it must be good!

They can eat an organic carrot and take a homeopathic pill and and feel just great while ignoring what goes into the landfill down by the river.

I heard a lecture a couple of weeks ago by a Ms Wand Munn. She stated that we could re-process all the spent fuel currently stored at reactor sites around the country and wind up with somewhere around 12,000 - 15,000 cubic yards of waste to be handled carefully for 300 to 500 years. This is roughly equivalent to the landfill at one fairly small town. By volume, one train-load of boxcars could haul this much material.

 

[fsol]

Solar intensity is about 1000 W/m² at the equator.

Not really. As a peak value maybe, but as an average no where near.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/8020/421/1600/Solar_land_area.0.png

Irradiance is actually lower at the equator than it is at the tropics, due to cloud cover over land masses and water evaporation over the sea.

The 1000W/m2 is the value they use for standard test conditions and it is pretty useless for determining the power that a module will produce in the real world. Actually, they specify 1000W/m2 at 25 degrees C. If you can find anywhere in the world where those conditions happen together...

 

[Hindmost]

The exact numbers jump about a lot and depend on what you consider switching over to nuclear burn to mean and which uranium resurves you include. For example greenpeace go for 4 years:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/solutions/nuclear_fallacy

However I suspect they are ignoreing everything other than known low cost reserves which is unreasonable.

As for the upper end of the scale that can almost be as high as you like as long as you select big enough figures for unknown reserves and aceptable extraction costs.

This guy goes for 10-20 years:

http://www.energybulletin.net/3322.html

The numbers don't matter since they only apply to pure light water reactors senarios.


Problem is that fast breeder reactors tend to have issues (mostly with liquid metal cooling and cost).

The US hasn't really run one since the partial meltdown at Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station in the 60s.

The british Dounreay Fast Reactor worked but was never followed up and since the reactors were rather experimental in design followup would be needed.

The soviets ran various designs and the BN-350 and BN-600 reactors worked but people don't always trust soviet tech (I think BN-600 may be the only fast breeder reactor in operation at present time BN-350 was shut down due to lack of funds) but the japanese have purcased the technical info in any case.


The french Superphénix looks good on paper but there were problems with sodium leaks.

Japan's Monju was closed in 1995 due to a fire and sodium leaks.

Both germany and India have built test fast breeders but none have any running at the moment.

Untill we can get fast breeders to work nuclear isn't really a viable model.

The reason fast breeders are not running is more political and economically related than technology. Right now, the nuclear industry has enough fuel to run the current reactors for a long time. Insufficient resources due to lack of necessity and the scare of plutonium have caused the shutdown of the plants. The technical issues could be corrected.

An upgraded EBR II type of design would work just fine. It can be designed with inherent safety in the fuel. It operated fine for many years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_II

glenn