No more nuclear power for the US?

[Furcifer]

Where will all this biomass come from? If you're talking about corn stalks and such then you are just increasing the amount of chemical fertilizers you have to use, and that has its own host of environmental problems.

Wood and its byproducts (hog fuel). Sugar cane stalks, animal waste, shells from nuts, grain screening, hemp, some other plant that looks a lot like hemp, human waste, grass clippings and yes corn stalks. There are plenty of plants that don't need fertilizer to grow as crops for generating electricity.

There's tons and tons of refuse that can be burned as well. Although refuse isn't really classed as "biomass" per se.

We have tons of waste we are already producing that can be disposed of properly and produce energy. We have yet to exploit it fully. It would be foolish to begin making Nuclear waste (on a large scale) we can't dispose of properly either. There are many ways under developement to deal with Nuclear waste, but they are decades away from being implemented properly. The Gen III+ reactors are just really getting started. The bugs are being worked out on them, and that technology is from the mid 80's. Sure, if we put our minds to it we could develope better technology quicker, but that's in the R&D phase, not the building phase being discussed here.

 

[Furcifer]

While there are a few things left to debate about biomass, there are some pretty hard numbers arguing against biomass having a large role. Current human energy needs are well within an order of magnitude of all the energy captured by all the biomass on Earth and they are rising rapidly. Sometime in this century we will likely overtake all other life on Earth as consumers of energy. We can't burn every lifeform on Earth.

Human energy needs are already dozens of times greater than human nutritional needs. We can't expand our farms by dozens of times.

True, but as the largest consumers, we also produce the most waste. Some of the Fluidized Bed Combustors burn tires, waste gases, coal mine tailings, tar sands and high moisture low grade fuels. There's also plasma arc furnaces to consider as well.

It may be idealistic, but if we can burn our waste and supplement it with biomass to meet our needs, I'm all for it.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Wood and its byproducts (hog fuel). Sugar cane stalks, animal waste, shells from nuts, grain screening, hemp, some other plant that looks a lot like hemp, human waste, grass clippings and yes corn stalks. There are plenty of plants that don't need fertilizer to grow as crops for generating electricity.

None of the potential fuels you listed is truly being wasted. Even if they are being plowed back under, that's not waste, it's a form of fertilization that will have to be replaced.

And as far as burning any plant for electricity, can you cite a plant that is more efficient at harvesting sunlight for electricity than our current PV or thermal processes?

 

[BenBurch]

In fact there is a recently-announced process to make methane from CO2 and water vapor with sunlight...

http://www.physorg.com/news154007555.html

But will it SCALE?

 

[Dan O.]

There are so many unanswered questions...

Like what questions does the NRC need to have answered about a site that will never be opened?

 

[WildCat]

Some of the research cited was done at Chu's laboratory and both Chu and Obama have said they favor recycling. I suppose you're entitled to a convoluted opinion that Chu and Obama aren't saying what they mean. Hell, they're politicians so that is entirely understable. But claiming that they haven't even said it, is just plain out of touch with reality.

Did you miss the part where I said they didn't cite that as the reason for killing Yucca? They're looking at another waste storage location to be named later, after years of study...

 

[rwguinn]

transportation hazards, safety and cost.

You'd need to move all material to the silica encasing facility in georgia ( I believe). Then you need to ship it from there to Yucca. The weight of silica to nuclear material needed to provide safe encasement will be extremely high, making the cost of transport extremely high.

Nobody seems to have problems with the 40000 lb Napalm trucks that are on every highway, by the thousands, with a mere double-walled steel tank around them, but have real problems with radioactive stuff inside a lead container inside a larger container that will withstand an 80 mph impact with a concrete wall, or a train collision.
So much for THAT problem.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Did you miss the part where I said they didn't cite that as the reason for killing Yucca? They're looking at another waste storage location to be named later, after years of study...

More mind reading?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Problem for you is that neither Chu nor Obama has said they are going to study how to reuse the waste material, they are going to try to find another site!

Now the utility companies are likely to sue to demand that the $22 billion they paid to the Federal government to fund Yucca mountain be returned to them, as well as compensate them for the storage of waste since 1998, since they had a contract to have the Feds take control of the waste then.

And apparently I'm not the only one with the "psychic ability" to see what's really going on. From the Washington Poist:


And the New York Times:


No new nuclear plants will be built as long as Obama is POTUS. Even with Bush gone, politics trumps science when a conflict emerges.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could substantiate any of your opinions?

 

[WildCat]

Wouldn't it be nice if you could substantiate any of your opinions?

My opinion will be proved correct after Obama leaves office and no new nuke plants are built.

Oh, to be young and naive again! I remember when I thought that the toll roads would be free once the bonds were paid off, the politicians all said it would be so!

Someday you won't be such a sucker for a smooth-talking pol, but I'm well past that stage.

 

[Dr Adequate]

My opinion will be proved correct after Obama leaves office and no new nuke plants are built.

Oh, to be young and naive again! I remember when I thought that the toll roads would be free once the bonds were paid off, the politicians all said it would be so!

Someday you won't be such a sucker for a smooth-talking pol, but I'm well past that stage.

Madame WildCat draws aside the veil of the future ... I'll save my dollar, as I hear that they have a tattooed lady in the next tent.

 

[WildCat]

Madame WildCat draws aside the veil of the future ... I'll save my dollar, as I hear that they have a tattooed lady in the next tent.

It's funny how you think a working BS meter is a psychic ability.

Would you also need to be a psychic to know that the nice Nigerian man who sent you an email really isn't going to share his fortune with you if you if only you give him your routing number?

 

[Furcifer]

None of the potential fuels you listed is truly being wasted. Even if they are being plowed back under, that's not waste, it's a form of fertilization that will have to be replaced.

And as far as burning any plant for electricity, can you cite a plant that is more efficient at harvesting sunlight for electricity than our current PV or thermal processes?

None of them can be plowed under, except perhaps the corn stalks. These aren't wood chips from cutting down the tree, they've been transported to mills and processed. Animal waste can't be turned back on the fields at the quantities it's generated, it needs processing. Much of the high cellulose fibres in stuff like sugar cane don't break down for years.

Anthing that can be "returned to the earth" is. Very few farmers could make a profit otherwise. The things listed are waste, by-products that are not being disposed of properly.

PV has its own production and disposal issues. Any plant is more green, the carbon foot print is zero, taking in as much carbon as it releases when burned. Remember, we need to reduce CO2 as well some time in the near future. PV won't do that, it does the opposite.

It really depends on where the generating plant is, and what is available in that area. Burning wood pellets in Arizona makes no sense. Solar does. Likewise solar makes no sense in Oregon, wood pellets do.

Don't get me wrong WC, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here in a way. I'm all for Nuclear, it's just that over the last year I have been presented with a lot of data to support the alternatives. A year ago I was all for building reactors across Cananda and the US, now not so much. I see it as the solution, but probably not for another 20 years. That's my guess.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

@3bodyproblem,

OK. Cite some expample and we'll figure out some numbers. I'd like to be wrong about his.

 

[Furcifer]

@3bodyproblem,

OK. Cite some expample and we'll figure out some numbers. I'd like to be wrong about his.

I'm not sure which examples. If I've mis-spoken my apologies. I'm not saying biomass will or can meet our energy needs. I'm saying that perhaps investment in things such as FutureGen will lead us towards cleaner energy while we develope better, cleaner Nuclear technology. Biomass can be used in most of these plants, as well as other wastes. That's a huge advantage IMHO.

Given Chu's go ahead with FutureGen, and the halt at Yuca Mountain, I have a feeling this is what they are looking at. As far as I know there are 3 Nuclear reactors on the go in the US and 1 in Canada (Alberta and Saskachewan are "looking into it") or at least in the bidding process. I'm not sure what capacity Areva, Westinghouse and Team CANDU and the rest have to build reactors. I am assuming you can't get contractors out of the yellow pages to build them. I don't think you could get 10 reactors online in 10 years if you wanted to. Yes Areva claims they can build one in 36 months, but that is theoretical and has yet to be proven.

When you start putting it all together, I don't think ordering a bunch of reactors is the solution at all. One of the best ways to get out of the slump we are in is finding cheap energy. This, as of right now, means coal (there's plenty of data out there on the cost per megawatt of coal vs. nuclear but I can't find it right now ). Of course we want clean coal. The additional benefit of clean coal means clean biofuel. In addition to the carbon offset, there's also the potential that we make ethanol and burn the waste to produce electricity. Just a thought.

I wish I had more numbers. Right now OPG is testing biomass but hasn't released any hard data to my knowledge. They are also doing huge Wind projects, an essential alternative to keep in mind.

If we offset with some wind around the great lakes, solar out west and some clean coal/biomass (plus the 3 reactors on the go) aren't we going to meet our needs, make some jobs and lower energy costs?

ps- I left out the cost of human lives in all this. Nuclear is by far the safest, very few people die producing Nuclear energy. Coal mining and even farming aren't as forgiving. I hate when opponents to nuclear forget this.

 

[joobz]

Nobody seems to have problems with the 40000 lb Napalm trucks that are on every highway, by the thousands, with a mere double-walled steel tank around them, but have real problems with radioactive stuff inside a lead container inside a larger container that will withstand an 80 mph impact with a concrete wall, or a train collision.
So much for THAT problem.

Except that you didn't address the entire post at all. In fact, I doubt you read past the word "transportation".

Napalm doesn't have a catastrophic danger if it was to leak out as a result of collision.
Further, my mention wasn't just safety but cost.

The mass of silica/lead mix needed to shield the radiation is huge. Are you telling me that the added weight doesn't add significant cost?

 

[WildCat]

Except that you didn't address the entire post at all. In fact, I doubt you read past the word "transportation".

Napalm doesn't have a catastrophic danger if it was to leak out as a result of collision.
Further, my mention wasn't just safety but cost.

The mass of silica/lead mix needed to shield the radiation is huge. Are you telling me that the added weight doesn't add significant cost?

Which is a problem no matter what. Because even if all the waste is to be recycled and reused it will have to be shipped somewhere for reprocessing. In fact, not only do you have to ship it there you also have to ship it back to the power plant again.

 

[joobz]

True, but as the largest consumers, we also produce the most waste. Some of the Fluidized Bed Combustors burn tires, waste gases, coal mine tailings, tar sands and high moisture low grade fuels. There's also plasma arc furnaces to consider as well.

It may be idealistic, but if we can burn our waste and supplement it with biomass to meet our needs, I'm all for it.

The problem with burning waste is that it's a highly contaminated energy source. Lets assume that we can acheive full combustion of all organic compounds, we'll have a highly variable content of NOX and SOX compounds that will need to be scavanged from the off gas. Further, there would be an unknown amount of heavy metals coming along into the furnace. This would need to be scavanged as well, adding cost. Since it isn't known how much will be entering into the furnace, a robust/overspecified purification system will need to be designed, greatly increasing the cost of the plant.

 

[joobz]

Which is a problem no matter what. Because even if all the waste is to be recycled and reused it will have to be shipped somewhere for reprocessing. In fact, not only do you have to ship it there you also have to ship it back to the power plant again.

Well, there is the option of dumping the fuel into the defunct reactor once it's decommissioned.

And the weight of reprocessed fuel weight is much less than the weight of processes waste for storage, as the large silica/lead encasing is only needed to avoid leaching over centuries.

ETA: I'm assuming that there is a large linear weight dependance on shipping costs, and this is a pure assumption. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

 

[WildCat]

Well, there is the option of dumping the fuel into the defunct reactor once it's decommissioned.

And the weight of reprocessed fuel weight is much less than the weight of processes waste for storage, as the large silica/lead encasing is only needed to avoid leaching over centuries.

ETA: I'm assuming that there is a large linear weight dependance on shipping costs, and this is a pure assumption. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Are you sure about that, and much of the weight involved isn't a result of making it safe in case of an accident? And isn't the shipping primarily by train anyway? Much lower cost per ton by train.