Politics and Global Warming

[Sword_Of_Truth]

i wonder if there are studies wich look at how much Co2 will be produced from all the reprocessing etc that is needed for those thorium cycles.

Given the 600,000 tons of raw materials for enough wind turbines (operating at optimal wind speed) to match the output of a 200 ton reactor, it will be less than 1/3000th just for materials alone.

Most likely a lot less for Thorium reactors as they won't require pressure vessels or extensive enrichment for continuous operation.

 

[DC]

Given the 600,000 tons of raw materials for enough wind turbines (operating at optimal wind speed) to match the output of a 200 ton reactor, it will be less than 1/3000th just for materials alone.

Most likely a lot less for Thorium reactors as they won't require pressure vessels or extensive enrichment for continuous operation.

do you have studies that looked into this?

 

[DC]

It's frustrating when a soundbite is all you have, isn't it?



To all these, Loewen's answer is a tour of the U. S. S. North Carolina, a World War II battleship anchored near downtown Wilmington... The point is, PRISM isn't half as complicated — and they built a fleet of these battleships overnight. Now it's a fleet of nuclear reactors Loewen sees. "That's how I answer the naysayers who say we can't build this till 2040," he says.

- President of the American Nuclear Society, Dr. Eric Loewen

do you ever provided scientific studies into those matters or do you only deal with opinion pieces?

 

[Trakar]

France has 59 Nuclear Plants and accounts for 1/6 of global production of nuclear power. It would take ~18 000 similar power plants to supply the worlds energy needs. Meanwhile according to the IAEA proved Uranium reserves are sufficient to supply the world’s 400ish nuclear reactors for ~90 years.

Calling the notion that build or fuel anything close to the number of Nuclear Power Plants required to supply the worlds energy needs “science fiction” is being generous IMO.

I would disagree, it is science projection, but not fiction. Science fiction is a human story told with a science oriented setting. 500 US nuclear power plants online by say 2060 is a plan worth discussing, probably not here, but certainly something that should be considered, looking to the future. Personally, I think nuclear power should be a government controlled and ran endeavor rather than a private industry venture and while that might be good enough to keep the talk political I'm not sure this would be the thread for that talk either.


Ah, just to get the preliminaries of the OP out of the way. I am Republican, but not conservative. I am directly opposed to most all conservative positions and am orthogonal to liberalism, which seems (to me) like conservatism-lite with a twist a swish and a bow to the same corporatist persuasions.

Oh, and all the IPCC reports are, are summation surveys of the available published mainstream science. I don't believe that rejecting scientific findings or the realities that they represent is productive to any discussion much less any planning for the present or future.

 

[Trakar]

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1540_web.pdf

Sounds like alot of work has still to be done in order for Thorium cycles to be mature enough for commercial use.

i wonder if there are studies wich look at how much Co2 will be produced from all the reprocessing etc that is needed for those thorium cycles.

but sofar it seems to be the best solution for energy production we have. together with solar wind and other alternatives i think it can make a promising package for the future.

There are no major technological hurdles to thorium systems, or most (U/Pu) gen III/gen IV systems. They are technologies without extensive large-scale application histories (and in many cases without much of any pilot/test system data), but refusing to license new designs and construction for 50 years and then complaining that the only way we should discuss nuclear power is in terms of commercial designs and systems that are a half century (or more) old because all more modern designs and concepts are unbuilt "science fiction" (...and forgive me for springboarding from your post DC, I'm not referring to your remarks here) is simply disingenuous at best,...IMO.

 

[DC]

There are no major technological hurdles to thorium systems, or most (U/Pu) gen III/gen IV systems. They are technologies without extensive large-scale application histories (and in many cases without much of any pilot/test system data), but refusing to license new designs and construction for 50 years and then complaining that the only way we should discuss nuclear power is in terms of commercial designs and systems that are a half century (or more) old because all more modern designs and concepts are unbuilt "science fiction" (...and forgive me for springboarding from your post DC, I'm not referring to your remarks here) is simply disingenuous at best,...IMO.

i personally have no problems with those plans, would not really call them science fiction. and it is done on both sides, also those against Nuclear energy plan with increased efficiency and technologies not yet avaible, like storage of electricity from Solar and Wind etc.

my problem with SoT was his claim of 0 CO2 emissions wich is a blatant lie.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Until all fossil fuels are replaced, everything will have a CO₂ build cost.

Solar power has more than 10 times the carbon emissions of nuclear. Wind has more than twice the carbon footprint of nuclear. If you want to engage in mindless nitpicking and hair-splitting to hide the weakness of your own position against the alternatives, then yes... no possible energy source can ever be truly carbon free (humans running the system have to breathe). But of all the options that exist, only one comes out at the bottom of the carbon scale.

my problem with SoT was his claim of 0 CO2 emissions wich is a blatant lie.

There is definitely a blatant liar at work here.

You have an odd definition of "zero".

 

[DC]

There is no need to wait. The technology to produce every watt of energy we could ever want with zero carbon emissions was invented 70 years ago.

yes SoT, a blatant lie.

 

[DC]

There is definitely a blatant liar at work here.

You have an odd definition of "zero".

you still have not provided any evidence for your claim about solar and wind Co2 footprint, and i have sked you several times already. your failure to provide the evidence tells me alot.

 

[Trakar]

i personally have no problems with those plans, would not really call them science fiction. and it is done on both sides, also those against Nuclear energy plan with increased efficiency and technologies not yet avaible, like storage of electricity from Solar and Wind etc.

my problem with SoT was his claim of 0 CO2 emissions wich is a blatant lie.

It seems more like a mistaken representation (to me), but then that's because I haven't yet seen much quality support for either side of this discussion yet in this thread, and am not familiar with all the details of previous discussions in other threads. A few references and challenges and a lot of dismissive rhetoric on both sides, but not a lot of substantive support either pro or con as of yet (and I'm not sure that hijacking a politics in Climate change poll thread is the best way to have this pro-con nuclear power discussion). I think that nuclear power can and should play a pivotal role in helping us to address climate change issues, but I don't see it as an either/or proposition, and there are a lot of alternatives that should (and IMO "will") play complimentary roles in addressing the energy supply side of this problem.

 

[DC]

It seems more like a mistaken representation (to me), but then that's because I haven't yet seen much quality support for either side of this discussion yet in this thread, and am not familiar with all the details of previous discussions in other threads. A few references and challenges and a lot of dismissive rhetoric on both sides, but not a lot of substantive support either pro or con as of yet (and I'm not sure that hijacking a politics in Climate change poll thread is the best way to have this pro-con nuclear power discussion). I think that nuclear power can and should play a pivotal role in helping us to address climate change issues, but I don't see it as an either/or proposition, and there are a lot of alternatives that should (and IMO "will") play complimentary roles in addressing the energy supply side of this problem.

actually its not even a debate about pro and anti nuclear, its a debate within the pro nuclear camp. At the current stand of technology there is no way around Nuclear energy i think.

 

[Trakar]

actually its not even a debate about pro and anti nuclear, its a debate within the pro nuclear camp. At the current stand of technology there is no way around Nuclear energy i think.

You and I seem to be largely in agreement, but then we didn't seem to be at opposite ends of these considerations to begin with

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

yes SoT, a blatant lie.

You don't understand the difference between emissions and footprint.

 

[uke2se]

You don't understand the difference between emissions and footprint.

Dude, probably better to just retract your claim.

 

[lomiller]

I would disagree, it is science projection, but not fiction. Science fiction is a human story told with a science oriented setting.

I guess we have to disagree on this. IMO stories where people use notional, but non existent technologies to address today's problems are a major element in science fiction. I'd call a story where nuclear fusion meets all the worlds energy needs science fiction as well, and for the same reason.

500 US nuclear power plants online by say 2060 is a plan worth discussing, probably not here, but certainly something that should be considered, looking to the future.

I think that could be a reasonable number, though I think the competitiveness of nuclear power could still be an issue. The proposal in question isn't 500 nuclear power plants in the US. As I noted above it would take 18 000 nuclear plants of comparable capacity to what France is currently running to supply the worlds energy needs and this is a whole different ball of wax.

 

[lomiller]

There are no major technological hurdles to thorium systems, or most (U/Pu) gen III/gen IV systems. They are technologies without extensive large-scale application histories (and in many cases without much of any pilot/test system data), but refusing to license new designs and construction for 50 years and then complaining that the only way we should discuss nuclear power is in terms of commercial designs and systems that are a half century (or more) old because all more modern designs and concepts are unbuilt "science fiction" (...and forgive me for springboarding from your post DC, I'm not referring to your remarks here) is simply disingenuous at best,...IMO.

Just to be clear it's not the design concepts that are the science fiction rather the notion that we can run out right now and start building 18 000 plants based on these concepts.

 

[Trakar]

Just to be clear it's not the design concepts that are the science fiction rather the notion that we can run out right now and start building 18 000 plants based on these concepts.

Agreed, 500 over the next 40 or so years is probably a good start (at least here in the US).

 

[Trakar]

I guess we have to disagree on this. IMO stories where people use notional, but non existent technologies to address today's problems are a major element in science fiction. I'd call a story where nuclear fusion meets all the worlds energy needs science fiction as well, and for the same reason.

3rd and 4rth generation nuclear systems and even Rubio's ADR systems are not merely notional and certainly not dependent on any non-existent technologies, so I'm not sure where you see anyone promoting such, though I do agree that fusion is largely fictional for power generation at least over the next half century or so.

ADR systems
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.html

http://users.ictp.it/~pub_off/lectures/lns012/Kadi_002.pdf

3rd/4rth gen

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/w...ystems/Fourth Generation Reactor Concepts.pdf

http://www.techspot.com/news/46590-...gen-terrapower-nuclear-reactors-to-china.html

I think that could be a reasonable number, though I think the competitiveness of nuclear power could still be an issue. The proposal in question isn't 500 nuclear power plants in the US. As I noted above it would take 18 000 nuclear plants of comparable capacity to what France is currently running to supply the worlds energy needs and this is a whole different ball of wax.

It is important to consider the world, but we'll deal with earning a profit helping them to address their energy needs and desires after we get our own house in order.

 

[lomiller]

3rd and 4rth generation nuclear systems and even Rubio's ADR systems are not merely notional and certainly not dependent on any non-existent technologies, so I'm not sure where you see anyone promoting such, though I do agree that fusion is largely fictional for power generation at least over the next half century or so.

For anything more that modest growth (say 200% - 300%) you would need an all fast reactor fuel cycle + thorium, and these are not on any current road-map. 500 more reactors in the US may not even replace coal for electricity production let alone natural gas and all the fossil fuels used for things other than electricity production.

Just a reminder, but the current discussion isn't about growing nuclear power it's about whether nuclear can fill the worlds energy needs and replace CO2 emitting fossil fuels. The bottom line to that is it can't, in fact it doesn't even come relatively close unless you appeal to notional technologies that are not on any nuclear power road map.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Dude, probably better to just retract your claim.

The Emissions (or exhaust, if you will) of a system is what it emits during its operation. As carbon is not a daughter product of fission reactions, the carbon emissions of a nuclear plant is zero. For that matter, wind turbines, solar panels and dams all have zero emissions.

The footprint of a system includes vehicles and equipment used in its construction, the source of electricity supplied to the construction site (as I pointed out, this will be significant in the early stages of a fossil fuel phase-out but will reduce as more of the grid switches over), mining, refining and processing of raw materials used and if you want to get anal retentive, the respiratory activity of people or other organisms involved in the construction or operation.

The size and complexity of a system required to draw useful amounts of energy from a potential source varies indirectly with the energy density of the source. Nuclear fission having the highest energy density of anything that mankind has ever used, the systems required for its use have the smallest carbon footprint. The other zero-emissions options (solar, wind hydro) using the lowest possible density sources, have much larger footprints than nuclear.