Nuclear Energy - I need to vent/rant

[fsol]

The reason fast breeders are not running is more political and economically related than technology.

You could probably say the same thing about various renewable energy tech. In the end whatever is cheapest or is percieved to be cheapest is what we will get.

 

[geni]

The reason fast breeders are not running is more political and economically related than technology.

The impressive record of failures suggests that may not be the case.

Right now, the nuclear industry has enough fuel to run the current reactors for a long time.

Price of uranium is going up though.

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.

France doesn't seem to have had a problem with building up large stockpiles of plutonium. Superphénix had issues.

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.

Not the fuel that has been the problem of late. It is the liquid sodium.

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

glenn

Another experimental design that is going to solve all the problems? At least the BN-600 design has a track record.

 

[Hindmost]

The impressive record of failures suggests that may not be the case.



Price of uranium is going up though.



France doesn't seem to have had a problem with building up large stockpiles of plutonium. Superphénix had issues.



Not the fuel that has been the problem of late. It is the liquid sodium.



Another experimental design that is going to solve all the problems? At least the BN-600 design has a track record.

EBRII had a great track record...it operated for 30 years without any real problems...had a good breeding ratio and in its final days proved inherent fuel safey. The BN-600 design is similar to EBRII...just about a decade older and larger.

Although the Superphenix reactor had issues...it was shut down due to cost and political issues.

The cost of uranium is still low enough to make it more cost effective to make uranium fuel instead of reprocessing and making mox fuel. Since it is a commodity, it will depend on demand. When Superphenix was shutdown, it was cost effective.

glenn

 

[Hindmost]

You could probably say the same thing about various renewable energy tech. In the end whatever is cheapest or is percieved to be cheapest is what we will get.

I agree completely. Wind generators were left behind for years because of cheap energy sources and the fact that they were high maintanence and not reliable sources of electricity. Solar still has that problem. At least in the US, subsidies have helped wind power and solar power in the past. I really have to look at the cost of wind power now.

I still think we need them all.

glenn

 

[Dilb]

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...

Ah, ok. I did mean the intensity only reduced by the atmosphere, not with the average power then reduced by nighttime, clouds, latitude and whatever else. The original figure was supposed to be for a desert at noon in the summer, and assuming that the desert isn't Antarctica I think the figure would be decently close to 1000W/m².

 

[Slimething]

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

Nuclear power simply costs too much, ...

Public fear breeds overregulation of the subject industry. Overregulation hikes up the cost of construction and operation of facilities. Misaimed public furor scuttles many plans at the building permit stage. I found many hits when I googled "overregulation nuclear power" and this link is only the first.

An NRC inspector conducting an inspection of the lab I where I worked (metabolism research using radiolabeled materials) told me that, due to overregulation, a telephone that would cost you or me $50 (back in the late '80s), would cost a nuclear power facility $500 because it would have to be failsafe tested to a ridiculous degree.

So, that's why a lot of people blame environmentalists for the lack of nuclear power development in the USA. Perhaps unjustly. I don't equate environmentalists with the luddites that seem to cling to them but that's why.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

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.

Nuclear energy... expensive?

Have you checked the price of some of the renewable energy sources? Solar power is just about the most expensive way you can possibly generate electricity. Yes, sunlight is free, but maintaining the hundreds of square miles you would need to be a major supply for the grid isn't. Wind power is better, but only by a bit.

I've heard that if you consider that solar panels are being made at factories powered by the grid, the amount of CO2 produced by solar energy (the amount produced by making the panel vrs the amount of energy it can produce in it's lifetime), it actually is MORE than nuclear energy.

I suppose if you could get enough made, you could power the solar cell factories on solar power...

Nuclear energy doesn't need to be expensive and in practice, it's competitive in price.

Then again.... coal is dirt cheap. Especially the high sulfur kind.


And we are NOT going to run out of Uranium. The IAEA has said that we have supplies set for 20 years, using ONLY the current deposits being mined. That's assuming no new operations would be started. The US has produced more uranium than almost any other country, over the past 50 years. And yet, it is rated something like 15th in terms of reserves.

Uranium is not really "rare" as far as materials in the earth's crust go. Now, if you consider reprocessing and the fact that thorium can be used as fuel for reactors through neutron capture, with thorium being even more common, you'll find that the amount of fuel reserves are really quite sufficient for the foreseeable future. Take into account the idea that plutonium and heavy isotopes can be used and it means even more fuel.

No... I don't have the citations now. It's late, but I'll find them. Uranium is not a rare material by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[fsol]

Ah, ok. I did mean the intensity only reduced by the atmosphere, not with the average power then reduced by nighttime, clouds, latitude and whatever else. The original figure was supposed to be for a desert at noon in the summer, and assuming that the desert isn't Antarctica I think the figure would be decently close to 1000W/m².

Yeah, sure. But if you want to size a system, you don't want to size it based on the peak irradiance because you will be disappointed when you start generating and your investors will get mad. If you don't have more detailed irradiance data for your site, a better first guess would be to take the yearly average.

 

[fsol]

Nuclear energy... expensive?

Have you checked the price of some of the renewable energy sources? Solar power is just about the most expensive way you can possibly generate electricity. Yes, sunlight is free, but maintaining the hundreds of square miles you would need to be a major supply for the grid isn't. Wind power is better, but only by a bit.

The maintainence is probably not the major factor in determining the plant cost. For something like wind the capital cost is. As such the generation cost depends mostly on the pay back time and discount rate that you use. If you can stretch out the payback time then the costs come down.

With solar the huge costs arise because of the low conversion efficiencies. If you then factor in the intermittant nature of the energy source, costs rise further.

Figures I have in front of me for EUR/MWh tell me that wind onshore or offshore) can be comparable to Nuclear. Solar PV is off the scale where costs are concerned. I don't have direct references for them but the range of values I have are

Nuclear EUR 20/MWh - EUR 80/MWh
Onshore wind EUR 40/MWh - EUR 80/MWh
Offshore wind EUR 55/MWh - EUR 78/MWh
Solar PV EUR 316/MWh - EUR 865/MWh

The range of values for wind comes from selecting different discount rates. (from 5% to about 8%)
The nuclear range comes from the UK energy review with it's high end coming from an MIT study.

These two reports give some insight into costs/projected costs in the UK

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/downloads/files/PIUh.pdf - renewables
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/downloads/files/PIi.pdf - nuclear

They reckon that solar PV won't be competitive in the UK until 2020-2025.

I've heard that if you consider that solar panels are being made at factories powered by the grid, the amount of CO2 produced by solar energy (the amount produced by making the panel vrs the amount of energy it can produce in it's lifetime), it actually is MORE than nuclear energy.

I suppose if you could get enough made, you could power the solar cell factories on solar power...

Nuclear energy doesn't need to be expensive and in practice, it's competitive in price.

Then again.... coal is dirt cheap. Especially the high sulfur kind.

This paper does life-cycle analysis (or collects together life-cycle analysis data) for various power sources.

(Gagnon, L et al (2002) Life-cycle assesment of electricity generation options:the staus of research in year 2001. Energy Policy, 30, 1267-78)

You can find it on Science Direct if you have access.

Best practise PV is slightly better on a CO2 eq/TWh basis than best practise nuclear. Although at the other end of the range Solar PV is much much higher. Best practise wind is lower than either of them. All three produce insignificant amounts compared to something like coal or gas, due to the fact that all (well almost all) the emissions are produced during manufacture and the energy source comes carbon free.

And we are NOT going to run out of Uranium. The IAEA has said that we have supplies set for 20 years, using ONLY the current deposits being mined. That's assuming no new operations would be started. The US has produced more uranium than almost any other country, over the past 50 years. And yet, it is rated something like 15th in terms of reserves.

Uranium is not really "rare" as far as materials in the earth's crust go. Now, if you consider reprocessing and the fact that thorium can be used as fuel for reactors through neutron capture, with thorium being even more common, you'll find that the amount of fuel reserves are really quite sufficient for the foreseeable future. Take into account the idea that plutonium and heavy isotopes can be used and it means even more fuel.

No... I don't have the citations now. It's late, but I'll find them. Uranium is not a rare material by any stretch of the imagination.

We are not going to run out of oil, coal or gas either by that logic. It is finite. One day it will run out. I couldn't tell you when that will be though.

 

[robinson]

TOKYO (Reuters) - A Japanese power company admitted on Thursday that it had covered up a 1999 incident in which mishandling of nuclear fuel rods led to an unintended self-sustaining nuclear fission chain reaction for 15 minutes.

Anti-nuclear activists expressed outrage over Hokuriku Electric Power Co.'s failure to report the accident, although the company said the mishap was relatively minor.

The news of the 15-minute "criticality" -- an unintended self-sustaining nuclear fission chain reaction -- is likely to further dent public confidence in Japan's nuclear power industry, already undermined by safety scandals over the past decade.

- http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...259Z_01_T75294_RTRUKOC_0_US-JAPAN-NUCLEAR.xml

 

[Hamradioguy]

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?

Ah yes, the "safe waste disposal" argument. This came up often when I was involved with radiologicl protection, usually coupled with the argument that this waste would be dangerous "for thousands of years". The real danger is more like hundreds of years, but if one wants to argue dangers of nuclear waste then dangers of non-nuclear waste have to be considered as well. How long will toxic heavy metals in the waste ash of coal plants remain toxic? (Or for that matter the ashes left over from burning wood?) "Forever" seems to me a lot longer time than a few hundred years.

Solar? Sure, I have no problem with this. But to replace our state's lone nuclear plant with solar power as an alternative would require around 30 square miles of solar collectors. The environmental cost of producing this quantity of solar cells, clearing the land, installing, cleaning and maintaining the collectors is not insignificant.

The bottom line is that NO large scale source of power is entirely safe or free of environmental impact. (Take a look at Hydro-Quebec's LG2 project for example.) Safety is relative. Deep burial of nuclear waste would seem a lot safer than dumping used diapers or batteries in the local landfill or tossing fireplace ashes into the backyard. But the former brings with it a lot of emotional and political baggage. Scientists and the folks who do risk vs. benefit studies have their work cut out in the years to come. (As an aside, I can't help but wonder how much of the anti-nuclear power hysteria can be traced to the fact that for most people their introduction to things nuclear was via the atomic bombs dropped on Japan and later Cold War fears of nuclear annihilation.)

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Solar? Sure, I have no problem with this. But to replace our state's lone nuclear plant with solar power as an alternative would require around 30 square miles of solar collectors. The environmental cost of producing this quantity of solar cells, clearing the land, installing, cleaning and maintaining the collectors is not insignificant.

Good points, but something to keep in mind about "clearing the land". Thirty square miles isn't much. It's only .3% of your state. Works out to 1,373 sqare feet per person. May not require much land cleared at all because rooftops are in that ball park and there may be other places to put solar collectors without newly cleared land.

 

[Hokulele]

To add another set of opinions to this matter, wind power was recently introduced to our area. The irony during the construction process was the fact that the majority of dissent to the project was from environmental groups. The company that developed the project now has plans for expansion, and again, the environmental factors are being brought up.

http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=23551

You can use the search tool on this site to find the original letters to the editor and all during the construction of the first phase.

Personally, I am all for using alternative energy sources (we have solar hot water for our house), but it seems like regardless of the source, people are going to complain about any type of power production if it means change in their neighborhood. It seems to be "damned if you do, damned if you don't."

 

[Shadow]

Okay, I am posting this mostly as a rant. I'm really getting pissed about all the anti-nuclear crap out there. I'm very pro nuclear energy and I'm in need of spouting off, so here goes.

I hate it when “environmentalists” stomp on everything nuclear. It’s ridiculous, because the reason I like…make that love… nuclear energy is it’s environmental benfiits.

Well your idea is unpractical. You seem to think its environmentalists stopping nuclear power but the fact is its not.

That fact is nuclear power is pointless for a few reasons. No state wants nuclear waste deposited by the federal government onto their land. I lived in Las Vegas for 10 years and for 10 years, our Governor has fought the depositing of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain.

The public is scared of terrorism not accidental fallout. The fact is it is just to dangerous to take any chances and money runs Las Vegas. Transporting nuclear waste usually requires a cross-country trek allowing every city it passes through to be a terrorist target. No one wants a possible terrorist threat to pass through his or her city.

It is just too hard trying to find a place to put the waste when no one wants it and everyone is fighting it. Its to much trouble and the more waste you have the more trouble it becomes. Not just the plant but also the waste would need to be put under lock and key with armed guards at all times. Building a bunch of nuclear power plants would just be wasting money.
http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=262
There are far better ways to conquer energy crisis and they are already about to happen. Tidal energy has the potential to produce a massive amount of energy...however; this pales in all comparison to the power of the sun. Why only use solar light when you can have the whole sun? The fact is fusion technology is the true answer to the energy crisis. Many governments already recognize this including the US.

http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/

Economic Efficiency is measured using production cost. Production cost is the cost of operating the plant—including fuel, labor, materials, and services—to produce one kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity. In 2005, nuclear power had the lowest production cost of the major sources of electricity, with production cost of 1.72 cents/kWh. Coal had a cost of 2.21 cents/kWh, natural gas 7.51 cents/kWh, and petroleum 8.09 cents/kWh. Hydro had a production cost of 0.83 cents/kWh, wind 0.04 cents/kWh and solar 2.17 cents/kWh

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=262

Nuclear energy is cheap, but a hassle to dispose because of political restraints. Wind & Hydro are much more cost effective in production costs. You can produce 2 hydro plants for the cost of 1 nuclear plant or 43 wind plants for the cost of 1 nuclear plant. Wind may not be reliable but with a 43 to 1 ratio, it would make it seem not to matter. Solar plants although slightly more costly produce no waste at all and combined with wind & hydro plants should provide a consistent source of energy until fusion becomes viable.

Solar power also has the potential to be made into a private industry. Businesses can form that place panels on your house using payment plans to drastically decrease the cost of your private power consumption. It can even be ordered by law that all new houses must have solar panels (in cities where its cost effective to have such panels) and the cost of the panels be added to the sale of the house.

There is also wave & tidal power that offers another great solution to renewable power. Consistent & predictable waves are made with gravitation from the moon and winds caused by climate.

Nuclear power that creates waste with each barrel needing 500 years of guarding to prevent terrorism seems pointless when so many better solutions are already around. Any power source that creates waste is useless & most sources will be obsolete once fusion is perfected. How much money will have to be spent to guard those barrels of nuclear waste when nuclear power plants are obsolete in 40 years. Especially since there are cheaper forms of electric production currently available.

 

[CapelDodger]

You could probably say the same thing about various renewable energy tech. In the end whatever is cheapest or is percieved to be cheapest is what we will get.

Perception, a crucial point. What policy will persuade the decision-makers of its maximum long-term efficiency, given who they are and how they perceive things?

It's probably moot, since decision-makers will continue to think in the short-term while events unfold around them. Nuclear power means much money spent now, pay-back starting ten years down the line. I don't see it selling - especially given that it doesn't address the gasoline problem. Co-ordinated investment in nuclear power and a hydrogen infrastructure with a ten-year pay-back? Fantasy.

Who's going to put money into nuclear power today or next year not knowing what the price of uranium is going to be in 10, 20, 30 years time? The French, probably, but that's not a free-market thing and they never take their eyes (or fingers) off Africa. The world is in a volatile state, not a good time to commit to long-term projects. Liquidity is the watch-word.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

however; this pales in all comparison to the power of the sun. Why only use solar light when you can have the whole sun? The fact is fusion technology is the true answer to the energy crisis. Many governments already recognize this including the US.

It doesn't exist yet. It's completely impossible at this time to do any sort of planning around fusion power.

Many of your complaints about current fission power have been addressed in this thread.

BTW we don't know which, if any, fusion reaction we might be able to make work. Some fusion reactions produce radioactive waste. Probably less, but who knows until we actually see it?

 

[Hindmost]

Well your idea is unpractical. You seem to think its environmentalists stopping nuclear power but the fact is its not.

That fact is nuclear power is pointless for a few reasons. No state wants nuclear waste deposited by the federal government onto their land. I lived in Las Vegas for 10 years and for 10 years, our Governor has fought the depositing of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain.

The public is scared of terrorism not accidental fallout. The fact is it is just to dangerous to take any chances and money runs Las Vegas. Transporting nuclear waste usually requires a cross-country trek allowing every city it passes through to be a terrorist target. No one wants a possible terrorist threat to pass through his or her city.

It is just too hard trying to find a place to put the waste when no one wants it and everyone is fighting it. Its to much trouble and the more waste you have the more trouble it becomes. Not just the plant but also the waste would need to be put under lock and key with armed guards at all times. Building a bunch of nuclear power plants would just be wasting money.

There are far better ways to conquer energy crisis and they are already about to happen. Tidal energy has the potential to produce a massive amount of energy...however; this pales in all comparison to the power of the sun. Why only use solar light when you can have the whole sun? The fact is fusion technology is the true answer to the energy crisis. Many governments already recognize this including the US.

http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/


http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=262

Nuclear energy is cheap, but a hassle to dispose because of political restraints. Wind & Hydro are much more cost effective in production costs. You can produce 2 hydro plants for the cost of 1 nuclear plant or 43 wind plants for the cost of 1 nuclear plant. Wind may not be reliable but with a 43 to 1 ratio, it would make it seem not to matter. Solar plants although slightly more costly produce no waste at all and combined with wind & hydro plants should provide a consistent source of energy until fusion becomes viable.

Solar power also has the potential to be made into a private industry. Businesses can form that place panels on your house using payment plans to drastically decrease the cost of your private power consumption. It can even be ordered by law that all new houses must have solar panels (in cities where its cost effective to have such panels) and the cost of the panels be added to the sale of the house.

There is also wave & tidal power that offers another great solution to renewable power. Consistent & predictable waves are made with gravitation from the moon and winds caused by climate.

Nuclear power that creates waste with each barrel needing 500 years of guarding to prevent terrorism seems pointless when so many better solutions are already around. Any power source that creates waste is useless & most sources will be obsolete once fusion is perfected. How much money will have to be spent to guard those barrels of nuclear waste when nuclear power plants are obsolete in 40 years. Especially since there are cheaper forms of electric production currently available.

Unpractical nuclear power provides 17% of the electrical energy in the USA. It provides much more in other countries. New plants have a design life of 60 years and older plants are upgrading to do the same.

Nuclear waste shipments have been occurring for the past 40 years in the US. The shipping casks are designed to take a fair amount of punishment. As terrorist target, they would be a poor choice since the shipments have military escorts. There are much easier targets.

Tidal power is not the panacea that you claim. The amount of quads available would not make much difference when compared with the energy the world uses. Most of the energy available from hydroelectric power has already been fully developed around world—and definitely so in the US--unless you want to dam up the Missisppi or the Grand Canyon. In addition, it isn’t always dependable…it can be subject to rain and snow fall changes.

The world has not done enough research on fusion power. The US should have continued to build upgraded tokamak designs after shutting down Princton. Nuclear fission is a good bridge between what we are doing now and if fusion power becomes reality.

If the US were energy independent, there would be less need to worry about terrorist attacks. Nuclear power can help, but a combination of many different forms of energy will be needed.

glenn

 

[Shadow]

As terrorist target, they would be a poor choice since the shipments have military escorts. There are much easier targets.

It does not matter how likely a terrorist target it is, the fact is its the public that is scared of terrorism.

The world has not done enough research on fusion power.

True, yet the estimate stands at 40 years.

If all goes well, commercial application should be possible by the middle of the 21st century, providing humankind a safe, clean, inexhaustible energy source for the future.

http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/whatisfusion.shtml

If the US were energy independent, there would be less need to worry about terrorist attacks. Nuclear power can help, but a combination of many different forms of energy will be needed.

glenn

The public is scared of terroism, not the intellectual. That is the point of terrorism to create unrational fear, terror. Calm the angry mob and maybe nuclear power will be a possible answer. Otherwise you face an uphill battle, while wind/hydro/solar does not face this obstacle and also has the support of the greeners.

It is politics, not logic, that runs the world. If logic ran the world we would not be in Iraq "helping" them build a new government...after we destroyed theirs.

 

[blutoski]

United Nuclear Corporation suffered the death of an employee in 1964 due to a criticality accident.

More to the point: private firms cannot get insurance to operate a nuclear reactor. They are all protected by government. The point being that private insurers have hired experts to review this many times, and consider nuclear reactors too risky to insure economically. These are not tree-huggers.

As a technophile, I would love to see cheap, safe, reactors spring up across the countryside, burying CO2 emitters once and for all. As a scientist responsible to weighing the evidence, however, I consider them too big a risk at this time, and important experts who are not invested in the industry seem to agree.

 

[geni]

More to the point: private firms cannot get insurance to operate a nuclear reactor. They are all protected by government. The point being that private insurers have hired experts to review this many times, and consider nuclear reactors too risky to insure economically. These are not tree-huggers.

The problem is that there are factors other than direct risk to consider. Insurance companies have to consider can they afford to pay out should the worst happen. Historically worst case has been things like two airlines colliding over a city or massive gas explosions. 9/11 was a bit of a shock but what with one thing or another it could be covered.

Worst case nuclear disaster (total meltdown with containment failure) is as much as 2 orders of magnitude worse. Lloyd's of London has pools of capital totalling around £32 billion. It is doubtful if even combined this would be enough to pay off against such an event.