Politics and Global Warming

[DC]

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.

you claimed

The technology to produce every watt of energy we could ever want with zero carbon emissions was invented 70 years ago.

but your technology is not able to produce any energy without CO2 emisions. just because the reaction itself does not create CO2 doesn't mean you can produce energy without CO2 emissions. in order to even start producing energy you need alot of CO2 released do to construction, mining, making rods etc etc. so your claim that the technology can produce energy with 0 CO2 emissions is clearly wrong. and you know that. Mining, reprocessing etc etc are part of the system, you cannot just exclude them.

btw i am still waiting for your evidence that solar has a 10 times higher CO2 footprint and Wind a double CO2 footprint. you still failed to present anything to support your claim.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

For anything more that modest growth (say 200% - 300%) you would need an all fast reactor fuel cycle + thorium,

Look, you don't understand what a breeder reactor does or how it works.

All reactors have a "breeding ratio". It's the number of fissile atoms created per fission reaction. Mainline reactors in service today have an average breeding ratio of 0.6. That means 0.6 atoms of fertile atoms converted to fissile atoms per fission reaction. At a breeding ratio of 1.0, the reaction becomes truly self-sustaining and all fertile material inserted into the reactor will become fissile and be burned up if left inside the reactor long enough. At breeding ratios higher than 1.0, the reactor literally creates more fissile material than is needed to sustain the reaction.

At a breeding ratio of say 1.5 (FBRs have a theoretical upper limit of 1.8), three atoms of fissile material will be created for every two atoms that are fissioned. You can remove every third atom of fissile material created and use it somewhere else. This is why Dr. Meneleys proposal specifically calls for a mere handful of FBRs supporting a wider networks of more conventional HPWRs. An all fast reactor cycle simply is not physically needed, and it makes no economic sense if conventional reactors are cheaper to build than FBRs of equivalent power rating.

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,

A blatant lie, given the established science in the field.

Nuclear fission is the only existing technology that can replace fossil fuels.

 

[Trakar]

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.

Actually 500 US reactors should replace coal or at the least, do so in conjunction with alternative sources, I wouldn't want to make the immediate goal of nuclear power expansion to be the replacement of coal. Additionally, the goal isn't to provide 100% of US power by nuclear means. Rather we would seek to first establish a baseload nuclear backbone of power, removing coal power from the inventory as a coincident (not dependent) step, and replacing oil fired generators with natural gas systems. Hydro, wind, geotherm and solar would all have roles where they are most applicable.

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.

Those may be the parameters of your talking points but they are not what I am seeing being discussed and not what I am addressing. The replacement of fossil fuels is a largely seperate issue, one way or another the ceasation of their use to provide commercial electrical power is a given. We either begin building systems that can replace them now, and in numbers sufficient to begin an orderly phase-out or we let the next society that grows from the ashes of ours build them from the technologies we leave behind.

Notional fictions and fantasies are thinking that we can transition away from fossil fuels without nuclear power playing a major role in replacing the current sources and to a large extent carrying us while we learn better ways to do what we do. I would rather have wind-turbine and solar panel construction being powered by nuclear generators than by coal-fired (or even gas-fired) power plants, but people aren't going to allow coal plants to be pulled down until you can, swap out the the GW they generate with something.

 

[Trakar]

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.

A big step might be mandating that resource recovery equipment, refining mills, and production facilities for these types of (alternative energy infrastructure production) operations be carbon neutral. It pushes the technology and establishes a market for this type of equipment. Phase it in over a couple of decades, along with long-haul low/zero emission transport technology (electric rail, electric/hybrid trucking, electric/hybrid shipping, etc.,). Placing a portable Small Modular Reactor powerplant at each mine, and industrial park where resources are recovered and processed should minimize the carbon footprint of those operations. I'm not saying this is the only way to reduce the carbon footprint of these systems but it is certainly one method that would.

 

[Trakar]

...btw i am still waiting for your evidence that solar has a 10 times higher CO2 footprint and Wind a double CO2 footprint. you still failed to present anything to support your claim.

I don't know about claims SoT is making, I believe that Beerton (2009)¹ establishes the flaws apparent in the Sovacool (2008)² assessment. I feel that a more balanced assessment of the nuclear power footprint is in the 8-20g/KiloWatt hour which would put it substantially better than rooftop Solar PV (~32), and generally on par with most other renewable alternatives and most closely similar to hydro systems. But again the issue is that the vast majority of these carbon footprint issues arise from having to use carbon-fuelled support technologies in the recovery, manufacture and production of the technology that will actually generate the electricity. If we mandate and phase-in the requirement that low/no-carbon support technologies be used in the recovery, refinement, manufacture and delivery of all energy related systems (and this could be done even before we begin phasing out carbon fuels), we eliminate the issue of footprint vs. emission.

1) "Greenhouse gas emissions in the nuclear life cycle: A balanced appraisal" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421509005102
(sorry, paywalled)

abstract statement- "...In this paper, the GHG emissions resulting from the overall nuclear fuel cycle are analyzed by making a detailed comparison of the results from three different life-cycle assessments. Hereby, the studies are chosen in order to reflect the range of results available in open literature. The studies under consideration result in indirect emissions of around 8 and 58 g CO2/kWhe and more than 110 g CO2/kWhe.

An explanation is given for these strongly varying results by analyzing the input data, assumptions and estimations made for different process steps."


2) "Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclearpower: A critical survey" - (again, apologies for the paywall) - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421508001997

Abstract - "This article screens 103 lifecycle studies of greenhouse gas-equivalent emissions for nuclearpower plants to identify a subset of the most current, original, and transparent studies.

It begins by briefly detailing the separate components of the nuclear fuel cycle before explaining the methodology of the survey and exploring the variance of lifecycle estimates. It calculates that while the range of emissions for nuclear energy over the lifetime of a plant, reported from qualified studies examined, is from 1.4 g of carbondioxide equivalent per kWh (g CO2e/kWh) to 288 g CO2e/kWh, the mean value is 66 g CO2e/kWh. The article then explains some of the factors responsible for the disparity in lifecycle estimates, in particular identifying errors in both the lowest estimates (not comprehensive) and the highest estimates (failure to consider co-products). It should be noted that nuclearpower is not directly emitting greenhouse gas emissions, but rather that lifecycle emissions occur through plant construction, operation, uranium mining and milling, and plant decommissioning."

 

[DC]

I don't know about claims SoT is making, I believe that Beerton (2009)¹ establishes the flaws apparent in the Sovacool (2008)² assessment. I feel that a more balanced assessment of the nuclear power footprint is in the 8-20g/KiloWatt hour which would put it substantially better than rooftop Solar PV (~32), and generally on par with most other renewable alternatives and most closely similar to hydro systems. But again the issue is that the vast majority of these carbon footprint issues arise from having to use carbon-fuelled support technologies in the recovery, manufacture and production of the technology that will actually generate the electricity. If we mandate and phase-in the requirement that low/no-carbon support technologies be used in the recovery, refinement, manufacture and delivery of all energy related systems (and this could be done even before we begin phasing out carbon fuels), we eliminate the issue of footprint vs. emission.

1) "Greenhouse gas emissions in the nuclear life cycle: A balanced appraisal" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421509005102
(sorry, paywalled)

abstract statement- "...In this paper, the GHG emissions resulting from the overall nuclear fuel cycle are analyzed by making a detailed comparison of the results from three different life-cycle assessments. Hereby, the studies are chosen in order to reflect the range of results available in open literature. The studies under consideration result in indirect emissions of around 8 and 58 g CO2/kWhe and more than 110 g CO2/kWhe.

An explanation is given for these strongly varying results by analyzing the input data, assumptions and estimations made for different process steps."


2) "Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclearpower: A critical survey" - (again, apologies for the paywall) - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421508001997

Abstract - "This article screens 103 lifecycle studies of greenhouse gas-equivalent emissions for nuclearpower plants to identify a subset of the most current, original, and transparent studies.

It begins by briefly detailing the separate components of the nuclear fuel cycle before explaining the methodology of the survey and exploring the variance of lifecycle estimates. It calculates that while the range of emissions for nuclear energy over the lifetime of a plant, reported from qualified studies examined, is from 1.4 g of carbondioxide equivalent per kWh (g CO2e/kWh) to 288 g CO2e/kWh, the mean value is 66 g CO2e/kWh. The article then explains some of the factors responsible for the disparity in lifecycle estimates, in particular identifying errors in both the lowest estimates (not comprehensive) and the highest estimates (failure to consider co-products). It should be noted that nuclearpower is not directly emitting greenhouse gas emissions, but rather that lifecycle emissions occur through plant construction, operation, uranium mining and milling, and plant decommissioning."

thanks, no problem with the study you brought up, but it does not support SoT's claim of 10 times more CO2 from Solar. which is what i asked him to backup with evidence.

here a link to a free version of the study

http://www.esat.kuleuven.be/electa/publications/fulltexts/pub_1906.pdf

 

[lomiller]

Those may be the parameters of your talking points but they are not what I am seeing being discussed and not what I am addressing.

For me at least, it;s not about talking points. SoT made demonstrably false claims about nuclear power and I'm debunking that claim.

This is the only thing I have been discussing, if you wish to discuss something else, than you are addressing your posts at the wrong person. I suspect this m,ay be the case since you have already taken a stance that contradicts his claimed and are in rough agreement with what I have described as more practical outlook for nuclear power

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

SoT made demonstrably false claims about nuclear power and I'm debunking that claim.

Since energy sources derived from the sun are called “renewable,”
that adjective apparently means that they will be available in
undiminished quantity at present costs for as long as the current
relationship between the sun and Earth persists, about 5 billion
years... breeder reactors using nuclear fission fulfill this definition
of a renewable energy source, and in fact can supply all the world’s
energy needs at present costs for that time period.
- Dr. Bernard Cohen, University of Pittsburgh Dept. of Physics

The alternatives to fossil fuels are very, very few that could promise the magnitude of energy required to meet our nation’s need. It is not as though plentiful alternatives exist, and one can be weighed against another …

The blunt fact is that there are the fossil fuels and there is nuclear.

Failure to recognize this, while focusing on options that do not and cannot have the magnitudes [of supply] required, will inevitably lead to increasingly dangerous energy shortages. Who then will answer? Will the environmental activist, who blocks real options, and then puts forth options that cannot meet the need?
- Dr. Charles Till, Associate Director, Argonne National Laboratory

Can nuclear power sustain humanity in the long term? Current power reactors fission a fraction of the uranium-235 and some of the plutonium-239 (produced from the uranium-238), releasing less than 1% of the energy available from uranium. The rate of uranium consumption in present-day reactors suggests that the estimated conventional reserves are only adequate for several hundred years. However, breeder reactors could be built that would enable more than 90% of the potential energy in uranium to be released by converting uranium-238 into plutonium-239. This would extend the fuel supply to tens of thousands of years. The availability of breeder reactors would allow an additional source of fission energy to be exploited, namely the conversion of thorium-232 into uranium-233, which fissions readily. Because thorium is three times more abundant than uranium, its use would extend the fuel supply to many tens of thousands of years.
- Dr. Jerry Cuttler, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

 

[Chaos]

Since energy sources derived from the sun are called “renewable,”
that adjective apparently means that they will be available in
undiminished quantity at present costs for as long as the current
relationship between the sun and Earth persists, about 5 billion
years... breeder reactors using nuclear fission fulfill this definition
of a renewable energy source, and in fact can supply all the world’s
energy needs at present costs for that time period.
- Dr. Bernard Cohen, University of Pittsburgh Dept. of Physics

The alternatives to fossil fuels are very, very few that could promise the magnitude of energy required to meet our nation’s need. It is not as though plentiful alternatives exist, and one can be weighed against another …

The blunt fact is that there are the fossil fuels and there is nuclear.

Failure to recognize this, while focusing on options that do not and cannot have the magnitudes [of supply] required, will inevitably lead to increasingly dangerous energy shortages. Who then will answer? Will the environmental activist, who blocks real options, and then puts forth options that cannot meet the need?
- Dr. Charles Till, Associate Director, Argonne National Laboratory

Can nuclear power sustain humanity in the long term? Current power reactors fission a fraction of the uranium-235 and some of the plutonium-239 (produced from the uranium-238), releasing less than 1% of the energy available from uranium. The rate of uranium consumption in present-day reactors suggests that the estimated conventional reserves are only adequate for several hundred years. However, breeder reactors could be built that would enable more than 90% of the potential energy in uranium to be released by converting uranium-238 into plutonium-239. This would extend the fuel supply to tens of thousands of years. The availability of breeder reactors would allow an additional source of fission energy to be exploited, namely the conversion of thorium-232 into uranium-233, which fissions readily. Because thorium is three times more abundant than uranium, its use would extend the fuel supply to many tens of thousands of years.
- Dr. Jerry Cuttler, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

So the correct statement by lomiller would have been "SoT parrots other peoples´ unsupported claims about nuclear power and I´m debunking them"?

 

[Trakar]

thanks, no problem with the study you brought up, but it does not support SoT's claim of 10 times more CO2 from Solar. which is what i asked him to backup with evidence.

here a link to a free version of the study

http://www.esat.kuleuven.be/electa/publications/fulltexts/pub_1906.pdf

Thanks, I hate not being able to share full arcticles, it doesn't feel as much like "support" when all you can do is point to public abstracts.

Just to be clear, I'm not defending SoT's claims or assertions, I'll allow him to do that where it is required. I am more interested in accurate, or at the least proximal and reasonable, estimates rather than rhetorical WAGs. I'm neither doubting, nor claiming, that there are problems with SoT's statements, merely that in this thread, so far, his errors seem more in degree than in kind (eg "exaggerations rather than outright mistakes").

What concerns me more is that there seems to apparently be some rather vigorous anti-nuclear expressions coming from individuals that I generally consider knowledgeable, reasonable and rational with regards to science and energy. Certainly, everyone is entitled to their druthers and it could well merely be my mistaken impressions of tones and arguments that are obviously carrying over from other threads. Seems more like a mud-fling than any attempt to put forward reasoned positions and supported arguments.

I'm simply trying to interject my support for, and understandings of, a rational and reasonable expansion of nuclear power in the US over the next century or two.

 

[Trakar]

For me at least, it;s not about talking points. SoT made demonstrably false claims about nuclear power and I'm debunking that claim.

This is the only thing I have been discussing, if you wish to discuss something else, than you are addressing your posts at the wrong person. I suspect this m,ay be the case since you have already taken a stance that contradicts his claimed and are in rough agreement with what I have described as more practical outlook for nuclear power

It seemed otherwise, to me. It seemed that you were making some rather broad and generally negative assessments with regards to nuclear power and its potential, rather than merely challenging SoT's actual statements and supports in this thread. If I am mistaken, I apologize for any inappropriate qualifications of your remarks I may have made.

 

[Trakar]

Since energy sources derived from the sun are called “renewable,”
that adjective apparently means that they will be available in
undiminished quantity at present costs for as long as the current
relationship between the sun and Earth persists, about 5 billion
years... breeder reactors using nuclear fission fulfill this definition
of a renewable energy source, and in fact can supply all the world’s
energy needs at present costs for that time period.
- Dr. Bernard Cohen, University of Pittsburgh Dept. of Physics

Rhetoric sans science or supporting reference.

The alternatives to fossil fuels are very, very few that could promise the magnitude of energy required to meet our nation’s need. It is not as though plentiful alternatives exist, and one can be weighed against another …

The blunt fact is that there are the fossil fuels and there is nuclear.

Failure to recognize this, while focusing on options that do not and cannot have the magnitudes [of supply] required, will inevitably lead to increasingly dangerous energy shortages. Who then will answer? Will the environmental activist, who blocks real options, and then puts forth options that cannot meet the need?
- Dr. Charles Till, Associate Director, Argonne National Laboratory

Again, opinionated rhetoric rather than verifiable data or compelling and sourced reference.

Can nuclear power sustain humanity in the long term? Current power reactors fission a fraction of the uranium-235 and some of the plutonium-239 (produced from the uranium-238), releasing less than 1% of the energy available from uranium. The rate of uranium consumption in present-day reactors suggests that the estimated conventional reserves are only adequate for several hundred years. However, breeder reactors could be built that would enable more than 90% of the potential energy in uranium to be released by converting uranium-238 into plutonium-239. This would extend the fuel supply to tens of thousands of years. The availability of breeder reactors would allow an additional source of fission energy to be exploited, namely the conversion of thorium-232 into uranium-233, which fissions readily. Because thorium is three times more abundant than uranium, its use would extend the fuel supply to many tens of thousands of years.
- Dr. Jerry Cuttler, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

much better! at least this touches on real science that can be verified (or not) and further discussed. I suspect some casual-speak exaggerations on the part of Dr Cuttler, but so long as nuclear power can play a major role for the next 2-300 years, I'm largely unconcerned about whether or not there are enough reserves to meet our energy needs over the next millenia (or ten).

 

[lomiller]

So the correct statement by lomiller would have been "SoT parrots other peoples´ unsupported claims about nuclear power and I´m debunking them"?

Still not really accurate because none of these people are actually supporting SoT’s claims. He’s pushing the idea that all the world’s energy needs can be met with nuclear power, essentially indefinitely. I think everyone agrees there is room to expand nuclear power, but what he’s proposing is FAR beyond any reasonable expectation for nuclear power in this century.


Even when he is citing people, none of them are talking about near term technology and none of them are talking about the massive expansion of knuckler power required to replace other sources of energy. (Total global energy consumption is ~135 000TWh and growing while nuclear currently provides ~2500 TWh)

Being pro nuclear is one thing but if you are not going to be realistic it’s counterproductive. SoT is probably much better off just being quite and letting the more reasonable and realistic proponents of nuclear advance the case. He also probably needs to move out of the climate change topics where in fact there are very few people who are not supportive or at least open to an expanded role for nuclear power.

 

[lomiller]

It seemed otherwise, to me. It seemed that you were making some rather broad and generally negative assessments with regards to nuclear power and its potential, rather than merely challenging SoT's actual statements and supports in this thread. If I am mistaken, I apologize for any inappropriate qualifications of your remarks I may have made.

I’m not opposed to nuclear power in principle, in fact I was a strong advocate of it for a long time. I’m not as convinced about the economics at the moment, but it’s still much cheaper that fossil fuels if CO2 emissions were priced in properly which means it should still play a big role in any energy plan

In terms of where to drive energy policy, however, I think a significant HVDC backbone is really the way to go. It’s obviously critical for renewable, like wind/solar which need a large geographic area to even out production levels, but this also benefits nuclear as it removes a lot of the NIMBY opposition. In the bigger picture it removes the risk of government picking winners and losers and makes it much easier for each of energy options to find its own niche by changing the patchwork of local electricity markets into a continent wide electricity market.