283 replies to this topic

[Dingo]

Let me first say while I'm not a big fan of nucear power, given the alternatives I can see many of the arguments in favor of it and feel that in some cases it has been given a bad rap. It certainly beats fossil fuel, even that highly touted so called "bridge fuel" -  natural gas.

I guess one of my big problems is it involves a huge fairly risky investment in something which has one principle reason for being, that is to replace fossil fuel almost totally. Otherwise what's the point? Unfortunately no serious energy projection I've read suggests that is even close to happening, even in the longer term.

In order to get some clarity on the nuclear power business, I came across what appears to me the best nuclear power advocacy site around, Brave New Climate, headed up by nuclear specialist Barry Brook. And he's got some strong backup, both in articles and on their forum. They try and sell the case that if we make the commitment we can have a 4th gen. nuclear power set up, both large and small that deals with many of its present problems, to wit nuclear fuel can be recycled. This presumably takes care of the:

1. Waste problem.
2. Mining and most transportation problems.
3. Running out of Uranium problem.
4. Nuclear material proliferation problem as everything is kept in a tight loop.
5. The need for moderate carbon inputs as associated with the old cycle..

The vision is something close to a cornucopia that is self-supporting. It is even applicable to other challenges like water shortages by supplying the heat for desalination or the energy for supplying nonfossil fuel based synfuels. Even air cooled nuclear plants are suposedly being drawn up to deal with the hot water effluent problem. Unfortunately this is kind of late in the game and the lack of enthusiasm from the public tor obvious reasons and the cost of development and deployment would seem to make this supposed solution something of a dream. In Barry Brooks idea of achieving his objective of replacement of fossil fuel by nuclear it would take 800 billion to a trillion a year worldwide payed out for decades to seriously make a difference. Can anyone even conceive of such a commitment? I can't nor does the result seem even convincing.

I think Barry Brook and co. kind of know their solution is finally not in the cards but are so emotionally invested in it that they simply can't give it up. What do folks do often when faced with such a dilemma? They veer into religion. Consider the latest article from their site. You will need to scroll down to Geof Russell's piece 'In Praise of Waste'. Russell makes some good specific points but his general thesis seems insane. With nuclear you can have it all. Why waste your time with efficiencies and solar alternatives?

That is nuclear as God. That is religion.

[Besoeker]

I don't greatly disagree with any of that.
I do think the waste can be dealt with. Vitrification plus stainless steel encapsulation and burial in geologically stable strata would seem to me to do the job.
Mining and associated risks, given the relatively small quantities of material, seems to me to be rather less of a problem than fossils. Piper Alpha and Aberfan come to mind.
Running out of uranium could be a problem. But it is a faily ubiquitous element and might be extracted from other sources. The cost might escalate but, at present, the fuel source isn't a major cost element.
Proliferation is a fear. As far as I know, there have been no thefts of fissible materials from nuclear power stations. Doesn't mean that it can't or won't happen ever.The balance of probabilities suggests otherwise.

I'm not suggesting that nuclear is a complete solution by any means.
Just that we can't discount it in the short to medium term

[eds]

Listen to this video and if you agree, then that's the end of the discussion.
. . . If you disagree, prove it.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Excellent video Ed, thanks for posting that.
It's impossible to argue against the points made there; waste, water, storage, cost and building them quickly
enough to diminish climate change.
Dead in the water.

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 27 May 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

Excellent video Ed, thanks for posting that.
It's impossible to argue against the points made there; waste, water, storage, cost and building them quickly
enough to diminish climate change.
Dead in the water.

I haven't watched the video - new computer and I don't have the required flash update.

The waste problem, one of the often raised issues is, in my view, mostly a political issue. Nimbyism. And that doesn't win political votes. The techniques for vitrification already exist together with containment in stainless steel canisters. Bury them in geolocically stable (c1my) strata - job done. The depth doesn't even have to be all that great to attenuate the radiation to a safe level.even without the containment. But the belt braces, and suspenders approach is to be commended.

On building costs, a consortuim of private British businesses have offered to build and operate. They did so on the basis of a return on investment. I don't know how well they made out. The British government gave the green light for new nuclear build a couple of years ago. I haven't folled the story much since then but I think new contracts have been awarded to French companies. You may be aware that France gets over 70% of its electrical generation from nuclear and a substantial chunk of the rest from hydro. My understanding is that it was a strategic move to be independent in the energy sector and not have to rely on imports. Maybe some sagacity in that.

I do take your point about building them quickly enough. I doubt that the gestation period from initial submissions to getting on line will be less than a decade.

But, seriously, what other options do we have than can meet demand if we want to ditch fossils?

[eds]

Besoeker, on 28 May 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

I haven't watched the video - new computer and I don't have the required flash update.

You don't need "Flash"
. . . In your browser, type in
. . . Google  (that should bring up the Google browser)
. . . altenergyshift  (that should bring you back to this website)
. . . get back into this discussion in the forum and
. . . you should be able to view the video above.
. . . or any videos without "Flash."

[Besoeker]

eds, on 28 May 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

You don't need "Flash"
. . . In your browser, type in
. . . Google  (that should bring up the Google browser)
. . . altenergyshift  (that should bring you back to this website)
. . . get back into this discussion in the forum and
. . . you should be able to view the video above.
. . . or any videos without "Flash."

I'm already in this website.
Click on the link.
"You need a plugin to view this link"

[eds]

Besoeker, on 28 May 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

I'm already in this website.
Click on the link.
"You need a plugin to view this link"

What I'm trying to tell you is,
. . . you can view videos without "Flash,"
. . . if you use "Google."
My "Safari" browser, always tells me I need a "Flash" plug-in, when I try to view a video,
but when I use the "Google" browser, I can watch any video I want.

If you don't have "Google" browser, you can download it for FREE at this address.
https://support.goog...wer/95346?hl=en

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Water was/is one of major stumbling blocks. Building inland requires too much fresh; building on coastal area's can
be iffy because of earthquakes, tsunami's and rock slides.
He makes valid points in the video.

(And downloading from Adobe, a reliable site, will get you what you need for video's.)

[Phil]

I have a new PC also and just did a web search on the title which brought up a YouTube copy that played fine.

I agree with him as well, nuclear just isn't going to do the trick.  It looks like we are transitioning to wind and natural gas from coal.   Solar should really pick up as prices continue to decline.  

I've come to the same conclusion he has, distributed power.  I would go one step further and say distributed everything.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Phil, on 28 May 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

I have a new PC also and just did a web search on the title which brought up a YouTube copy that played fine.

I agree with him as well, nuclear just isn't going to do the trick.  It looks like we are transitioning to wind and natural gas from coal.   Solar should really pick up as prices continue to decline.  

I've come to the same conclusion he has, distributed power.  I would go one step further and say distributed everything.

GE seems to think investing in fracking is a viable option; they're investing billions.
See here-
http://www.altenergy..._300#entry25661

[Dingo]

The problem with just flat out writing off nuclear power is that you are not at the same time writing off fossil fuel power which is much worse. The Germans by phasing out nuclear power are inevitably phasing in more fossil fuel. Is that a good trade off? I don't think so. I don't get any indication that renewable energies are going to be major players world wide for a good while. If somebody wants to show me a serious energy projection otherwise I would like to see it. China which is buying up all the coal around also is the premier solar producer. This will give you an idea of where they are going energy wise up to 2050. It's fossil fuel up the whazoo. Particularly check the transportation sector starting on p. 63. One reason they aren't quite so ff overboard when it comes to powering electricity is they are planning to rely heavily on nukes in that sector.

Short of lowering population I don't think any energy source is going to save us but at least Brooks and co. in their minds have a researched plan which is beyond simply being against this or that approach. And remember, with recycling fuel and building air cooled nuclear plants a lot of the objections raised here are at least theoretically addressed.

However I don't buy their centralized energy big growth bias and once again their cost and timeline for ramp up just don't make the cut in a growth world. However I would support research to build 4th generation nuclear plants to.predetermined specifications so we can then at least have the option for a limited period of time of replacing some fossil fuel plants while we power down and ramp up alternatives.

I continue to see this canard that natural gas is a serious option. It isn't. When it comes to global warming it is as bad as coal.

[Phil]

The fact remains there is practically no support for nuclear and that is not likely to change for the foreseeable future.  By definition, that makes it a non starter.  Natural gas is better than coal by a wide margin so I expect coal to drop off considerably in the US.  

Both China and India are building coal plants like mad, if I recall they are responsible for something like 75% of all new plants.  There is nothing that will prevent them from spewing carbon for decades.  The only way around it is to make alternatives cheaper.  Environment or no, economics will always be king because putting food on the table tomorrow will always be more important than the environment decades from now.

Bottom line, CO2 will continue to increase for the next half century and there is nothing the US can do about it.  In the US, solar panels and solar incentives are available, BEV's and  car incentives are available, wind and wind incentives are available, if people don't take advantage of them they have no one to blame but themselves.

I do believe we will eventually get to Rifkin's view of local power, (panels on rooftops with hydrogen or other backups), but that will take decades to make an impact.  People want sacrifice as long as it's someone else feeling the pain.  If people who believe the sky is falling aren't willing to do what it takes, nobody else will either.  It's going to be a long slow process.

[Dingo]

Phil, on 28 May 2013 - 08:30 PM, said:

The fact remains there is practically no support for nuclear

In the case of China, India, South Korea, Russia, France, Sweden and Norway that would be incorrect.

Quote

Natural gas is better than coal by a wide margin...

As far as not having to deal with impurities like mercury  that would be correct but as far as global warming, well if you have some scientific study defending that thesis I'd like to see it.

Quote

Both China and India are building coal plants like mad, if I recall they are responsible for something like 75% of all new plants.  There is nothing that will prevent them from spewing carbon for decades.  The only way around it is to make alternatives cheaper.

Or make the heavily subsidized fossil fuel more expensive.

Quote

Environment or no, economics will always be king because putting food on the table tomorrow will always be more important than the environment decades from now.

Economics as compared to what? Noneconomics? Where is that? As far as I know the environment is the mother of economics.

Quote

Bottom line, CO2 will continue to increase for the next half century and there is nothing the US can do about it.

In which case there is no reason for this site. It's game over.

Quote

I do believe we will eventually get to Rifkin's view of local power, (panels on rooftops with hydrogen or other backups),

The elements that go into making a solar panel would seem to require a fairly complex centralized industrial system.

[Besoeker]

eds, on 28 May 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

What I'm trying to tell you is,
. . . you can view videos without "Flash,"
. . . if you use "Google."
My "Safari" browser, always tells me I need a "Flash" plug-in, when I try to view a video,
but when I use the "Google" browser, I can watch any video I want.

If you don't have "Google" browser, you can download it for FREE at this address.
https://support.goog...wer/95346?hl=en

I do have google.
I googled altenergyshift as you suggested and I still get the same message.

[Eclipse]

Besoeker, on 27 May 2013 - 02:15 AM, said:

I do think the waste can be dealt with. Vitrification plus stainless steel encapsulation and burial in geologically stable strata would seem to me to do the job.

I hope you're not talking about today's nuclear waste? It's not a problem, but the SOLUTION! Today's nuclear waste could run the world for 500 years! Maybe you're talking about after the waste has been 'bred' and 'bred' and 'bred', up through the higher grades of actinides, until we get to the final waste product (about 10% of the original uranium mass?) In that case, yes, we can store it for 300 years and then it has burnt itself back to safe levels.

Quote

Running out of uranium could be a problem.

3: FOREVER FUEL
Tomorrows reactor's will eat nuclear waste! Generation IV nukes are based on known physics from over 300 Reactor Years running Breeder Reactors.
http://en.wikipedia....Breeder_reactor
We have demonstrated the physics in reactors like the EBR 2. We know the physics and the engineering. We've already done this!
http://en.wikipedia....eder_Reactor_II
(The EBR2 was one of the world's first Integral Fast Reactors, see below).

GenIV reactors are slowly being commercialised. The only delays are in commercialising some cheaper systems and materials.
http://en.wikipedia....tion_IV_reactor

General Electric's S-PRISM is being designed small and modular so that components can be put on a production line. This will become an assembly line, mass produced nuclear reactor! The components are then be trucked to site for fast assembly. Putting nukes on the production line will raise safety standards and sink costs!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-PRISM

The S-PRISM is just one example of a whole category of GenIV reactors called the Integral Fast Reactor
http://en.wikipedia....al_Fast_Reactor

Integral Fast Reactor's convert today's nuclear 'waste' into fuel. Instead of being a problem, nuclear waste is THE solution! Some countries already have enough 'waste' (unused fuel) to run them for 500 years!

Nuclear power AND renewables can do the job. If we let nukes just have the majority of the base load share (say 60% or 70% of the daily requirements of energy on the grid) then renewables can probably handle the rest. Anything higher puts stress on the grid.

Gen4 nukes are the forever machine!
A/ We can extract uranium from seawater at $300 a kilogram.
B/ This is about the size of a golf ball and could power your entire life, cradle to grave, on just $300 fuel! (Nukes themselves are the expensive bit, the fuel is dirt cheap).
C/ As mountains rise and continents move the weather grinds uranium dust back down into the ocean faster than we could use it. This is how Gen4 nukes could run the world for a few hundred million years on the uranium in sea-water.

Quote

Proliferation is a fear. As far as I know, there have been no thefts of fissible materials from nuclear power stations. Doesn't mean that it can't or won't happen ever.The balance of probabilities suggests otherwise.

1. The reactors can be set up to produce a different kind of purity of plutonium: the stuff that can 'burn' but not go 'boom'. That is, it can fission, but not for a bomb.

2. THE MAJOR GLOBAL POLLUTERS already have nuclear bombs. USA, China, European countries, India... that cat is already out of the bag. Really, there isn't much link between nuclear power and nuclear bombs. There are cheaper ways to build nuclear bombs than  try to 'sneak' material out through the whole Integral Fast Reactor routine!

[Eclipse]

Phil, on 28 May 2013 - 08:30 PM, said:

The fact remains there is practically no support for nuclear and that is not likely to change for the foreseeable future.

There was never much support for the abolition of slavery, for women voting, or for the the civil rights movement.

And, last time I looked, there wasn't much suport for a wholesale reversion to the middle ages. That is what life would look like if we turned off the coal AND nukes and tried to do it 100% on renewables. It can't be done. Yet. With today's technology at any price society can afford to pay.
As you said, "By definition, that makes it a non starter." Renewables can't do their job. But if you LOVE renewables, you'll put up with nukes. Because I can imagine a world with maybe 40% renewables feeding into a baseload reliable nuke grid making up about 60% of our baseload energy supply? (And that's generous on the renewables, or as many call them, the 'unreliables'. I WISH I WAS WRONG as I LOVE solar power, but it just can't replace baseload coal when one REALLY counts winter and rain and hail and this mysterious thing called nighttime! Energy storage systems like hydro etc would break the bank trying to REALLY store for all teh outages).

[still learning]

eds, on 27 May 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

Listen to this video and if you agree, then that's the end of the discussion.
. . . If you disagree, prove it.

Rifkin made a couple of statements in the video that I don't understand.  Maybe somebody could clarify.

One was something like "our scientists tell us to have the minimum impact on climate change nuclear would have to be 20% of the energy mix, not 6%."
Would Rifkin accept that same kind of argument for solar electricity or windmill electricity?  Is 6% non-fossil energy unimportant?

Another statement that I don't understand is one having to do with cooling water, having to do with reactor cooling water returned to a river or lake, now warmed but not used up, went something like "when it comes back it's dehydrating our agricultural and ecosystems...."
Dehydrating agriculture or ecosystems? Sounds odd, even fanciful.  I'm pretty sure that regulatory bodies limit the amount of temperature increase to the river or lake being used as a sink for discharged coolant water.  Supposedly, in France anyway, some reactors are required to cut back operations in times of low river flow to prevent overheating the river ecosystem.  Dehydrating agriculture though?

[Shortpoet-GTD]

A question for the nuclear supporters on this forum; who's going to build them? Nuclear plants are very expensive
and many countries are strapped for cash right now.

Renewables may not be the silver bullet for years to come, but the cost of nuclear puts it off the table.

(Think of it as a Mercedes Benz. We may want one, but drive a Toyota or a Ford because of cost)

The technology for clean coal is possible but there are still all the side effects.
http://www.altenergy...damage-you-bet/

[eds]

Some answers to your energy questions are on this video.
. . .