The hunt for fuel:
With minimal public notice and no formal environmental review, the Forest Service has approved a permit allowing a British mining company to explore for uranium just outside Grand Canyon National Park, less than three miles from a popular lookout over the canyon's southern rim.
If the exploration finds rich uranium deposits, it could lead to the first mines near the canyon since the price of uranium ore plummeted nearly two decades ago. A sharp increase in uranium prices over the past three years has led individuals to stake thousands of mining claims in the Southwest, including more than 1,000 in the Kaibab National Forest, near the Grand Canyon.
To drill exploratory wells on the claims in the Kaibab forest requires Forest Service approval. Vane Minerals, the British company, received such approval for seven sites in December.
Just the begining:
On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors in Coconino County, Ariz., voted unanimously to try to block any potential uranium mines. ...
Knowledge of the cancers suffered by former uranium workers and their families on a nearby Navajo reservation, worries about uranium-laden trucks and trains on roads and concern about contamination of the aquifers and streams in arid northern Arizona were also factors in the vote, Ms. Hill said. ...
Bill Hedden, the executive director of the Grand Canyon Trust, said the approvals were the first indications that a new generation of uranium mines might spring up on the Colorado Plateau near the canyon, an area peppered with uranium-rich geological formations called breccia pipes.
Two senators push to ramp up nuclear energy
Nuclear companies face reactor design problems, ethics questions
Will South Carolina become the nation’s new Yucca Mountain?
Comments
View as Flat
GRLCowan Posted 7:38 am
07 Feb 2008
The recent price history of uranium can be seen in the graph at the top left corner here.
How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?
Permalink
David Sassoon Posted 8:28 am
07 Feb 2008
see http://www.solveclimate.com/blog/20080104/not-enough-uran ...
David Sassoon, http://www.solveclimate.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:31 am
08 Feb 2008
How will McCain respond to uranium mining in his home state? Like Cheney does to thousands of new gas wells destroying the groundwater in Wyoming? No doubt.
I can hear the nukers already crying out, breeder reactors are the answer. Let them try and build one and prove out the concept before anymore new nukes are built.
Without fuel at an affordable cost, out into the future, there is no way nuclear power can compete with fuel less renewable wind, solar, wave, and water power through a smart grid.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 5:26 am
08 Feb 2008
Charles Barton
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 6:20 am
08 Feb 2008
How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?
Permalink
ThomC Posted 7:27 am
08 Feb 2008
-Cost of the french Superphénix ~ $12-13Bn, shut down in 1998.
-Russian 600 MW demo "Beloyarsk" currently operating but never as a breeder.
-Realisation of commercial operation for breeders ~ 3 decades (Pro-Nuclear MIT).
-Reclamation of spent fuel requires large scale chemical reprocessing, yet another hazardous link in the fuel chain.
All in all the notion of investing huge sums of money into a technology that has unpredictable outcomes sounds awfully familiar to the current drive to commercialise CCS.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:41 pm
08 Feb 2008
I'm no fanatic, I want to give you guys a chance at building some nuclear power reactors that really work and take care of the built up waste.
Just prove them first, before 100s of new reactors of the old line are built. Leaking, waste producing, water using/drought intolerant, hugely expensive (8 bucks per watt?, who knows?), cost over run, time over run, under inspected, terror and theft vulnerable, hulking mass of concrete and steel that will need to be dismantled and disposed of with robots.
The dangerous remains to be guarded from earthquake and terror for 10,000 years.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 1:23 am
09 Feb 2008
You greatly exaggerate the problem of drought. Last year even after an exceptional drought, the capacity factor of US reactors reached an all time high. Modifications to reactor cooling structures can handle water shortages caused by droughts.
Threats from terrorists and theft are greatly exaggerated. Reactors have multiple layers of defenses against terrorist attacks, and those defenses are classified for obvious reasons. You argument about theft is ludicrous. What is about to be stolen. Is the thief going to stick highly radioactive materials in his pocket, and walk past radiation detectors?
The capacity factor for renewables last year ran about 20%. In contrast the capacity factor for nuclear power plants was 92%. American nuclear power plants have never killed anybody, and the emit far less radiation than coal fired power plants. Minor leaks for nuclear power plants are insignificant. And they have never killed anyone. There is no such thing as nuclear waste. What you are referring to is reactor modified fuel, most of which can be reused in nuclear plants. Fission byproducts include many rare and valuable metals and minerals that can be extracted and sold. Nuclear plants can set aside a tiny percentage of their revenue stream for dismantling, however plans are currently under development to extend the Life of American nuclear plants to at least 80 years. I have never liked liquid metal fast breeders, but other much more reliable breeding concepts were developed long ago. Political decision makers prefer the theoretical high breeding output of the LMFB, but ignore its problems.
You highball guess the cost of reactor construction, a typical move by green fanatics. China recently signed a contract to buy 4 reactors from Westinghouse for 5.3 billion dollars. The combined output of those 4 reactors was 5 GWs, making the price $1.075 billion per GW.
Charles Barton
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:16 am
09 Feb 2008
The last plant completed here in the US cost 6 billion for 6 billion watts. 6 bucks per watt. back in the 80s?
Inflation of construction costs and materials alone since then would put it up around 12 bucks per watt.
Even with much lower costs in China it's likely to come in around 8 bucks per watt. For the turn key, completed plant.
Wind in the US is now competitive with coal. Too late to go back to those old watery nukes China bought now. They are way too expensive, much touted capacity factor included. a renewable smart grid will have the capacity factor to keep the power on. And be storm resistant.
Each portion, home or business, local loop, regional grid, national grid will be self supporting. You will have emergency power even after an ice storm or a tornado. Stores will open to feed survivors. Beat that overall capacity factor with any central power plant old grid design.
It can't be done, any storm that shorts out power lines will defeat the whole grid. Storm crews rush out, but by the time it is restored pipes are frozen, people are evacuated, food is spoiled. The potential lost business and work time alone amount to costs that dwarf the buildout cost of a renewable smart grid.
Better, safer, water-less, secure from terror, theft, and natural disaster, proliferation free, waste recycling nukes that beat the price of wind and the falling price of solar, are necessary to keep nuclear power going.
That's what I favor. Test reactors that will try to do that. Until those are proven, any plans to build the old leaky models Exelon operates ought to be scrapped.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:12 am
09 Feb 2008
What we're far more worried about is an Iran/NorthKorea scenario.
Where the government is complicit in it.
You can't "Proliferate" nuclear on a scale wide enough to deal with global warming without dramatically increasing Nuclear Proliferation.
_
And as DrX mentioned.
Thats probably just the hardware cost.
Operating in a country which really doesn't care about pollution or security is obviously much cheaper.
(As is the case with Coal in China as well)
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 2:59 am
10 Feb 2008
As for cost, Watts Bar I took 23 years to build. Interest on invested capital greatly added to cost. China just bought 4 reactors from Westinghouse. The agreed on price was 5.3 billion, that is about $1.08 billion per GW. The new Westinghouse reactor design is far simpler, uses fewer materials, and only takes 3 years to build, compared to the 23 years it took to build the Watta Bar reactor. If you include the capasity factor in calculating cost, you will find that nuclear power is far cheaper than wind and solar. Long Island Power stopped building their 140 MW offshore wind project when the cost reached $800 Million. The rated output of the facility was 140 MW, but when they figured in the capacity factor, that came to a cost of $800 million for an average production of 28 MWs, or a $28.50 investment for every watt of deliverable power.
Not only that but the new Westinghouse reactor is far safer. But you guys are not interested in nuclear safety. If you found our how safe reactors really are you wqhould have to stop telling lies about how dangerous they are.
Charles Barton
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:15 am
10 Feb 2008
Leaks and accidents and contaminated groundwater, rising fuel costs and incalculably expensive waste disposal, decommisioning and entombment, and 10,000 years of contractor storage/security fees do.
Banks do not want to back nuclear power as it exists today. People do not want to risk the value of their property and life savings tied up in their home and/or business based on nuclear power risk assesment statistics.
Statistics gathered and parsed by nuclear industry friendly scientific consultants working for nuclear industry subcontractor environmental service companies. Watched over by revolving door government/industry non-regulating agencies.
Pretty risky trusting risk experts.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:21 am
10 Feb 2008
Which provides absolutely no reason for other nations to not follow the lead of Iran/NorthKorea.
Not only that but the new Westinghouse reactor is far safer. But you guys are not interested in nuclear safety. If you found our how safe reactors really are you wqhould have to stop telling lies about how dangerous they are.
I'm sure they are safe.
But what I'm far more concerned about is a North Korea / Iran scenario, where the operators are complicit in it.
India for instance, seems very keen on clandestine operations.
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/060302.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/23/international/asia/23pr ...
If you include the capasity factor in calculating cost, you will find that nuclear power is far cheaper than wind and solar.
Well first off, that argument doesn't hold much water against Geothermal, which has a capacity factor equal or better than nuclear. As well as a reduce capital cost, ROI, and build speed.
_
Second, lets imagine that we need 3x the capacity for wind and solarthermal.
Which of course are competiting at a nameplate capacity level with Coal at around $2000/KW.
$2000 x 3 = ~$6000
Now if we follow up with Moody's investor report, that pegs it just about equal with the "full in" cost of doing Nuclear.
Without all the nasty side effects. (externalities)
_
Which of course leaves out R&D advances, economies of scale, and demandside efficiencies.
An advantage over the nuclear industry
Nuclear of course being an age old technology.
Which couldn't do it's own R&D even if it wanted to.
http://greyfalcon.net/energyresearch.png
http://www.inl.gov/featurestories/docs/inl_07-13543_08.pd ...
Since frankly given the huge increments you create nuclear power plants in, and the massive build schedules. It leaves very little room for a robust iterative process.
Especially when the gameplan seems to be to cookie cutter hundreds of the exact same plants.
_
Additionally, Nuclear doesn't bode so well with demand reduction efficiencies. Since the power plant has to run 24/7 for decades to begin to pay itself off.
As of yet, the average American uses 2x as much electricity than the average California.
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 8:47 am
10 Feb 2008
Geothermal reportedly has a good capacity factor, However, geothermal technology is currently limited to places like california, and the Yellowstone basin. I certainly would be in favor of using geothermal power where it is technologically possible to do so. But the current status of geothermal technology would exclude most of the country.
At present not only do no matter how many times rated solar and wind capacity you install, you do not eliminate the need for fossil fuel backup. Thus wind and solar can never eliminate CO2 emissions, and require the the continued use of expensive and polluting back up plants. Wind power is especially impotent on hot summer days, when electricity demand is at its peak.
Solar power drops to nothing as soon as the sun goes down and no technology has been shown to provide cost effective night time power backup for solar power.
R&D advances have been promised for over a generation. So far those promises have not been fulfilled. Economies of scale actually work against price lowering, as demand for materials like steel, concrete and copper increase, so will prices of solar and wind facilities.
Demandside efficiencies can advantage nuclear power as much renewables, indeed nuclear power plants have their own efficiency technology, which allow owners to get more and more power out of the same plant, without compromising safety.
You speak of the "massive build schedules" of new nuclear plants. In fact new plant designs and technologies shorten building times to three years, while lowering steel requirements for reactor construction to as little as 1/10th that required to build name plate equivalent wind and solar generation facilities. Building capacity factor equivalents could require 50 times more steel for solar and wind. Wind facilities also require up to 6 times as much concrete by name plate capacity as nuclear, and up to 30 tines more per capacity factor equivalent. Wind and solar also consume much more increasingly rare copper.
You speak of "the nasty side effects," of nuclear. However, you do not state what that means. The death rate associated with wind power is far higher than that of nuclear. The production of solar modules involves the use of dangerous and highly polluting chemicals, and create serious hazards to human health. Supporters of renewable power are, in effect, covering up its environmental, health and safety hazards of renewables.
You state: "Nuclear doesn't bode so well with demand reduction efficiencies. Since the power plant has to run 24/7 for decades to begin to pay itself off." In effect you acknowledge that nuclear power will be successful and and supply Americans all the power the want, as if those is a bad thing.
Finally you assert, "the average American uses 2x as much electricity than the average California. So what? There is nothing wrong with using electrical power provided its generation its generation does not lead to CO2 aqnd other greenhouse gas emissions.
Charles Barton
Permalink