Energy guru Amory Lovins and Nobel Prize-winning physicist Dr. Burton Richter face off, mano a mano, debating the merits of nuclear energy for addressing the climate crisis. MongaBay offers a blow-by-blow account. No one will be shocked to hear that I would call the bout for Lovins, though it was far from a TKO.
Nuclear debate
Lovins v. Richter 45
-
Posted 4:27 PM on 8 Jun 2007
by David Roberts -
Posted in
-
Read More About
David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.
Related Stories
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?
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
Matt G Posted 9:20 am
08 Jun 2007
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 10:01 am
08 Jun 2007
Nuclear power is the only proven technology that can replace coal fired steam plants, despite all the anti-nuk claim about wind and bat guano saving the planet.
Charles Barton
Permalink
Karen Street Posted 10:06 am
08 Jun 2007
Whenever Lovins says we can solve it without nuclear, I wonder what it is.
From the discussion:
Lovins said that micropower (i.e. distributed energy generation) now accounts for one-sixth of world power, surpassing nuclear as a source of electricity for the first time in 2006. He noted that in 2005 micropower added four times as much output and eleven times as much capacity as nuclear added.
Micropower is, of course, mostly fossil fuel, so I wonder if Lovins is addressing the incredible death rate from direct pollution and climate change that accompanies fossil fuel, or is more concerned about the size of the plant.
Lovins often uses different facts than do other analysts. China added 100 GW in coal power in 2006, much of it micropower. Then he talks about 75% efficiency and 25% demand and extols China's focus on efficiency.
Why will carbon pricing penalize nuclear power plants? Why would it benefit solar over nuclear?
One question I have every time I read Lovins: for wind to supply more than 10 - 20% of the power, we need to upgrade the grid incredibly to schlep wind power from all over -- hundreds of miles at least. The grid will be much more under central control than it is now. Why will using wind power protect the grid from power failure when A) the grid will be much more centralized, and B) intermittents like wind are much more likely to cause grid failure? (Because if power out doesn't equal power in, the grid can crash, and forecasting power in from wind power is still not all that reliable.)
Lovins says that investment in nuclear power in India is flat? Perhaps, but why the special deal with India so that it can acquire nuclear power? Actually, I frequently hear from people who are anti-nuclear power that nuclear power is dead, can't make it in the market place, etc. If I go to an industry site, I see that China intends to add 300 GW of nuclear power this half century (triple the current US amount), and that they are not alone.
Well, Lovins will always be able to use his 2005 micropower numbers, even as the situation continues to change for nuclear.
A Musing Environment
Karen Street
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:16 am
08 Jun 2007
Permalink
sunflower Posted 11:37 am
08 Jun 2007
Whether or not one is for or against nuclear, it is clear that as carbon market investments grow, investors will seek low-risk and low-cost projects. That means that as carbon prices go up, renewables will benefit in the private sector, while the nuclear industry's best chances come from heavy government subsidies and mandates. The long risks of nuclear investments are too high in a fast free market. The energy market is so big that subsidies of expensive big energy are not sustainable.
Efficiency from new infrastructure can get us 75% of the 80% carbon reduction (60% energy reduction). Supply of 25% of the reduction is just 20% of current fossil supply (plus population growth), not a lot, and can be delivered with known low-carbon technologies. High voltage DC lines will smooth out demand and supply fluctuations. Low-carbon energy supply (not just electricity) should be diversified and reliable.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 11:43 am
08 Jun 2007
Yes. The presence of today's dirt-cheap oil means it does not yet make economic sense to produce oil/gasoline/ethanol synthetically from nuclear energy.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:37 pm
08 Jun 2007
How much is groundwater worth? how much to add for even one accident at a used fuel rod storage pool that would release 7 to 18 times the radiation of chernobyl, contaminating whole regions?
Basically the costs from nuclear power are so high they are incalculable. How much are the additional deaths from cancer going to cost, from strontium 90, plutonium, tritium and more all leaking as we blog in numerous locations known, unknown, and known but undisclosed by corrupt nuclear cvontractor/government collusion for big $$$?
Solar pV is cheaper than that right now. And as solar PV and wind are mass produced, watch the already cheapest power source wind drop in price. So will solar. Concentrating solar uses 10% of the PV cells for 3 times the power output already.
Solar cogeneration collects heat as well as electric power.
Biogas could provide all the distributed backup the grid needs, and then there is pumped hydro storage. Gar calculates 50 square miles of resevoir will do the entire backup job for a 100% wind powered grid.
Amory needs to read this blog. His arguments would be much sharper.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:14 pm
08 Jun 2007
Could you please show your calculations?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:18 pm
08 Jun 2007
And thats previous to the more recent federal backing.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 5:21 pm
08 Jun 2007
Do you mean that I could have a 2-kilowatt concentrating solar-photovoltaic system with battery-back-up installed on my property for $4,000? That is interesting since, in 2001, Kenneth Adelman spent $360,000 ($421,000 in 2007 dollars) for his 27-kilowatt system.
dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/06/03/solar/index.html
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 8:55 pm
08 Jun 2007
The capital costs of using either wind or solar power increases with increased peek load penetration, while per unit capital costs of each reactor generator decreases with each added unit. This was demonstrated in France when the French Government built 34 identical power plants, creating significant per unit savings.
In addition VI generation reactors promise enormous construction savings, because they are much safer than current reactor designs. They are also cheaper to operate than coal fired plants, or generation IV reactors. Thus the outlook is for the cost of reactor generated power already competative with coal, to have a significantly greater coast advantage in the future. If the true social costs of coal fired steam plants is factored in, reactor power is far cheaper.
The demand for added generating capacity in India and China during the next 60 years are enormous, Current plans call for meeting those needs primarily through use of Coal. For this to happen would be a tremendous disaster. This enormous disaster is the train wreck which the anti-Nuk nut cases are trying to push us towards.
Charles Barton
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 10:34 pm
08 Jun 2007
Duke Energy Corp. recently quoted a $1.8 billion cost to build a single 800-megawatt coal-fired power unit.
What the anti-nuks won't tell you is that 150 coal fired geenerating plants have been proposed nationwide. In Texas we fought back a plan to build 18 coal fired plants. We have got to go to the nuclear alternative to coal now.
Once again the anti-Nuks are peddling ignorance.
Charles Barton
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:56 pm
08 Jun 2007
The lower estimates touted here are just for the actual reactor parts. Maybe in russia nukes would be cheaper? We'll find out, pooty poot is a-building floating chernobyls on barges right now, with duuhbya's enthusiastic support of course! Coming to beachfront location near you soon!?!
Who wants a KGB mob power company parked offshore near them? Everyone!!! Obviously they will be much less objectional than Cape wind for instance.
Unless government could outlaw NIMBY lawsuits (negating the rights outlined in the US constitution, which the administration is working on) the cost of domestic US nukes will be more like 10 bucks per watt now. A lot of inflation has transpired since the last plants were completed too.
Start a nuke today and 10 years from now you might generate some power? It's a slow process. Too slow to stop GHG climate disaster. For that 1000s of plants would be needed.
Bush offered to pick up the tab for delays from nIMBY suits with taxpayer dollars (borrowed from china). He's a generous primate! Ooo oo eee eee ahh ahh.
As far as 6 bucks for waste disposal and decommisioning that maybe a low estimate as well. Of course pooty poot's reactors will be dumped in the ocean after 20 years, no problem!
Show my calculations buddy? No thanks. Work on that yourself, would you? The burden of proff lies with the nuclear. thanks. Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:00 pm
08 Jun 2007
That's gonna be tough on nuke-you-ler fans everywhere.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 11:01 pm
08 Jun 2007
This from Scott Melbye, vice president of marketing for Cameco Corporation:
According to Melbye, the uranium industry indeed has a future shortage, looming on the horizon -- beyond the imminent shortfall through 2009, and again around 2013. This one could occur in 2025. This came about, he explained, because uranium miners suffered through years of baggage, the excess brought about opposite effects, and also because the industry is complacent about the future. His recommendation: Patience is required.
And there's this report about a presentation titled "Mythology -- Some Sad Realities":
Speaking of mythology, Dr. Haksoo Kim, Acting Director of Fuel Supply for Exelon Corp, decided to explode a few of the myths circulating around the uranium industry.
On Page 12 of his presentation, he announced "Some Happy Myths." We've all heard them and digested them as truth. These same myths have been posted on the websites of the more promotional 'uranium' companies hoping to lure the unwitting investors to buy their uranium exploration story.
Dr. Kim opened our eyes.
He told his audience that fuel is four to five times the 'hyped' cost of nuclear power - between 20 and 25 percent instead of the mere five percent.
He announced, "At $1000/pound for uranium, a nuclear utility's fuel cost would rise to $70/MWH compared to $5/MWH at legacy contract prices of about $20/pound.
Dr. Kim shot down the premature conclusion that utilities would rather pay the high prices instead of going through a costly decommissioning process. He said, "There is no compulsion to immediately decommission - stations can be held in standby or cold shutdown."
Finally, he took up the matter of `utilities not caring about fuel costs.' He pointed out, "Take $900 million from your company's annual net profits. See how happy your management is."
Because of what we've previously been led to believe, we questioned his numbers and conclusions. So we asked TradeTech's Gene Clark for a second opinion. Clark emailed back and confirmed Dr. Kim's calculations were accurate...
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 12:38 am
09 Jun 2007
The construction costs of second generation Nuks in the U.S. ran up to $5000 per KW. The first two General Electric ABWR's commissioned in Japan in 1996 and 1997, costs about $2000. A number of 4th generation reactors featuring dramatically different designs are quoted in the 1000 per KW range. These include the CANDU ARC and the Pebble Bed Gas Cooled Reactors. The Pebble Bed is touted for its outstanding safety.
The latest estimate of construction time for a power reactor is three years. Many of the problems of first and second generation reactors had to do with designed flaws that had to be corrected during construction. Other cost over runs were related to design changes that were mandated by changing regulations. The custom manufacture of reactors, rather than using mass produced designs also contributed to the high costs of early reactors. You would not expect a Ford to cost as much as a Ferreri, but the Ford might turn out to be far more dependable.
Sweden reports reactor waist disposal costs of 0.13 cents per KW-Hr. French authorities estimate that the cost of waste disposal and decommissioning will be 10% of the construction costs. Some very old reactors, dating back to World War II have been very expensive to ddecommission, but recent reactor design has recognized decommissioning costs to be part of the package.
Your cost estimates are thus based on worst case experiences both in construction and decommissioning costs. But why shouldn't we assume that the French experience with mass production of a standard reactor design, coupled with built in decommissioning plans, would still leave reactors as the cheapest option for eco friendly electricity.
Charles Barton
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 12:57 am
09 Jun 2007
Charles Barton
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 1:38 am
09 Jun 2007
Last year's, IIRC, 2,658 billion kWh worldwide production was ~630 million tonnes of oil equivalent. The graph appears to scale fossil fuels' contribution according to the heat they produced without counting nuclear energy on the same basis; so although oil-fired power stations would have needed 4.2 billion barrels to produce as much electricity, the graph scales the nuclear contribution as if it had been, so to speak, only 1.4 billion barrels of electricity. As if this electricity were worth no more than the heat it might have produced in resistors. Also, the graph shows a nuclear electricity production decline in the next 20-30 years, which the environmentally concerned public is unlikely to allow, and uranium availability is unlikely to force, what with the rapid increase in proved uranium reserves between 2003 and 2005.
"Nevada Solar One", a concentrating solar thermal power station with a peak power of 64 MW started up in Nevada two days ago. Its expected year-round average production of 14.1 MW makes it, however, equivalent to an 18-MW conventional thermal station, and its capital cost more than US$14 billion per GW, with the understanding that significantly less than a GW would be yielded in the winter. I'm told this makes the per-kWh price more than US$0.20. This is a lot less than PV-solar prices, but high enough to explain why less than 30 GW of CSP plant are under construction.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:58 am
09 Jun 2007
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 1:58 am
09 Jun 2007
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 2:14 am
09 Jun 2007
Permalink
sunflower Posted 2:43 am
09 Jun 2007
Heliostats and troughs have cosine losses (the angle of sun relative to mirror surface). Dishes have thermal losses from pipes in the field. The relative performance costs of heliostats and dishes are not clear.
Heliostat systems are big (finance likes big) and heliostats can be scaled very quickly on rough terrains. Dishes are good for small niche thermal markets. Heliostats have advantages for big industrial process heat, district heating, and cogeneration systems.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:56 am
09 Jun 2007
I meant the PG&E Luz II project
http://www.luz2.com/apage/12219.php
Need to dig it up somewhere but I could have sworn I've seen the project costs were $2000/kW
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:01 am
09 Jun 2007
Now it has it.
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/05/the_us_ ...
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 5:11 am
09 Jun 2007
Apparently, CSP has indeed exploded.
tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Know_Nukes/message/4789
Solar power plant explodes
DAGGETT, Calif., Feb. 26 (UPI) San Bernardino County authorities say a tank of chemicals at a solar power plant in Daggett, Calif., has exploded, spawning a fire that may burn throughout the night. Fire Department spokesman David McLees says all the employees at the SEGS2 plant were accounted for shortly after the explosion rocked the plant at about 6:05 p.m. today. McLees says the fire is being fueled by a 700,000-gallon tank of Therminol, a fluid used in heat transfer because it can be heated to 850 degrees. The fluid is heated on solar panels, where it reaches maximum temperature, then runs through pipes in a heat transfer area, where it turns water into steam. The steam powers turbines that create electricity. Sheriff's deputies say a 1/2-mile area along Interstate 40 near Barstow is being evacuated because of Therminol's slightly toxicity. McLees says firefighters have no estimated time of containment for the fire.
A firsthand account, and many fine photographs, can be found here:
digitalstoryteller.com/BTV99/hartley/0303.shtml
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 11:22 am
09 Jun 2007
Hanford in Washington is still a leaky disaster. Please show me the site where concentrated solar power has permanently destroyed local groundwater.
My little county installs more solar capacity every year. There are panels on houses, gasoline stations, parking lots, college buildings, the brewery and the county jail. Total added nuclear capacity in California- zero. Total political objection to solar installations-zero. Congressman-R, Wally Herger.
Nuclear power
plant shutdowns where used as part of the Enron plan to defraud California and extort increases in power prices. THAT'S the source of cheerleading for nuclear power; the capacity to hold population's hostage to political/economic demands.
Combine concentrated solar power and low-grade geothermal and you have a power source that will give you more power 24/7 than either source alone.
What's bizzare is that those solar plants in Nevada where built in an area of high geothermal power availability.
The nuclear power industry is a fraud.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:36 am
09 Jun 2007
Aka, breathing in virtually anything thats burning with lots of smoke isn't such a good idea.
Wood smoke for instance.
Aka, put the fire out, and get on with life.
If only nuclear leaks were that simple to deal with.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 11:54 am
09 Jun 2007
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 1:56 pm
09 Jun 2007
Are those solar-installations all unsubsidized and off-grid?
Pangolin wrote: Total added nuclear capacity in California- zero.
Other than through uprates, is it legal to add nuclear capacity in California?
world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html
Increased nuclear capacity in some countries is resulting from the uprating of existing plants. This is a highly cost-effective way of bringing on new capacity.
Numerous power reactors in USA, Belgium, Sweden and Germany, for example, have had their generating capacity increased. In Switzerland, the capacity of its five reactors has been increased by 12.3%. In the USA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved 110 uprates totalling 4700 MWe since 1977, a few of them "extended uprates" of up to 20%.
Pangolin wrote: The nuclear power industry is a fraud.
How is the nuclear-power industry a fraud?
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 2:47 pm
09 Jun 2007
Charles Barton
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:06 pm
09 Jun 2007
The issue is when it's in transit.
Because of this, Nevada isn't to happy about having the nation's nuclear waste trucked to a facility an hour away from Las Vegas.
(i.e. Their cash cow)
_
This is probably why Nevada likes Geothermal and CSP so much.
Since both of them can compete with Nuclear on cost and performance.
_
If a solar power plant can go wrong.
What ya bet Murphy's law doesn't ignore Nuclear?
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:40 pm
09 Jun 2007
Which problems are those that it would solve, and how do you figure it would it solve them?
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:53 pm
09 Jun 2007
In the mid-1960's molten-salt reactors were designed, tested and proven to be operable. Molten-salt reactors are capable of consuming "nuclear waste" such as plutonium and actinides and do not produce additional waste in the form of spent fuel rods. Adding thorium to the fuel mix of a molten-salt reactor poisons the plutonium and makes it unsuitable for bomb making. Molten-salt reactors are also not susceptible to core meltdowns such as the one at TMI. None are in operation in the US.
It is no coincidence that "nuclear waste" contains bomb grade plutonium. The reactors were designed that way. Larger volumes of more dangerous wastes provide permanent profits for corporations involved in the handling and protection of those wastes.
Production of fuel rods and handling of wastes are major profit centers for the nuclear power industry. Nuclear "waste" processing also produces the plutonium needed for nuclear weapons and the "depleted" uranium needed for armor-piercing projectiles.
Several reactor types that could have produced power without producing bomb-grade plutonium have been available. None of those reactor types are in use. Reactor types that could have consumed nuclear waste and reduced waste volume have been neglected in favor of reactors that produce more waste than was absolutely needed.
In California refueling of nuclear reactors was used as a pretext to extort money from the state and it's population by Enron. This would not have been possible with distributed solar/wind/geothermal power sources. Nuclear power is a tool for political control as much as power production.
There's the fraud. Nuclear power is about profits and politics not power.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 10:23 pm
09 Jun 2007
The issue with nuclear waste, or nuclear anything, is not transit. The issue is oil and gas revenue, especially tax revenue, that never was. That is why there are so many, many "issues".
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 10:48 pm
09 Jun 2007
http://www.xanga.com/bartoncii/591431627/alvin-weinberg-o ...
I have also discussed Weinberg's integrity and vision:
http://www.xanga.com/bartoncii/591790491/alvin-weinbergs- ...
Weinberg was a real pioneer in concerns about anthropogenic global warming. He discussed it in a paper he published in Science in 1974, and testified to Congress about the danger of CO2 emissions in 1975. He was fired as director of ORNL because his concerns about reactor safety clashed with the "gung-ho" approach of the Nuclear establishment. Three Mile Island vindicated Weinberg's safety concerns, but only in the 21th century is his last baby, the molten Salt Reactor being appreciated.
Charles Barton
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:41 pm
09 Jun 2007
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
sunflower Posted 12:59 am
10 Jun 2007
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 1:35 am
10 Jun 2007
The point is not, I think, to create a perfect world, but to not do things that will make the lives of our grandchildren worse than ours has been. By our grandchildren I mean any kid who will be born on earth, in the next couple of generations. We are creating great problems for them by burning fossil fuels at rates which cannot be sustained both because the resources of our planet are limited, and because of the side effects of our burning fossil fuels for energy,
Alvin Weinberg pointed out 50 years ago, Molten Salt reactors can bread Thorium into U233. There is approximately 4 times as much Thorium on the earth, as there is Uranium, so a Thorium economy is going to last a long time. But you can use PU239 as a fuel in Molten Salt reactors. In fact another non-proliferation advantage of Molten Salt Technology, is that you can use up the world's current stock of weapons Pu239 as fuel in Molten Salt Reactors. Decreasing the world's current stock of unused Pu239 would be highly desirable from a non-proliferation viewpoint.
I am however encouraged that amazngdrx's anti-Nuk resolve appears to be wavering. Perhaps this debate is doing some good.
Charles Barton
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:23 am
10 Jun 2007
It seems to me we could bury nuclear waste in these areas of subduction (Chile) and then it would basically be gone after a while (no where near groundwater).
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:27 am
10 Jun 2007
Ok, I wonder where they (G8) came up with the cut 50% figure.
They already know that France, with it's 80 percent nuke energy generating capacity, has already achieved a 50% cut.
So if we (at the very least) go with nukes until we get fusion going we can meet a 50% cut by 2050, hands down.
Oh, btw, here's a cool variation on fusion who's inventor (Robert Broussard) was invited over to Google to give a tech talk:
"Should Google Go Nuclear?"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=19963218466737886 ...
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:34 am
10 Jun 2007
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 3:48 am
10 Jun 2007
drgrammar.org/faqs/#62
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:25 am
10 Jun 2007
When much of the world spurned nuclear power, 30 years ago, the French, being French, decided to go their own way and embrace it. Paris, the "City of Light," is lit by nuclear energy, which powers just about everything else in France: its homes, its factories, even its high speed railroads.
Nearly 80 percent of the country's electricity comes from 58 nuclear power plants, crammed into a country the size of Texas. Pierre Gadonniex, the head "Electricite de France," the country’s national utility says it all began with a French obsession for energy independence.
"In France, we have nearly no coal. We have no oil. So clearly, nuclear appeared to be the best way," Gadonniex explains. "And 30 years later, it appears to be a very smart decision."
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:26 am
10 Jun 2007
Yes, and IEF (inertia electrostatic confinement fusion) devices are different from tokamaks.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:29 am
10 Jun 2007
http://www.askmar.com/Fusion.html
Although most funding of fusion research has been focused on tokamak and laser implosion devices, new developments in IEC (inertial electrostatic confinement) fusion using quasi-spherical magnetic fields may offer an important breakthrough.
BTW:
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Bussard_collector
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink