Dear Umbra,
What are your thoughts on the reconsidering of nuclear power as a viable solution for helping with energy shortages and improving environmental conditions? I was shocked to hear a "scientist" say (in a "no duh," matter-of-fact type of way) that nuclear power is far cheaper and cleaner than our current coal- and oil-based energy system. He even talked about how much radiation is leaked when burning coal.
Mark
San Francisco, Calif.
Dearest Mark,
My thoughts on the reconsidering of nuclear power: Well, like you, my head is awhirl from a recent conversation. This fascinating chat was with -- real name here -- Roel Hammerschlag. Roel runs the Institute for Lifecycle Environmental Assessment, a nonprofit dedicated to translating life-cycle assessments (LCAs) from dense studies to readable recommendations. Life-cycle assessments are what you, dear readers, long for when you face the choice between paper towels and hand dryers in the bathroom. In short, they are a scientific way to evaluate the energy use of an object or action over the course of its whole life. As an LCA expert, Roel lives and breathes energy analysis, and when I asked him to rank energy sources, he shocked me as your scientist shocked you. Nuclear is not out of the running for him, and here are his reasons why.
In a warming world, is coal power so bad
that it makes nuclear look good?
To Roel, and to every knowledgeable environmental writer, scientist, activist, politico, and Grist-er, climate change is the No. 1, emergency-level ecological problem. Unless we deal with this make-or-break situation, nothing else will matter. As a result, Roel says, energy sources must be evaluated with their long-term climate impact in mind. Although nuclear power produces dangerous waste that we have yet to find a way to safely manage, it does not produce greenhouse gases, as does the burning of oil, coal, and natural gas.
Here's Roel's rundown on the energy situation: We are going to run out of oil. Roel is of the Hubbert curve school of thought, which holds that we are halfway through the world's oil supply and will see production dip dramatically within our lifetimes. In the 1950s, the geophysicist M. King Hubbert developed a model that took into account oil supply, use, and production. The model looks like a bell curve, and we are currently at the top of supply and production; the down slope represents the near future, in which extracting the remaining oil will no longer be worth the expense.
Given its pending disappearance, Roel says, oil is not the big bad guy. Coal is. We have about 200 to 300 years' worth of coal available worldwide, according to both ILEA and the U.S. EPA. So there is no likelihood of actually being forced to turn from fossil fuels to renewables any time in the near future. Coal will replace oil (possibly even for powering cars, as it is currently used in methanol production and is a big player in the development of hydrogen fuel cells), the coal lobby will continue to frolic on former mountaintops, and our climate will continue to transform before our very eyes. To quote gentle Roel, "We must kill coal!" (No, Roel does not rhyme with coal.)
What options do the impending end of oil and the ecological disaster of coal leave us with -- other than continuing to agitate for sane conservation measures, of course? Natural gas? For the U.S, a shift to natural gas would mean either a pipeline from Alaska to the Lower 48 or liquefied natural gas shipped from 'round the world. As it happens, we're on track to get both -- but natural gas is neither sustainable nor renewable nor carbon-free, and supplies are expected to run out shortly after oil.
Wind, solar, hydropower, and nuclear are the remaining major energy sources that could help meet current demand. Biomass fuels and tidal and geothermal energy may come into notable play in the future. The nation's major hydro sites are all in use already (and not without their own environmental conflicts), and solar energy is still fighting to be affordable. Wind power is growing fast, but not nearly fast enough. Given all that, and given the need to eviscerate the coal industry ASAP, I'm beginning to understand Roel's willingness to consider nuclear energy. I suspect your scientist has come to the same conclusion.
Nuclear energy already produces 20 percent of electricity in the U.S. Nuclear waste is an unsolved problem, plant meltdowns are themselves environmentally disastrous, and nuclear material can be used to nefarious and horrifying ends. But if we see climate change as the No. 1 environmental emergency, nuclear energy must, at least, be given a fair hearing. Thus, despite the fact that contemplating it makes me feel like Dick Cheney, we will return to this fissile topic anon.
Unbelievably,
Umbra
Ask Umbra on climate-skeptic teachers, low-flow toilets, and more
Tweet for the bees
Ask Umbra on her hotness, corporate gift baskets, and more
Comments
View as Flat
Ramekin Posted 8:10 am
07 Apr 2005
Smokestack releases effecting global climate as well as local health and air quality would be eliminated, and destructive mining practices associated with coal would be reduced (though uranium mining is not benign, it does not consume countless tons of strip-mined material daily).
It might be time to compromise and accept nuclear power to meet the inevitable growth of power demand.
Permalink
scooter Posted 9:10 am
07 Apr 2005
Humanity definitely has backed itself into a corner, and there are no totally benign solutions. Under these pathetic circumstances, we have no choice but to consider giving nuclear power another chance. Even then, be prepared to ride close herd on the vendors, utilities, and regulators, because your best interest will not be their priority.
Permalink
jp Posted 10:17 am
07 Apr 2005
In factoring the "lifecycle" of nuclear energy, does Umbra Fisk discuss the many energy-intensive steps it takes to produce energy from nuclear fission? Does she factor -- or dare mention -- the energy spent in mining uranium? In milling the uranium? In enriching the uranium? In fabricating the uranium rods? In building the reactor? In building a containment vessel for the reactor? In building the radioactively-resistant pumps and turbines? In building the transmission lines?
All this energy gets expended before a single watt is generated. Gas, solar, wind expend much less up-front energy.
Nor did Ms. Fisk consider the multifarious (and energy wasteful) problems associated with nuclear generation -- while it's on-line. Did you know that nuclear plants require an external energy source that goes INTO the plant to operate the cooling system?
I know the Grist gets vexed by polluters externalizing the cost of doing business on the backs of the public. Nuclear power is the worse offender. Nuclear plants would fold-up and disappear tomorrow if it were not for the Price-Anderson Act which indemnifies nuclear utilities from paying liability insurance. Stunning, huh? Of all the business in the US -- they're exempt. If there's a major accident in US, the responsible company would pay but minor fees while the taxpayer and affected communities get clobbered. Imagine the unimaginable cost of an accident.
Nuclear plants make excellent terrorist targets and deemed vulnerable to attack -- as the National Academy of Sciences pointed out this week. Nuclear plants also annually create hundreds of pounds of plutonium -- the key ingredient of a thermonuclear bomb. Do we really want to promote an energy source that in turn promotes the proliferation of nuclear weapons?
Then there're the waste problems. When factoring the nuclear energy's "lifecycle" -- you need to shield the highly radioactive and carcinogenic radioactive waste for between 60,000 - 100,000 years. What kind of chutzpah is this? Fifty thousand years ago humans were eating berries and dodging Sabertooth tigers.
The American answer is to the nuclear waste problem is to build Yucca Mountain. Yet you saw fit to publish your ridiculous article supporting nuclear power the very week USGS scientists were found to have performed fraud at the proposed high-level nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain -- calling the whole project into question. The so-called government scientists invented instrument readings on water flow through that benighted mountain.
As Albert Einstein observed, "The splitting of the atom has changed everything, save our way of thinking. Thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe."
A sound lesson.
Permalink
Emily Cunningham Posted 11:24 am
07 Apr 2005
Next, Friedman goes flat by most of an octave, inserting an ill-informed note on nuclear power: "We need to start building nuclear power plants again. The new nuclear technology is safer and cleaner than ever."
Nukes have largely died from market forces, so why any market-savvy thinker like Friedman would want to resurrect them (presumably through further subsidy) I cannot fathom. Our energy future should flow from least-cost planning that tries to incorporate social and environmental costs such as climate change and national security.
Under least-cost planning, nuclear power does not fare well. Efficiency and renewables beat nuclear power on price alone in almost every application, because nukes are extremely expensive. Add environmental and security costs and nukes fade to a footnote. Generating electricity through a technology that creates wastes still deadly for thousands of years seems like folly. Peppering the countryside with such facilities in an age of global terrorism seems, well, like lunacy. (A recent National Academy of Sciences report on the terror threat of one aspect of A-plant management was summarized in the Washington Post yesterday.)
Scooter, if "energy choices have been driven by profits and subsidies" and my "best interest" will not be a conern or priority, that makes me, well, VERY nervous. No, it actually scares the HELL out of me.
This makes no sense. At all.
Permalink
Ender Posted 11:41 am
07 Apr 2005
The main problem is 'rising energy demand' until we reverse this with lifestyle changes and increased efficiency there will always be a call for more generating capacity.
Really if you install a cheap inefficient air-conditioner in your house to improve your comfort you are basically saying yes to nuclear power. If you have a 400sqm house that you have dreamed of and use only a few rooms you are saying we want more power so I can have a big house I want instead of the small one I really need. This increased demand has to be satisfied somehow. This is the danger. To support the current and rising level of energy consumption, to supply our wants, we need massive power generation capabilities which nuclear or coal power are the logical answers.
Until we 'power down' we will never get rid of the Nuclear option. Renewable power cannot power our current demands. The only way renewable power will work, is for us, you and me, to reduce demand .
Permalink
Norris Posted 11:52 am
07 Apr 2005
Telling us to go back to the cave with candles just will not work. More PCs, more PlayStations, more flat screens, more plasma televisions...you get the idea.
Thank God for America. And thank God for the mouse...we can now click our way around the world 24-7.
Permalink
Norris Posted 11:54 am
07 Apr 2005
Permalink
Norris Posted 11:59 am
07 Apr 2005
Fortunately, the American public is smart and they will soon let anti-nuke obstructionist know that 2+2=4.
Permalink
Norris Posted 12:01 pm
07 Apr 2005
Permalink
birdboy Posted 12:29 pm
07 Apr 2005
Of course, the same is true about the terrorist threat- it's our way of thinking and our actions that perpetuate this problem. If we would just stop stealing the worlds resources for our 'blessed' nation and put an end to world hunger, few would see us as a threat, and security would be less of an issue.
Sure, nuclear is expensive, start-up costs are huge, but the issue is the cost per watt produced, and since these plants produce gigawatts for 30-50 years without releasing greenhouse gasses, they look a lot better than clearcut mountaintop-removal-dirty-air and hell-on-earth coal. I would also take nuclear before coal, but only if I can't have clean, local energy in an efficiency-driven economy.
Permalink
krabago Posted 12:37 pm
07 Apr 2005
Don't look at half a life cycle - please.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 3:25 pm
07 Apr 2005
Environmentalists really need to reconsider the ill-conceived position that global warming is the most important environmental issue. In fact global warming is merely a symptom of air pollution, which is what we really should be fighting. Species extinction and ecosystem destruction are far more important issues than global warming, but anthropocentric humans who've created this problem (including, unfortunately, many environmentalists), are willing to sacrifice the rest of the planet in an attempt to save our destructive way of life. We should forget global warming and concern ourselves with the root causes of ecological and environmental problems. If we don't, we'll destroy so many other species and ecosystems that we'll become extinct, anyway.
Re consumption, yes, we need to greatly reduce it by two methods. We all need to simplify our lifestyles and quit needlessly using so much electricity (the exact opposite of what Mr. McDonald advocates, which is to continue our mindless, imorral, anti-spiritual consumption). More fundamentally, we need to greatly lower our population, which either causes or greatly exacerbates every important environmental problem, along with many others.
Finally, I'm totally sick of hearing that renewables like solar cannot meet reasonable energy needs. Make that claim after every building has solar collectors on its roof. In Berkeley California, which gets quite a bit of fog during the summer and regular rain in winter, solar panels on the roof of a home will provide all the power that the home needs. And the the only reason that renewables can't compete with fossil fuels is that the latter are heavily subsidized and the former are not. Change that equation renewables become as cheap as anything else.
Permalink
chris@organicmatter Posted 3:27 pm
07 Apr 2005
jp's comment caught my attention because it deals with the whole life-cycle of uranium. I would love to see a piece on nuclear power from the point of view of uranium, cradle to grave. It occurs to me that a thorough piece of this nature couldn't help but be a fairly objective survey of all of the potential effects of a shift to nuclear. If there is such a piece that I haven't seen, I'd love to be directed to it, and if one does not exist I'd be indebted to whosoever might take up the initiative to write such a piece.
I hope this isn't too shameless, but if anyone would like to take up this awesome task but doesn't have a blog of their own on which to post it, I'd be happy to offer up my own site.
Permalink
bugpondgnat Posted 5:43 pm
07 Apr 2005
I may be wrong, but I'm in good company. The letter below is by one of the worlds foremost energy policy analysts - Amory Lovins.
More of AL's opinion and accomplishments can be briefly surveyed on the web page copied below this letter, which briefly discusses an MIT study, interpreted by the publication "Nuclear News" as finding in favour of increased nuclear power.
----------------------------
Comment on MIT study "The Future of Nuclear Power"
A letter to correct the public record
Nuclear News's otherwise fairly accurate September 2003 report of the MIT study "The Future of Nuclear Power" says it found that "billions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere could be avoided by 2050 only by drastically increasing the number of operating nuclear power plants [to 1 TW]...." The MIT study said no such thing. It was built around a 1-TW-by-2050 scenario, which it found could avoid 1.8 GTC/y (a fourth of the projected incremental carbon emissions). But it couldn't have found that "only" such trebled nuclear capacity could achieve this result, because, as its Executive Summary states, "We did not analyze other options for reducing carbon emissions--renewable energy sources, carbon sequestration, and increased energy efficiency--and therefore reach no conclusions about priorities among these efforts and nuclear power"--let alone about what the non-nuclear ones could do.
Therein lies the unreported basic logical flaw of the widely misreported MIT study. Nuclear power faces, as the Executive Summary says, "stagnation and decline," chiefly because it's uneconomic. The study correctly finds that "In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas," but major cost reductions "could reduce the gap," and very large "Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage." Yet that advantage is only against other (coal and gas) central-station options that the market is rejecting because they're all uneconomic, with U.S. utilities' ordering rates shrunken to Victorian levels.
The market winners are chiefly distributed gas-fired co- and tri-generation (which the study doesn't mention even as an omission), windpower, and end-use efficiency. The study finds that new nuclear plants' busbar power under current conditions costs 6.7¢/kWh (levelized 2002 $). For conservative comparison with distributed options, we must add to nuclear or wind busbar cost the empirical 1996 investor-owned utility's embedded average delivery cost of 2.6¢/kWh in 2002 $ (marginal delivery costs more). Compared with new nuclear plants' 9.3+¢/kWh delivered, their three unanalyzed competitors are thus respectively about 5-10x (net of thermal credit), 2x, and 10- 30x cheaper today, and the latter two would be equally advantaged by carbon pricing.
Yet the study "did not analyze" any of them--its simplistic projections of electricity demand didn't even mention efficient use, let alone model its competition with supply--so it reached no conclusion about their competitiveness or capabilities. It nonetheless emphatically asserted that "it is likely we shall need all" these technologies, and "In our judgment, it would be a mistake to exclude any...at this time," so nuclear power merits increased subsidies.
Readers might be forgiven for supposing that somewhere, the 170-page report provides an analytic basis for that striking claim. It doesn't. The alleged need for all options, including nuclear power, is purely the authors' personal opinion wrapped in a big study of other questions. Also unanalyzed and unmentioned, therefore, is the key policy issue of opportunity cost--how the expanded nuclear subsidies they urge would divert resources from its competitors and thus slow their adoption.
The study recommends useful policy shifts on reprocessing and nonproliferation. Yet, disappointingly, its very capable authors spent so long examining uneconomic traditional energy technologies that they had no time left to consider the successful, less centralized options that, despite an unfavorably tilted playing-field, are rapidly displacing them. Global windpower (which could more than power the world), for example, grew in 2002 from 24 to 31 GW--over twice nuclear power's average 1990s annual addition.
--Amory B. Lovins, CEO
Rocky Mountain Institute
Snowmass, Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid171.php
E01-19, The Nuclear Option Revisited (PDF-11k)
Too expensive and unacceptably risky, nuclear power was declared dead long ago. So why would we resurrect it? Amory Lovins and Hunter Lovins revisit the nuclear option. This article appeared in The Los Angeles Times (08 July 2001).
---------------------------------------------
rmi.org is published by Rocky Mountain Institute.
1739 Snowmass Creek Road | Snowmass, CO 81654-9199 | Ph: 970.927.3851
Copyright 1999-2005. All Rights Reserved.
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[21]='\"';l[22]=' 103';l[23]=' 114';l[24]=' 111';l[25]=' 46';l[26]=' 105';l[27]=' 109';l[28]=' 114';l[29]=' 64';l[30]=' 104';l[31]=' 115';l[32]=' 105';l[33]=' 102';l[34]=' 109';l[35]=' 111';l[36]=' 104';l[37]=' 116';l[38]=':';l[39]='o';l[40]='t';l[41]='l';l[42]='i';l[43]='a';l[44]='m';l[45]='\"';l[46]='=';l[47]='f';l[48]='e';l[49]='r';l[50]='h';l[51]='a ';l[52]='
Permalink
Ender Posted 10:49 pm
07 Apr 2005
Australia is America - sort of. Per capita we are one of the highest emmiters of CO2. This is not something to be proud of.
No-one suggested that we go back to candles and caves. We need to reduce our footprint by reducing demand. This does not mean giving up everything just making some of them much more efficient.
You say you are a consuming nation - but right at the moment you are consuming someone else's oil. For your nuclear power plan you need someone else's uranium. Do you support invading us if we will not sell you our 43% of the world's uranium supply or what if Canada also refuses to sell uranium? We will not have a coal mining government forever - a green coalition could get in next time and ban uranium sales - what do you do then?
How about for the safety and security of your own country start living within your means and on your own resources. The world will be a much safer place if this happens.
Permalink
nmatson Posted 11:49 pm
07 Apr 2005
We don't have to settle for these choices. The U.S. spends at least $20 Billion a year (not including our military costs) subsidizing the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. If we diverted all of that $$ towards developing new efficiency and renewable technologies we would rapidly get out of this mess. This is what we should be fighting for, not compromising our health and safety with Nukes.
Permalink
Norris Posted 1:09 am
08 Apr 2005
You also want America to stop growing. Do you really believe that is a realistic notion? The entire American capitalist economic system is based on growth. Every sector, company and small business person expects growth. Housing starts, car sales, commodities, etc.--It appears that you do not like the American system.
Permalink
nadevel Posted 1:25 am
08 Apr 2005
Nuclear Power Still a Deadly Proposition
by Helen Caldicott http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0817-03.htm Published on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 by the Baltimore Sun
According to data from the U.S. Energy Department (DOE), the production of nuclear power significantly contributes both to global warming and ozone depletion.
The enrichment of uranium fuel for nuclear power uses 93 percent of the refrigerant chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) gas made annually in the United States. The global production of CFC is banned under the Montreal Protocol because it is a potent destroyer of ozone in the stratosphere, which protects us from the carcinogenic effects of solar ultraviolet light.
CFC compounds are also potent global warming agents 10,000 to 20,000 times more efficient heat trappers than carbon dioxide, which itself is responsible for 50 percent of the global warming phenomenon.
But nuclear power also contributes significantly to global carbon dioxide production. Huge quantities of fossil fuel are expended for the "front end" of the nuclear fuel cycle -- to mine, mill and enrich the uranium fuel and to construct the massive nuclear reactor buildings and their cooling towers.
Uranium enrichment is a particularly energy intensive process which uses electricity generated from huge coal-fired plants. Estimates of carbon dioxide production related to nuclear power are available from DOE for the "front end" of the nuclear fuel cycle, but prospective estimates for the "back end" of the cycle have yet to be calculated.
more at http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0817-03.htm
Permalink
jessica Posted 4:56 am
08 Apr 2005
I also live within a few miles of Indian Point Nuclear Power plant and so do about 20 million other people. The company that owns and operates it, Entergy, does not have a sound emergency evacuation plan. Entergy also has an poor security record: the list of violations is long.
It is worth noting that the planes that flew into the World Trade Center on September 11 flew within a few miles of Indian Point.
I think this poses an unacceptable risk.
And honestly, what on earth are we gonna do about the waste? In fifty years, the best solution we can come up with is to transport it all over the country and pump it under Yucca Mountain?
How about your backyard?
And when there are enormous gains to be made from smart energy planning, such as energy-efficiency, alternative energy, smart growth, green building, emmissions trading, etc., why do we need to jump on something so risky, expensive, hazardous, and uneconomical?
Permalink
Norris Posted 6:35 am
08 Apr 2005
For the record: The U.S. never banned the construction of nuclear power plants. Moreover, Three Mile Island was a success story. The containment dome worked.
The items you mentioned [smart energy planning, such as energy-efficiency, alternative energy, smart growth, green building, emmissions trading, etc., why do we need to jump on something so risky, expensive, hazardous, and uneconomical?]are admirable, but America isn't slowing down; it is speeding up. Our society isn't centrally planned and regimented. It is private sector and individual freedom oriented. Americans are buying houses faster than builders can build them. The challenge for a utility is to provide the power needed to meet that demand. Do you want to take these freedoms away from people?
Oh. And no one has complained about Maryland Chesapeake Bay crabs. Almost everything except the nuke plant is a bigger threat to them.
Permalink
Jack SB Posted 9:43 am
08 Apr 2005
the energy return on energy invested (EROI)is low, about 5 or 6:1. (By comparison, sweet crude is close to 100:1). So many, many nuclear plants would be needed to make up the shortfall expected from peak oil. ( Even if peak oil were not immenent, we should be reducing and eventually eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels because of their contribution to GHGs).
it takes several years to construct a nuclear plant, and so much energy is used in the construction (full life cycle analysis) that it takes 7-8 years before there is a net energy gain.
to make up the shortfall expected with peak oil, we would have to build hundreds of nuclear plants; the more we build the quicker fissionable material will also be depleted. REmember that the fuel is non-renewable. Do we really want to use up large quantities of fossil fuels to build a nuclear system that will take years to produce a net energy gain, and then shortly thereafter run out of fuel?
the waste issue is immense and should not be passed on to the grandkids.
the terrorist issue is real and will remain for some time.
Do we have to go back to caves? Not at all. North America already uses almost three times more energy than is optimal for high levels of well being (measured by life expectancy, infant mortality, food availability, educational opportunity, and the Human Development INdex). We could enjoy all of the essential services we now derive from energy and not reduce our well being or happines.
If we were to suddenly discover a clean cheap replacement for fossil fuel (which nuclear is not) it would be a disaster for the envrionment. Our challenge is to reduce our energy demand, and focus on the important things in life. cheers J
Permalink
birdboy Posted 1:29 pm
08 Apr 2005
But I may have been misunderstood; I do not advocate building more nukes, rather, in a moment of weakness, I considered compromise (yuk). Realisticly (OK, pessimisticly), renewables will not come fast enough in this economic and political climate to save our skins from an overheated planet, and 'voluntary efficiency measures' won't save a single species. I simply stated that if I CAN'T have clean, local energy and optimal efficiency, nuclear looks better than coal to me. Compromise is a choice between things you don't really want (John Kerry). Of course uranium is mined, and of course it makes miners sick- but how long does a coal miner live? Why couldn't the mining be done by machines instead of men (profit margins)? Do they remove entire mountaintops for a little uranium? I don't know, and it's not easy to find out. I did find out that purifying silicon (mined quartz) for solar panels releases dust that causes lung disease, and large quantities of strong acids are used to etch the silicon, and it takes from 1-4 years of operation to payback the energy cost of building a solar panel. Newer technologies may use Selenium and Cadmium Telluride (mined), and huge amounts of silver would be needed to satisfy a fraction of our current energy demand. Nothing is free- clearly we need a very careful study of ALL options and ALL their costs. I'm sure our Energy Department (Dick Cheney) is doing this, as we speak (ppffftt!).
As for the waste, no doubt, big problem. But at least the waste CAN be safely contained. The problem is in making sure it is done right. Air pollution has killed a whole lot more of the Earth than radioactive waste.
I claimed that solar and wind would never satisfy the energy this economy WANTS, not what people need. I think you and I would agree that what 'we' need is a small fraction of what 'we' want. Given the real opportunity to choose, I think anyone (not getting rich from dino-sludge) would pick clean, local energy sources- and we hardcores should continue to insist on it. Screw compromise.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 2:42 pm
08 Apr 2005
Uncontrolled growth is defined as cancer, and that's what capitalism advocates. You're right, I don't like the current American system, I like the one that was here 500 years ago before the European invaders murdered the indigenous people, stole their land, and destroyed it to enrich themselves with material things.
Re what's realistic: the lifestyle you advocate is about as far from realistic as it gets. Sure, humans can temporarily continue to destroy the Earth and everything living on it for fun and profit, but it will all come crashing down horribly in a very short time, geologically speaking. Even if you don't care about other forms of life, ecosystems, or the Earth itself, if you want the human race to exist for as long as possible, humans must greatly lower their population and their consumption of needless garbage. Evolution at this point in history is mental and spiritual, not physical or technological. A truly evolved society would barely be noticeable, as opposed our society that disrupts and destroys everything around.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 2:54 pm
08 Apr 2005
Permalink
Bob Holt Posted 2:05 am
09 Apr 2005
1. Several people believe we have to adopt the nuclear option because renewables will take too long to develop. That's dead wrong: one of the big problems with supplying the demand with nuclear plants is that they take a minimum of 10 yrs. to get on line; well developed alternatives (like wind) are available off the shelf and can be built in 2 yrs.
2.The huge capital cost of nuclear power, far greater than any other available option, means taking this option would starve better ones for the available capital.
The often repeated claim of no air pollution overlooks two major types: a. nuclear power plants continuously vent radioactive gaseous fission products, and though most of them have short half-lives their daughters are also radioactive it all adds up to a significant increase in background radiation exposure to people living relatively nearby. b. About 99% of the radioactivity of uranium ore remains in the discarded part after the uranium has been extracted, the 'tailings.' They are usually piled up in the upen, unprotected from erosion by wind and rain. If anyone has calculated what the health costs of this silent pollution are, I have not seen it. Total silence about this problem from the industry.
Suppose we did let greenhouse gases accumulate while we built enough nuclear plants to supply the world's need for electricity (and doing so would significantly augment the amount of greenhouse gases), how long would this alleged solution last? The proved reserves of uranium are enough to last such an augmented array of reactors only a few decades, so this proposed solution turns out to be quite temporary while its noxious side effects would last hundreds of thousands of years.
It would thus only defer the real solution: renewable energy sources, of which there are many not even mentioned on this blog.
5. Another sleeper: the nuclear option requires very large, central generating plants, which can be afforded only by huge, wealthy corporations with the political clout to force them down the public's throat. That would only exacerbate the already intolerable threat to democracy and social justice from corporate power. The only viable future lies in decentralized, locally controlled, less vulnerable and more inherently efficient generation of electricity.
Finally, extensive facts and figures to back up these arguments may be found in the numerous papers by the Lovinses at http://www.rmi.org and by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service at http://www.nirs.org. See especially their "Nuclear power can't stope climate change," Umbra: only two fact-filled pages.
Bob Holt
Permalink
JimHopf Posted 12:08 pm
09 Apr 2005
Gaia Theory creator James Lovelock, Bishop Hugh Montifore of Friends of the Earth, and Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore have all come forward to support nuclear energy, and now Whole Earth's Stewart Brand has as well, as is discussed in his article in MIT's Tech Review:
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/05/issue/feature_earth.asp?p=3
While I admire the Grist article's willingness (and courage) to consider nuclear, I still disagree with many aspects of the mindset that is expressed. The basic view is that nuclear is really bad, with all these very serious problems, but global warming is so bad that we will be forced to use it. In other words, if not for GW, nuclear wouldn't merit consideration. This is far from the truth. All of nuclear's supposed problems are really quite small, compared to those of all other major energy sources, and it would remain a vastly better option than coal even if GW did not exist.
Nuclear power's overall public health and environmental risks/effects, per kW-hr generated, are negligible compared to those of fossil fuels (especially coal), even when all aspects of the nuclear energy production cycle are considered, and even over the long-term.
Nuclear power's overall net CO2 emissions (including all aspects of production) are a tiny fraction of those emitted by coal and oil (~1-2%). This is comparable to wind and is even lower than solar.
Long-term uranium supplies are NOT an issue, and will not prevent nuclear power being used for centuries hence, even at a much larger level of use than today's.
The nuclear waste problem has been "solved" for decades, with nuclear having a SMALLER "waste problem" than most other energy sources (especially coal) and industries in general. The overall per-kW/hr risks associated with nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mtn are orders of magnitude smaller than those of fossil fuels, over any timescale you choose, and are therefore completely acceptable.
The continued use, or expanded use, of nuclear power in the US or other developed countries has absolutely no effect whatsoever on nuclear weapons proliferation. Although anti-nukes deliberately try to blur the two and confuse the public on this, they are completely unrelated.
Although it recieved large amounts of support many decades ago in its early development, nuclear power has been the LEAST subsidised energy source for quite some time, with fossil fuels recieving more, and renewables recieving MUCH more, on a per-kW/hr basis. On top of that, nuclear is held to infinitely higher standards than fossil fuels in terms of releases of toxic material, and public health and environmental effects. On a level playing field, nuclear would be cheaper than coal.
Renewables and conservation can NOT eliminate all or even most of the need for new traditional energy generation in the forseeable future. With hydro tapped, this leaves coal, gas and nuclear to meet a large, and growing energy need. Gas is rapidly running out and will soon be too expensive to use for a large fraction of our power generation. So yes, Virginia, it DOES boil down to a choice between coal and nuclear, for a large fraction of future power generation.
If you have any doubts on this, note what is actually going on as the environmental purists fiddle. Roughly 50 GW of conventional (as opposed to clean) coal capacity is being planned and built in the US right now. This despite renewable portfolio standards on top of large renewable's subsidies (all the support any reasonable person could ask for). This is a testament to "how well it's going" with respect to having conservation and renewables meet all our energy needs. Personally, I'd rather those plants be nuclear.
More details will be given on each of the above points in follow-on posts.
Permalink
A4NR Posted 3:31 pm
09 Apr 2005
Yucca documents were apparently falsified;
The National Academy of Sciences issued a report that questions safety of onsite spent fuel pools and dry cask storage system;
Utah officials are gathering support to prevent Skull Valley from opening.
The government is finally beginning to admit that its program to store high-level radioactive waste is a debacle. The question for California residents - can our state afford to continue operation of nuclear plants sited on vulnerable earthquake active coastal zones? Especially when there is no business or homeowner insurance in the event of a radioactive release.
Nuclear plants daily producing lethal radioactive waste which is stored on coastal bluffs is not in our state's best interest.
Planning to replace this radioactive generation must begin now. We can save multi-billion dollar investments in steam generators and other failing components at California's nuclear plants. We can use these ratepayers dollars to create electric generation that will benefit our state with new jobs, new property taxes, and clean energy.
Phasing out aging and dilapidating nuclear plants is possible and we invite California residents to work with us towards an energy legacy we can proudly leave our children.
The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility is a non-profit statewide organization set up to advocate for legislation to prohibit relicensing on California's nuclear plants. Although current license do not expire until the mid 2020's, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been accepting and granting license renewals 20 years in advance of termination. To date 30 license renewals have been approved by the NRC.
Rochelle Becker, Executive Director
Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
http://www.a4nr.org
Permalink
JimHopf Posted 4:45 pm
09 Apr 2005
Literally every such study that has ever been done has shown that nuclear's external costs are lower than those of coal, with almost all studies saying that they are vastly lower (a few percent at most). Most studies also say that nuclear is better than gas. One of the most comprehensive and up to date studies is the "ExternE" study that was published by the European Commission. A table from this study which summarizes the external costs for various sources is shown below:
http://externe.jrc.es/All-EU+Aggregation.htm
Additional studies on nuclear power's external costs, relativ to other sources like fossil fuels, are presented in this report:
http://www.nea.fr/html/ndd/reports/2003/nea4372-generation.pdf
As shown by the ExternE study, nuclear's total external costs are only a fraction of a cent (~1/4 to 1/3 of a cent). These costs include ALL aspects of the nuclear power process, including effects of mining and fuel processing, along with all risks associated with power plants (i.e., accidents, attacks, etc...) and with long-term waste disposal. Meanwhile coal's external costs are several (~5-7) cents per kW-hr. Coal and oil's external costs are greater than the total currently charged price (i.e. the "real" price is over twice as high). This is something to keep in mind when hearing statements on how nuclear is "not competative" with fossil fuels. If external costs were added, or if fossil fuels were not permitted to emit toxic materials into the environment (like nuclear), nuclear would win handily.
The fact that coal's external costs (i.e., public health and environmental risks/effects) are vastly higher than nuclear's has been thoroughly settled within the scientific community for some time. If anyone bothered to listen to them.... This is the reason for the "matter of fact" statements made be the scientists referred to in the article. It's hard to believe that you still hear people questioning which one is worse.
Not only has every scientific study confirmed that nuclear is far better than coal (even w/o considering GW!!), but it's actually pretty obvious that it is the case, if one just open's ones to look at the actual data/record, and applies just a little common sense.
If you stop and think, you will notice that coal's problems are always about things that actually happened, and continue to happen, whereas nuclear's "problems" are always about things that hypothetically could happen. The health and environmental effects of coal are tangible, proven, and ongoing. They are being observed directly. With Western commercial nuclear power, nothing has ever actually happened. It is always in the realm of people's overly active imagination. Despite this, people seem to give real effects and hypothetically possible effects the same weight.
Recent studies estimate that coal plants kill ~25,000 people in the US alone EVERY YEAR. This, in addition to being the #1 single source of CO2 emissions. By contrast, nuclear power plants have emitted virtually no pollution into the environment, and have never had any measurable public health risk. There are some negative effects associated with uranium mining, invluding (probably) a small number of miner deaths, but it is nothing compared to coal mining. Nuclear power plants and nuclear waste have literally killed noone. (No, TMI did not cause any deaths. This is absolutely clear, as the maximum exposure to any person was still within the range of natural background dose). To compare the record for the US, over the 40 years that nuclear power has been around, coal as caused roughly one million premature deaths, while nuclear has caused NONE. Quite a comparison. And still people wonder which is worse.....
Now lets take the comparison worldwide, and yes, consider Chernobyl. If coal kills 25,000 annually in the US alone, it certainly kills well over 100,000 annually worldwide, especially considering how much dirtier it is in less-developed countries. For nuclear, we are basically talking about one significant event, Chernobyl. The official UN (UNSCEAR) long-term study on Chernobyl's health effects found that 32 workers died from acute radiation exposure. no members of the public (including those living very close to the reactor) suffered from acute exposure, despite not being told about the event (let alone evacuated) for several days. Roughly 2000 thyroid cancers have been observed, and there is a good chance that these are due to the accident. However, as thyroid cancer is very treatable, few of these people are expected to die. The scientists found no increases in any other type of cancer (or in birth defects) even to this day. Yes, this is the truth, despite all the anecdotal evidence that to the contrary that has been widely reported. Any effects other than the ones discussed above are non-existent or are too small to be seen. Some have provided higher estimates of the total eventual death toll based on very conservative, theoretical estimates of radiation health effects, based on the numbers of people exposed to varius dose levels. Even these conservative estimates put the total eventual death toll at on the order of a few thousand people. Even the most extreme estimates, put out by groups like Greenpeace, are less than the ANNUAL death toll from coal in the US alone (i.e., ~20,000), let alone worldwide. So, in summary, worldwide coal has caused 5, maybe 10 million premature deaths, whereas nuclear has caused only a few thousand at most. Once again, quite a comparison.
So basically, nuclear has (in the West) been having no health or environmental effect at all for all this time, whereas coal has killed ~25,000 every single year. With nobody harmed over the entire 40-year history, the record also clearly shows that the likelihood of a large release are extremely small. Many respond to this by saying "Yeah, but one meltdown is enough, i.e., enough to make nuclear come out worse overall". That might be a serious consideration if it had any truth to it, but the fact is, as shown above, even under the worst concievable accident events, the total deathtoll (including all long-term effects) would never get even close to the ANNUAL deaths caused by coal. It should be noted that the casualty figure for Chernobyl (a few thousand, perhaps ~10,000) is based upon a radioactivity release that is vastly larger than the maximum release that could occur from a Western plant under ANY circumstances (including any type of terrorist attack). The reality is that no type of Western nuclear plant accident could ever cause more than on the order of a thousand eventual public deaths. This is clear from common sense comparisons to Chernobyl. Any study or analysis that suggests otherwise is very clearly flawed.
People need to open their eyes and look at the actual facts, the actual record, when drawing conclusions about the risks of various energy sources. Hypothetical event consequences, based on extremely unlikely events, circumstances, and assumptions, need to be given appropriate (low) weight when compared to actual, tangible, measurable, ongoing effects. The statement that nuclear is "dangerous" is absurd on its face. The one energy source that has never killed anyone (in over 40 years) is an "unacceptable risk"?? Nuclear has shown (has PROVEN) itself to be by far the safest source. The actual record couldn't be more clear. Nuclear has operated safely (without emitting any tangible pollution and without causing even a single public death or health effect) for long enough now for the burden of proof to fall more on the shoulders of the people with overly active imaginations.
One final point, conserning normal plant operations. One post stated that emissions from nuclear plants cause people living nearby to have significantly higher exposure rates, and thus higher rates of cancer. Baloney! People living next to nuclear plants recieve less than 1 mrem per year, as compared to an average natural background level of ~360 mrem. Thus, even the most exposed group sees an increase on the order of 0.1% over natural background, with the overwhelming majority of Americans (that live further away) getting no measurable exposure at all.
We know with absolute certainty that these tiny exposures have no health effect at all. Natural background doses vary widely, from ~100 mrem/year to well over 1000 mrem/year in many highly populated areas. Despite this huge variation in annual dose rate, no correlation between cancer rate (or any other health effect) and exposure level has ever been observed. Thus, no health effects have ever been seen from exposure to (additional) radiation of up to ~1,000 mrem/year. Actually, the official line of all the journals and scientific bodies is that no effects have been observed for dose rates under 10,000 mrem/year. Since no health effects are seen for exposures that are thousands of times higher, we are pretty confident that exposures to a few mrem have no effect. BTW, the maximum exposure to anyone from TMI was only ~100 mrem (clearly, no health effects there).
In terms of normal operation, nuclear power basically has no health/environmental effects. Any effects are on the same (negligible) order as those from renewables. They do emit a large amount of heated water though (as does any thermal/fossil system) and this can be a localized ecological issue in some cases.
Permalink
JimHopf Posted 5:12 pm
09 Apr 2005
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull422/article4.pdf
As the study shows, nuclear's net CO2 emissions are only a couple of percent, at most, of coal or oil's emissions. Nuclear's emissions were similar to wind, and actually lower than solar's. Not that the comparison between emissions for non-fossil (i.e., nuclear and renewable) sources is at all meaningful. The real point is that emissions are basically negligible for all these sources.
All the points concerning the fuel enrichment process are largely specious. Yes, the old enrichment plants use ~1 GW of electricity to run, but this meets the fuel needs for ~100 GW of nuclear capacity! This ~1% effect jibes pretty well with the ~2% of coal's net emissions shown in the studies. People say that coal plants are providing this power, but it is meaningless to say where the power from the US grid comes from. The CFC emissions from the current (old) enrichment plants do not amount to a significant GW effect, as compared to those of fossil fuels.
Also, it is not as though CFC release is an inherent property of the enrichment process, as CO2 emissions are for fossil plants. This problem can be fixed. Furthermore, two new enrichment plants are planned and will come on line in a few years. These plants will not emit any CFCs, and they will also use only ~10% as much electric power as the old plants did. Thus, the input electricity will drop from ~1 GW to ~100 MW, which corresponds to only 0.1% of the associated nuclear power output. This will make nuclear's overall net CO2 emissions even more negligible. Finally, it should be pointed out that all such arguments based on electric power input are largely specious, because if we used non-fossil sources like nuclear for most of our power, this input electrical power would NOT result in CO2 emissions.
The net CO2 emission results of these studies also provide clear evidence that the statements made in other posts concerning nuclear's required "energy investment" are largely not true. Net CO2 emissions (which are associated with plant construction, mining, fuel processing and enrichment, etc..) are a pretty good measure of net overall energy input/investment. If nuclear power had an energy return ratio of only 5 or 6, or if it took 8 years for a nuclear plant to produce the energy invested, nuclear's net CO2 emissions could not be only a few percent of coal's. As shown above, enrichment is only ~1% of energy produced, and will soon be much less than that. Other energy use terms (e.g., plant construction) are even more negligible.
A given amount of nuclear or renewable generation will reduce net CO2 emissions by almost exactly the same amount. Both are fully and equally capable of "solving" the global warming problem. How much each one is used will depend on cost and other "desireabilty" factors.
Permalink
Ender Posted 9:03 pm
09 Apr 2005
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309073170/html/86.html#pagetop
"Nevertheless, the common perception is that for geological disposal specifically, one must be able to predict the future accurately--and it is beyond established engineering practices to predict accurately for many thousands of years how the waste and the repository will behave. It is also beyond established practice to predict accurately whether or not some of the radionuclides disposed in the repository may move through the geological formations and eventually come in contact with human beings and the environment in the future and cause them harm. As emphasized above, however, the challenge is not to accomplish these impossible tasks, but rather to assess the range of potential future behaviors with sufficient confidence to allow the appropriate societal decisions to be made."
This is saying in black and white that is IMPOSSIBLE to predict the future behaviour of nuclear waste no matter how we dispose of it. Yes we may be able to store it for a few human lifetimes or even a hundred but what about longer when our civilization is but a legend of dubious authenticity like Atlantis is today.
As has been pointed out in previous posts to which you seem to have paid no attention nuclear power's costs are heavily subsidised - so much so that you do not seem to be able to sort out the real costs from the subsidies. Read this:
"Arguably the best and most current economic comparison of nuclear and fossil-fueled plants is by Professor Paul L. Joskow in a recent interdisciplinary MIT study, "The Future of Nuclear Power."4 As seen from the following table from the MIT Study, in the study new nuclear plants are far from being competitive with new natural gas or coal-fueled power plants. The levelized cost of electricity5 generated by a new nuclear plant is estimated to be about 60 percent greater than the cost of electricity from a coal plant or a gas-fueled plant assuming moderate gas prices."
and
* According to a July 2000 report by the Renewable Energy Policy Project, the U.S. government has spent approximately $150 billion on energy subsidies for wind, solar and nuclear power--96.3% of which has gone to nuclear power.
and
"* Limited Liability: The Price-Anderson Act establishes a taxpayer backed insurance regime for nuclear power plants that limits liability of nuclear operators in the event of an accident. (The Act was enacted in 1957 as a temporary measure to support the fledgling nuclear industry.) Under Price-Anderson, commercial nuclear operators are required to carry only $200 million in primary insurance. A second level of retrospective premiums in the event of an accident is capped at approximately $88 million per reactor, for an industry-wide total of approximately $9.4 billion.
Yet according to a November 1, 1982 Congressional Subcommittee Report, based on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's "Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences" ("CRAC-2") model, a worst case scenario accident at a U.S. nuclear reactor could cost as much as $500 billion in damages. The economic consequences of a severe nuclear waste transportation accident could cost as much as $271 billion. The sizable discrepancy between the coverage available under Price-Anderson and the calculated consequences of severe nuclear incidents leaves the public unprotected and the industry unaccountable in the event of a serious accident. Furthermore, by artificially limiting the liability of nuclear operators, the Price-Anderson Act serves as a subsidy to the nuclear industry in terms of foregone insurance premiums. By masking the risk of nuclear power, the Price-Anderson Act distorts economic viability assessments of nuclear power and encourages the construction of new nuclear plants. No other energy source benefits from this level of subsidy.
* Electric utility deregulation and the stranded cost bailout essentially amount to $120-200 billion, mostly to utilities that are selling off their commercial nuclear power reactors.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-18-01.html
Here at home, the federal government took responsibility for the supply and enrichment of uranium but failed to charge nuclear power plants anything for the capital or inventory costs of the program. And just since the establishment of the Department of Energy in 1978, more than $20 billion of taxpayer money has been spent on nuclear power research and development.
Then there's the granddaddy of all subsidies, the federal assumption of high-level radioactive waste-disposal responsibilities. If the feds had stayed out of this and simply required the industry to secure its own waste disposal through private arrangements, who doubts that the construction costs for such facilities and, more important, the liability costs would greatly exceed the fees the industry currently pays the federal government? In fact, it's extremely doubtful that the industry could insure itself against the possibility of accidents in waste disposal facilities, which could remain highly radioactive for thousands of years."
Also on the subject of risk. Just because no accidents have happened does not affect the statistical likelihood of an accident occurring in the future. I know that the chance of my house burning down or being broken into is less that 1% yet I still pay house insurance because the consequences of an accident or break-in to my home, though very unlikely, would have devastating financial conequences to my familie's finances for years to come if I was not insured. Similarly it is not enough to say that nuclear power is OK because there has not been a significant accident for years because the possible consequences of a nuclear accident are so large any accident, no matter how far apart, still have unique to nuclear power devastating effects. A perfect example of a low risk - high consequence event.
You also glibly dismiss the uranium supply problem when to get around this you need breeder reactors thereby greatly increasing the problems of nuclear weapon proliferation.
Permalink
A4NR Posted 10:22 am
10 Apr 2005
The nuclear power industry and its governmental allies are spending tens of millions of dollars annually to promote atomic power as a "clean air" energy source and to encourage the construction of new nuclear reactors in the U.S. and worldwide. With Russia's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, thereby putting this important agreement into effect, this industry initiative is expected to increase. If successful, we can expect to see a revival--we would call it a "relapse"-- of reactor construction across the globe. There already are numerous proposals for new reactors on nearly every continent.
Yet nuclear power is not only ineffective at addressing climate change, when the entire fuel chain is examined, nuclear power is found to be a producer of greenhouse gases. Adding enough nuclear power to make a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would cost trillions of dollars, create tens of thousands of tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste, contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons materials, result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade or so, and, perhaps most significantly, squander the resources necessary to implement meaningful climate change mitigation policies.
In November 2000 the world recognized nuclear power as a dirty, dangerous and unnecessary technology by refusing to give it greenhouse gas credits during the UN Climate Change talks in the Hague. The world dealt nuclear power a further blow when a UN Sustainable Development Conference refused to label nuclear a sustainable technology in April 2001.
This section includes background information on nuclear power and climate change, documents from the COP 6 meeting of the Kyoto Protocol held in the Hague and other materials. This issue is a high priority for the international NIRS/WISE network, and you can expect to see more materials added here in the coming months.
For the complete report and more info: http://www.nirs.org
However, arguing over CO2 when tons of nuclear waste is being left adjacent to our nation's waterways and pristine coastlines is at the least short-sighted.
Rochelle Becker
Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
http://www.a4nr.org
Permalink
JimHopf Posted 6:05 pm
10 Apr 2005
Their analysis assumes a capital cost of $2200/kW despite the fact that several reactors have been built over the last decade (in the Far East), on budget and on schedule, for less than that. They've also been building them in only ~4-5 years. This is not some theoretical possibility. It's something that has been proven in the field. Based on this proven field experience, GE has offered to guarantee a reactor cost of $1400 for its ABWR design (which it has built several of in Japan). In other words, they're offering a fixed-price contract, you pay them $1400 (per kW) and they deliver the reactor, period (i.e., they take all the risk). They wouldn'y make such an offer if they weren't confident that they could do it. A cost of $1400/Kw corresponds to a power price of less than 5 cents.
The report is also based on current reactor designs, despite the fact that the proposals for new US construction are for new, advanced reactor designs. These new designs are based on decades of engineering effort, technilogical advance, and a host of lessons learned from the first generation of reactors. Much of the focus of these new designs is to reduce cost (although they are also far safer). To assume that we have leaned nothing over all these years, and can't design a less expensive reactor is, well, extremely pessimistic. Detailed analyses shows that costs would be significantly reduced, to ~$1000-1200/kW (with a cost of at most ~$1500 for the first demo plant). This would correspond to power costs in the ~3-4 cent range. The MIT report says that these cost reductions are "plausible but yet to be demonstrated". A true statement, but its tone is unduly pessimistic. There is a high degree of confidence in the lower costs. Given the stakes (GW, etc..), is it so much to ask to let them at least try (i.e., build a couple of plants)?
Another (complicated) issue is the terms of financing, which can greatly affect the power price, even for a given (overnight) construction cost and operating cost for a given plant. The MIT study was also based on the harshest possible financing terms, with an extremely high required return. Better terms would signifcantly reduce the power cost. As an illustrative example, the required return, and thus power cost, can vary greatly depending on whether a long-term power contract is in place (i.e., a guarantee of a customer for the power). Simply having a long-term power contract would reduce the calculated nuclear power cost from 6.7 cents to ~5 cents. After the first few plants are built, the aura of uncertainty around plant costs would lessen, and the borrowing costs for follow-on plants would drop significantly. This, along with lessons learned in construction, would result in MUCH lower power costs for follow-on plants. Most analyses show that these follow on plants would be fully competative with coal, gas, or any other source.
The only sources of energy nuclear truly hasn't been able to compete with in economic terms are dirty (conventional) coal, and natural gas during the brief period (the 90s) over which gas was extremely cheap. But the days of cheap gas are already over, and the only reason conventional coal is cheaper is because not only is it held to astonishingly lax standards, but it isn't even required to pay for the massive effects of its ongoing pollution. As the studies I referenced show, if external costs were included, coal would be way more expensive than nuclear.
Nuclear is already competative with gas in raw economic terms RIGHT NOW. Concerning gas, the MIT and CATO studies are already dated, and are based on gas costs that are much lower than they are today (i.e., ~$3-4/MBTU, versus ~$7.5 today). And no, don't expect gas prices to ever go back down....
Concerning coal, the MIT and CATO studies are right, in a sense. Under today's current policies, conventional coal is, and will be, cheaper than nuclear. Clean coal (i.e., coal gassification, or IGCC) is as expensive as nuclear, however, and coal with CO2 sequestration will be more expensive. That's basically the whole question. Do we care about the environment or not? Do we care about 25,000 people dying every year? Do we care about global warming. If we do not, and we continue to refrain from passing any meaningful policies to address these issues, then yes coal will win out, and continue to be the dominant power source.
On the other hand, if we held coal to anywhere near the standards nuclear is held to, or at least make it pay for all the harm it's causing, nuclear would have no problems at all competing, with no need for any subsidy at all.
There is a difference between toxic material that is released into the environment and toxic material that is NOT released into the environment. Nuclear is basically held to a zero-emission standard. Not only is it not allowed to emit any pollution under normal plant operations, but it is required to show, to a high standard of proof, that none of its waste materials will EVER be released into the environent. Coal, on the other hand, is allowed to routinely emit huge amounts of known toxic materials directly into the air, in quantities sufficient to cause large and readily measurable health consequences. On top of that, it is asked to pay nothing for the priveledge.
If we were to hold coal to a standard even remotely close to nuclear's, we would at a minimum require IGCC for all new coal plants, and we would also slap on a large CO2 emissions tax. To truly approach nuclear's environmental performance, however, nothing short of full "Future-Gen" technology would be required, with complete sequestration of all CO2 and all other pollutants. And it wouldn't even end there. In addition to sequestering (i.e., not emitting) any of their waste products (something nuclear has always done), they would have to guarantee that none of the sequestered waste material EVER leaks out into the bioshpere. Given that coal's solid wastes are almost a million times as voluminous as nuclear waste, and NEVER decays away, this will be a pretty tall order.
In lieu of holding coal to the same "zero-pollution" standards as nuclear, at the very least we should make coal pay for all the public health and economic damages that it causes. According to EPA, coal emissions cause ~$100 billion in economic damages every single year, in addition to the ~25,000 deaths. Charging coal with these external costs would render it much more expensive than nuclear (as the ExternE study results make clear).
As shown above, any type of policy that would hold coal to any reasonable standard would make coal uncompetative. Furthermore, if we have any type of CO2 policy, coal will be rendered uncompetative by definition. Why? Because in order to reduce CO2, we need to reduce coal use. Coal would have to have a declining market share, and the only way that will happen is if it is more expensive than the alternatives. Thus, under a cap-and-trade system, the price of a CO2 credit WILL rise high enough to make coal's cost rise above that of its non-fossil competitors.
The cost of gas is high now, and will only go higher in the future, as the production peak approaches, and as demand soars (from developing countries, etc..). On top of that, North America is being rapidly depleted of gas, and very soon the gas situation will come to resemble the oil situation, with a large fraction of it being imported from unstable regions like the Middle East or Russia. Thus, the use of gas will have "geopolitical" costs, in terms of energy dependence and vulnerability, negative balance of trade, and oh yeah, having to send our troops into wars (like Iraq) to protect the gas supply, as we do now with oil. Based on all the above, it will be difficult, and would be irresponsible, to increase the fraction of power generated by gas. Gas will also be uneconomic, for baseload power at least.
Thus, given that have a greenhouse policy, coal will have to be gradually phased out, and gas will be limited as well by supply limitations. This leaves nuclear and renewables.... Based on the cost figures shown above, nuclear will be roughly as cheap as wind, while solar remains vastly more expensive. And nuclear does not have the intermittantcy problem that renewables (especially wind) have.
I sense that I will never convince some of you that nuclear will be competative with renewables. If that were the case, however, I would have to ask what you are so afraid of. Nobody is ever going to propose nuclear subsidies that exceed those given to renewables (on a per-kW-hr basis). Indeed the largest subsidy even being considered now is for the first few new plants to recieve the same 1.8 cent subsidy that wind gets. But, unlike wind, after the first few plants, nuclear is off the dole completely, and must survive on it's own. It's not a long-term thing. It's just a "jump start".
If nuclear is indeed so much more expensive than renewables, than new plants will not be built even if the above subsidy were offered. If they are built, it will be by totally private industry, and it will be clear that nuclear is indeed competative with renewables. The bottom line is, if renewables (or conservation) actually could provide most or all of our power, at costs that are lower than those of nuclear, as many of you say, than new nuclear plants will simply not be built, period. No policy will make it happen. Given that renewables are not affected by pollution or CO2 limits, or any type of environmental policy, there would be no reason not to use them for all new energy needs, unless other sources were less expensive.
In an ideal world, there would be no energy subsidies. Instead, there would only be externality (or pollution) taxes on sources that emit pollution or toxins. Taxes would also be applied to reflect negative geopolitical effects like forien energy dependence. If coal were required to meet reasonable pollution standards, or were required to pay for its external costs, or, alternatively, if we has ANY policy that limited CO2 emissions, nuclear would not need any subsidies at all (not that it gets any significant subsidies right now). It would not even need the Price Anderson protection, which amounts to a tiny subsidy compared to coal's massive unpaid external costs.
Permalink
birdboy Posted 10:56 am
11 Apr 2005
Brings to mind the point made early on in this discussion- 'the devil is in the details'- this could have been done right (at least better) in the first place, but it wasn't. But with our enlightened government and their conscientious oversight, this would surely never happen again.
Permalink
JimHopf Posted 5:29 pm
11 Apr 2005
Nuclear waste has an unprecedented amount of (collective) toxicity, far beyond any other material we've created or deal with.
Nuclear waste's longevity is without precedent. No other material threatens the distant future as nuclear waste does.
If the worst case repository leakage scenario were to come to pass, it would be an unprecented health catastrophe.
None of these assumptions are even close to true. There are large numbers of hazardous materials that we routinely deal with (and dispose of much more carelessly) that have much greater total (collective) toxicity than does all our spent fuel (nuclear waste). And whereas nuclear waste has a half-life and decays away (becoming less hazardous with time) these substances never decay away. Some toxic molecular substances may eventually breakdown, but the time required for this is not clear, and in many cases is as long as that of nuclear waste. Of course, elemental toxins (mercury, lead, etc...) never decay away. And since these industrial wastes are generated in vastly larger volumes than nuclear waste, the are buried/processed with nowhere near the same degree of care, and are therefore much less isolated from human contact, making their overall, long-term health risk greater still.
The fact of the matter is that solid waste (garbage), chemical toxic waste, and coal ash will all pose a much greater long-term health risk than will Yucca Mtn. By this I mean over any time scale. 300,000 years from now, these wastes will be a far greater health risk than Yucca. The volume of material is millions of times greater, the overall toxicity is actually higher, and the lifetime of many of these toxic materials is greater than nuclear waste or even infinte.
Consider all the mercury, arsenic, lead, uranium, etc.... that has been gently deposited throughout the biosphere by our coal plants. These elements remain toxic forever, so the only way for the health risk to decrease is for these elements to somehow migrate back down out of the biosphere, far under the earth. How long do think that will take? And take landfills. We put everything but the kitchen sink in there, and much of it is toxic and some is known to be long lived (e.g., styrofoam, etc..). As for their containment performance, I've heard that almost half of all the landfills built several decades ago are now superfund sites.
The following reference shows the overall toxicity level of various commonly used industrial chemicals, as compared to nuclear waste of various ages.
http://pobox.com/~lloydt/Jerry_Cohen_Nuclear_Waste_Disposal_1986.pdf
The comparison shows that many materials have much higher overall toxicity levels. And these substances don't decay away like nuclear waste. The report also shows that nuclear waste's radioactivity level drops to that of the original mined uranium ore after ~10,000 years or so. The author also makes the case that Yucca Mtn. represents massive overkill relative to the scale of the actual problem/hazard, and poses many reasons why we chose to embark on this overkill path (i.e., whose interests were served, etc...). At the moment, I'm still not as cynical as the author is concerning these motivations, but I do grow more cynical every day....
In addition to the fact that other industries and energy sources (coal) actually have much LARGER long-term solid waste stream risks than nuclear does, there are the other negative long-term consequences of using coal and/or gas instead of nuclear. People claim to be concerned about burdens to future generations. Yucca is one of the smallest burdens we will leave. If anything, future generations will curse us for a planet that has a fundamentally altered climate, is covered with toxic coal ash "fallout", and has been totally depleted of precious hydrocarbons (gas and oil) which have so many high-value uses, but our generation wasted them by burning them all up just for energy and heat.
Another thing to consider in terms of future burden is the enormous technological advances that will be made before there is any chance at all of any leakage (i.e., ~1000 years). People like to talk about the large timescales involved for nuclear decay, and point out that "10,000 years ago we were cavemen". They don't even realize that this is really an argument as to why nuclear waste is NOT a problem. That's the whole point. The timescale (before any leakage is possible and before anything would have to be done) is extremely long. We have all the time in the world to come up with even better solutions to this problem. Yes, we were very primative 10,000 years ago. Conversely, imagine how advanced we will be 1000 (let alone 10,000) years from now. The thought that nuclear waste would pose a challenge to these people is comical. Can you think of any 1000 year old technologies, or legacies, that are causing us a significant problem now? Considering the above, even the premise that the waste will still be there over the long (10,000+ year) term, thus even having a chance to leak, is quite shaky. The overwhelming probability is that the waste will have been pulled out, processed, and eliminated WELL before then. Although we analyze and plan based upon permament burial/residence, we need to consider the fact that this is actually extremely unlikely to happen. This should be accounted for in the risk estimates (i.e., devide all calculated risks by 100, to reflect the <1% chance that the waste will actually still be there), but alas, it never is.
One may ask why no attention is given to these other waste streams if their long-term risks are so large. One may ask for a quantitative estimate of these risks vs. time, i.e., what the rigorous analyses for THESE waste streams say. Most people probably assume that the reason this issue isn't discussed is because these other waste streams simply do not pose a long-term risk like nuclear waste does. They assume nuclear waste is the only thing that NEEDS a guarantee of zero leakage over an extremely long timeframe.
Unfortunately none of these assumptions have any basis at all. The fact is that these (long-term risk) questions aren't even ASKED with respect to other waste streams. Our society has simply, and arbitrarily, decided not to care about such issues for all other waste streams. The (sudden) demand for rigorous analysis of waste repository performance (leakage, etc..) over a huge timescale, and an absolute requirement of a certain guaranteed performance (leakage) level represents an unprecedented demand that was made for nuclear waste, and nuclear waste alone. No other industry or waste stream could meet the requirements that are being imposed on Yucca Mtn. For nuclear waste, it is not the actual long-term risks that are unprecedented, it is the requirements (and overall philosophy) that is. For all other waste streams the governing philosophies are "just do the best you can", and "just bury it and pray". No absolute requirements (i.e., meet this performance requirement or you can't bury it) are imposed. One of the reasons why we take such a different approach for nuclear waste is that it is generated in such tiny volumes, and is so easy to sequester and isolate, that we can afford to just store all the generated waste for decades, and fiddle around endlessly looking for some "perfect" solution. In other words, the real reason why it has taken so long to "solve" the nuclear waste "problem" is that nuclear's waste situation is so GOOD, (i.e., so manageable), not bad.
Finally, there is the notion that absolutely no leakage is tolerable, for tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. Several posters of spoken in ominous tones about nuclear waste being stored near water, or the fact that it is impossible to guarantee containment over the extreme long term. I wonder what they actually think would happen if there were some leakage or release. The fact of the matter is that even under the most severe leakage scenario that any nuclear critic has ever dreamed up, the overall health effect of such leakage could never come even close to the effects of fossil fuels. When one then considers the negligible likelihood of such an event (a 1/1000 chance of the containment being that bad, times a <1% chance of the waste actually still being there), it becomes absolutely clear that the overall per-kW-hr risks from nuclear waste are negligible, especially compared to fossil fuels' risks.
Some have mentioned large analytical uncertainties, but they failed to understand how nuclear analysts address such uncertainties. Whenever there is an uncertainty, the analyses must make the most conservative (pessimistic) possible assumption. This is done for every variable that enters into the problem. Any effects that would increase performance (substantially in most cases) that are not completely understood or quantifiable, are simply not taken credit for at all. If there is an uncertainty in the public dose rate of a factor of a million, that means that the analyses are showing that the dose rate is somewhere between the established limit, and a million times lower than the limit. Yes, indeed, there are large uncertainties, but people must understand what that really means. What it really means that that the actual dose rate that will (almost certainly) occur is going to be several orders of magnitude smaller than the limit (since the analyses have to show compliance with the limit despite the enormous uncertainties).
Another thing that is not understood is the concept of half-life, and how the hazard level is continuously dropping. At the longer timescales, there is still some hazard, so the analyses still cover that period, but the waste is nothing like when it went into the repository. The fact is that even after only 1000 years, the overall toxicity and hazard level of the waste is pretty small. After this point, even if the repository leaked like a seive, the public health consequences would be very small, probably unmeasurable (as all dose rates would be within the range of natural background). After ~10,000 years, the radioactivity level of the waste is roughly equivalent to the uranium ore that was originally dug out. With all due respect to the courts, any requirement of containment of waste beyond this point is intellectually indefensible.
What is also indefensible is the EPA groundwater dose rate requirement of 4 mrem/year. As you will recall from my earlier posts, no health effects have ever been seen for exposures less than 10,000 mrem. Also, natural background varies from 100-1000 mrem, with no correlation seen between background dose and any health effects. Hundreds of millions of people also get ~200 mrem/year from radon in their homes. This is all ongoing (100% chance) and yet nothing is done. People aren't even told about these supposed risks. And yet for Yucca even a tiny chance of a small number of people recieving more than a mere 4 mrem, even hundreds of thousands of years from now, is considered unacceptable. The double standards are incredibile!
Not only is the dose limit absurdly low, but it is calculated based on absurdly hypothetical assumptions. It is based on someone drilling a well into the most concetrated part of the hypothetical plume of contaminated groundwater, and using that well for all their drinking water and to raise a crop from which they eat all their food. The are assumed to not filter the water even though any radiation would be readily measurable. This set of assumptions is wholly unrealistic, and any real person would get at most, ~1% of that dose.
It should also be pointed out that the number of potentially affected people is very small, only a few towns or villages in the remote Nevada desert, and only if they rely on well water. The groundwater flow under Yucca Mtn. does not connect to any major aquifer, river, or water system from which large numbers of people get their water. The groundwater stream in question flows only a short distance west to a place under Death Valley, where it simply dries up. Any contamination would remain contained (underground) over this local, remote desert area (most of which lies within the Nevada Test Site anyway).
So, to summarize, what we are talking about here is an extremely small chance that (only) a handful of people may be exposed to a radiation dose rate that STILL lies within the range of natural background. This, when we've never seen any health effects from such dose rates, and when we routinely allow hundreds of millions of people to be continually exposed to such dose rates without giving it a 2nd thought. The only reason Yucca is having trouble is that even this trivial level of risk is considered too much. Instead, we've decided that absolute proof of dose rates lower than ~1% of natural background will be required (for what reason, I will never be able to fathom). It is these absurd dose rate limits, which are a tiny fraction of background, that makes it possible for Yuccca to not meet the requirements even though the waste's radioactivity level has fallen to less than that of the original mined uranium ore. There are numerous natural ore deposits all around the world that, if they were analyzed like Yucca Mtn. is, they would not pass the dose rate requirements and would be deemed "unacceptable". Being no more hazardous than a typical, natural uranium ore deposit (like the ones that were dug out of the earth originally to make the fuel) is apparently not enough!
There are actually numerous sites all over the globe, near uranium (and other natural radioactive material) deposits, where the dose rates to local residents (anyone drinking the groundwater, at least) are as high as 10,000 mrem/year!! Radium hot springs areas, or other volcanic areas are examples of this. Even under the absolute worst leakage scenarios anyone has ever imagined, the dose rates from Yucca Mtn. would never be this high. And yet, there are numerous such areas occurring (naturally) all over the globe, and nobody makes an issue out of it. This is the "catastrophe" that everyone is saying is absolutely unacceptable, and that therefore absolute proof of complete long-term containment is required. What catastrophe? Simply having one more radium hot springs like area pop up in a remote part of the desert? The fact is that there are huge numbers of locations all over the globe where it would not be a good idea to drink the water (without filtration), often due to natually occurring elements. I'm not saying that this is not something worth trying to avoid, if possible. What I am saying is that it is absurd to consider this possibility (especially given the vanishingly small chance of it actually happening) to be sufficient reason to forgo nuclear when the main competeting sources (coal and gas) have infinitely more serious problems (i.e., REAL environmental problems).
Permalink
Ender Posted 10:25 pm
11 Apr 2005
2 very long and thoughtful posts which gave me much to think about. While they were very long they failed to mention 2 points I made.
The continuance of the nuclear industry in your fine country is presently stalled on congress ratifying an extension to the Price-Anderson act that limits liability. Without it NP is a dead duck so all your rhetoric about costs depends on this subsidy.
You also fail to mention that the disposal of waste is also payed for by your government and is not figured in the capital cost of the plant.
Two big discrepancies.
As to the supposed advanced civilizations that will dispose of our mess. You are pinning your plan on some future civilization being advanced enough to what - make it go away, break the laws of physics and destroy it, change the weak nuclear force so it decays faster?????
You are correct that coal power is incredibly dirty and will produce waste. That is why it has to be phased out as well.
You need to realise that our present civilization is unsustainable no matter how many band-aids you want to put in place to keep it tottering on for a few more years. This desperate attempt to power it with whatever we can despite the consequences, that we cannot even calculate, will only buy us a few years anyway. How much uranium do you think there is? We cannot agree on how to dispose of the relativly small amount of waste we have now - how will you dispose of the massive volumes of waste that would be produced with the expansion of NP to power the whole load?
Then there is the question of proliferation. Is this NP solution of yours for everyone or just 'trusted' nations At the moment your esteemed government is waging a campaign to deny Iran nuclear power - Why?? According to you NP is as safe as houses and the new green hope - why can't Iran or Syria participate in this saving of the environment?
Permalink
jacksenechal Posted 8:47 am
12 Apr 2005
1. Which is safer?
Despite a few readers suggesting that nuclear is truly not that bad of an option, I think we can all agree that there are several potential dangers associated with nuclear power. The core of the issue is that nuclear technology is a dangerous one... potentially extremely toxic to the earth and humanity. In order to make it safe we have to put in place a rigorous security system which guards us from the hazardous materials and processes at every step of the way, from mining to the reaction chamber to the (very long term) storage of the waste. A breach of security at any of these levels could be a vast catastrophe with far-reaching implications. And the more nuclear power plants we have in the world, the greater the danger of a breach of security.
Conversely, dear reader, consider wind. Correct me if I am wrong, but one of the largest dangers to the environment from wind power is that it seems to splatter a few birds? Oh no.... but this is terrible! Enough said.
2. Which is more practical? Which one can more realistically be implemented as a solution to our impending energy crisis?
There seems to be an assumption by many people, including dear Umbra, that nuclear is more readily available than wind as a large-scale solution. Where is this coming from? It could be that there are very good reasons for this assumption, but in all of my readings I have yet to come across ANY. From every indication I can see, wind is as cheap as nuclear, and getting cheaper. It is also much more de-centralized, which has several obvious benefits. There is less danger of large-scale blackouts, much less danger of a possible terrorist disruption, etc.
So how about the objection that "wind is not nearly so widespread as nuclear, so even though it's good we can't rely on it yet"? Well, we aren't talking about relying on the current available infrastructure. We are proposing expanding the nuclear capacities to match a drastic increase in demand as we shift away from fossil fuel consumption. The construction of nuclear power plants requires a massive initial investment. What if we were to put an equal amount of money and effort into constructing wind farms? Somebody please run the numbers, but it seems extremely likely to me that such a large scale investment in wind infrastructure really could provide us with a similar return.
Permalink
Ender Posted 10:25 am
12 Apr 2005
With this availability of natural resources you woudl require less military spending as you would not really mind who was doing what in the world as youwould not be reliant on foreign countries for you prosperity. Maybe then you could spend the money on education and health care. Here in Australia I do not have the worry of a major illness resulting in bankrupcy as we have 'socialised' medicine.
I am sure that if you really asked the majority of citizens of the US whether they were prepared to scale down on their electronic goodies a bit and accept renewable power if it meant better health care and education they would jump at it.
The people really put out by a plan like this would be large corporations and of course their will will prevail.
Permalink
JimHopf Posted 5:05 pm
12 Apr 2005
Thanks for taking the time to read my long posts. As I tend to be long-winded, I decided to break up my response into sections, each on a specific sub-topic (as the titles show). I just hadn't gotten to the Price-Anderson issue yet. Since you brought it up, I'll do it now.
My personal scientific opinion is that the magnitude of the maximum potential radioactivity release from a worst-case plant accident/attack, its effect on public health, and its monetary costs, have all been grossly overestimated. Many of these "official" analyses are extremely overly-conservative, based on very unrealistic assumptions.
This has to do with the nuclear analysis philosophies I mentioned earlier, where every variable is set to it's most pessimistic possible value, and several effects that are likely to reduce the consequences by large amounts are completely neglected if they are not completely understood and quantifiable. The result is often calculated consequences that are high by several orders of magnitude.
One example was one study on the health effects of a transport cask breach due to a terrorist attack. Since they couldn't "quantify", beyond a shadow of a doubt, how fast people would evacuate, they assumed that the entire local population would just stand there, in the local spot of maximum contamination, for an entire year. Such wildly unrealistic assumptions are actually quite common. I believe that these practices and philosophies are a disservive, as they yield analysis predictions that are completely out of touch with reality, and which misinform (and needlessly scare) the public. That cost estimate for a transport cask breach of ~100 billion dollars, for example, is high by at least a factor of 1000, in my opinion (me being someone who is intimately familiar with spent fuel transport casks). Other, more realistic studies have confirmed this.
In the case of a reactor accident, consider Chernobyl. It released vastly more radioactivity than any Western plant could under any circumstances, due to several fundamental differences in design, along with the fact that Western plants have a containment which will greatly reduce any release. As I discussed earlier, Chernobyl will eventually cause, AT MOST, a few thousand cancer deaths. This despite the complete lack of any response or evacuation. I think the monetary costs were ~100-200 billion. The maximum possible release from a Western reactor is at least one order of magnitude lower than Chernobyl, probably several orders. Thus, common sense would say that the maximum possible financial consequences of a US plant accident would be more on the order of $10 billion dollars, i.e., about the same order of magnitude as the amount of private insurance that the industry currently carries. Total eventual premature deaths for the public would be ~1000, at the very very most.
Alas there are many "conservative" studies which predict far higher costs, and there are at least some scientists how actually believe it. Although my educated opinion is greatly at odds with this, and there are many scientists (probably most) who agree with me, it would be fair to characterize this as an area of scientific disagreement. It is also true that the insurers apparently buy into the more conservative estimates as well.
So, for the moment, lets assume that these extreme cost estimates (hundreds of billions of dollars) are true. If they were, then yes, the industry's current $10 billion in insurance would cover only a small fraction of the total, the coverage of damages over $10 billion could be considered a subsidy.
There are a range of estimates of the magnitude of the Price Anderson "subsidy". As shown in the following link:
http://www.taxpayer.net/energy/priceanderson.htm
the benefit is estimated to be between $355 million and $3.4 billion dollars, per year, for the entire industry (i.e., all 103 plants). This link is opposed to Price-Anderson, BTW, so I doubt they low-balled the estimate. This may sound like a lot to many people, but they underestimate the scale of the power industry, the total cost of operation, and the number of kW-hrs generated. US nuclear power plants generate 780 billion kW-hrs per year (based on the latest year). If we divide the above dollar amounts by the number of kW-hrs, we arrive at a subsidy of ~0.04 - 0.4 cents/kW-hr.
Yes, this could be considered a subsidy, but it is just about the only subsidy nuclear power has (along with perhaps some small environmental effects of uranium mining, relatively speaking). The above amounts jibe fairly well with the total nuclear external cost estimate of ~0.2-0.4 cents/kW-hr given by the ExternE study I mentioned earlier (and which probably includes this insurance effect). While nuclear power's external costs and/or subsidies may be finite, they are much smaller than those of other energy sources.
Renewables do not have significant public health & environmental costs, but they are heavily subsidized. Wind gets 1.8 cents/kW-hr from the Feds, with additional state subsidies in some cases. Wind may require extensive additions and upgrades to the grid, which in many cases may be provided for free (i.e., not included in the wind price) or at least be subsidized. Solar PV gets a 50% subsidy in many states, which amounts to a subsidy of over 10 cents/kW-hr. And then there are renewable portfolio standards which mandate a certain amount of renewables no matter how much they cost....
Fossil fuels are also subsidized, at numerous phases of the entire production cycle. They get massive royalty relief (i.e., almost free access to public lands and services), all sorts of tax breaks, and in many cases other financial aid like loan guarantees. I even heard that fossil power plants get to deduct their fuel costs from their taxes! One of the things the nuclear industry was trying to get as part of the new energy bill was a loan guarantee for 50% of the financing for the first few new plants. This proposal was rejected as too expensive and risky. However, one finds that if one wants to build a clean (gassification) coal plant, you can already get a loan guarantee for 80% of the financing. They are proposing a similar loan guarantee for the Alaska gas pipeline. Apparently it's OK for fossil fuels to get these subsidies, but not nuclear.....
In terms of govt. research funding, conservation and renewables get over 600 million/year, and fossil fuels get over 400 million, whereas the budget for programs that actually benefit commercial nuclear power (as opposed to military related areas) is only ~100-150 million. One poster made reference to 150 billion in nuclear subsidies. Nuclear did recieve a lot of support in its early days, but that support has dissapeared a long time ago, and is no longer relevent with respect to the issue of future energy choices. Also, the $150 billion figure is extremely high, and it is overwhelmingly likely that most of that money was actually used for military related purposes that privided very little direct benefit to commercial nuclear power.
It should also be noted that modern gas plants are based on jet engine technology which was developed (at enormous expense) by the military, decades ago (similar to nuclear's situation). Yet that isn't flagged as a "subsidy". This logic is actually mostly valid, since military jet engines would have been developed (and the associated money would have been spent) regardless of whether or not the technology was later used for some other application. This isn't a "subsidy", it's a "freebee". Yes, nuclear benefited from some of the defense (nuclear weapons) research, but that research would have been done regardless.
The same is true for the uranium enrichment plants, which some posters have mentioned. These plants were built in the 40s and 50s in support of the nuclear weapons establishment, well before the era of commercial nuclear power. These plants would have been built regardless. It so happens that once built, it is easy for these plants to enrich extra uranium on the side for use in our commercial reactors, at low net cost. This isn't really a subsidy. Even in the pure free market world, where there is no govt. involvement, spare industrial plant capacity is often offered to other parties at a deep discount (close to incremental cost), in order to increase plant utilization. Much has been made of the "liabilities" (i.e., cleanup costs) at these old plants, and many have called this a nuclear power subsidy (as the govt. is paying for the cleanup). Most of this mess, however, was made in the 50s and 60s, due to the sloppy practices of those times, which once again was well before the age of commercial nuclear power. Thus, the mess (and associated cleanup cost) is strictly weapons-related. It would be difficult to argue that commercial nuclear power is responsible for this, or that it should pay for that cleanup.
And finally, as I mentioned ealier, two new enrichment plants are being built. These are entirely privately funded enterprises, specifically for the commercial nuclear power industry. Thus, once these plants replace the old ones, all costs related to fuel enrichment and processing, including the costs of plant construction and operation, as well as all waste management and cleanup liabilities, will be fully born by the commercial nuclear power industry. Thus, any subsidies related to fuel enrichment and processing, if indeed there ever were any, will clearly be gone in a few years.
Based on all the above, it is clear that nuclear power is the least subsidized of all the major energy sources, in terms of monetary support. But this does not even include the biggest subsidy of all, the complete forgiveness of all public health, environemental, and energy security costs for coal and gas. As shown by the ExternE study, coal's environmental costs amount to 5-7 cents/kW-hr, which is one to two orders of magnitude higher than nuclear's external costs. This makes sense, when you consider that, according to EPA and other govt. and scientific bodies, coal plant emissions kill 25,000 people every year, and causes over $100 billion per year in economic damage. This is far more deaths, and almost as much economic cost as what the unrealistically conservative analyses showed for the worst-case reactor meltdown scenario. And this happens EVERY YEAR!!
Based on the above, it would go without saying that coal's external costs are orders of magnitude greater than nuclear's Price-Anderson subsidy. Lets assume that the industry's 10 billion in coverage is a negligible fraction of the overall cost, and that nuclear is therefore basically completely "forgiven" the economic consequences of a meltdown. Even if this were true, what we're talking about is the nuclear industry not paying enough to provide insurance and compensation for a an event that may occur once every ~100 years. This, as compared to the coal industry inflicting a similar health and economic cost EVERY YEAR and never having to pay one dime to anyone in compensation. It should be clear that the coal "subsidy" is orders of magnitude larger (about a factor of 100 larger, in fact).
The whole assumption (and mindset) here is that if there is ever a release from a nuclear plant, everyone would demand, and recieve (from govt. if not the industry) massive compensation for any damages caused. My question is, what about the 25,000 people who die every year from coal? How about the annual $100+ billion loss? Why aren't any of these people suing or recieving compensation? Once again, there is a complete double standard in how the two energy sources are treated. It must be great to know that you will never be held responsible for all the damage your causing. The abosolute MOST anyone would ever consider doing to the coal industry is to simply (and meekly) ask/require that they stop killing people and inflicing these damages in the future. They will never be held responsible for damages done. And hey, you don't need ANY insurance if you know you'll never be held liable for anything!
This brings me back to my personal position on this issue, which I alluded to earlier. Yes, Price Anderson could be considered to be a nuclear subsidy, but it is a relatively small one compared to the subsidies that other energy sources get. I'd be willing to give up Price Anderson, and any other remaining nuclear subsidies, the moment that the other sources agree to get rid of all of theirs (and not one moment before). I don't have much patience with the idea of getting rid of every last ounce of nuclear's subsidies/externalities while doing nothing about orders of magnitude larger subsidies that other sources continually get. All that does is artifically push us towards sources that have much greater health, environmental, and geopolitical costs (i.e., coal and gas).
With all other sources getting far higher subsidies (especially if the unpaid health environmental costs of fossil fuels are considered), the deck is heavily stacked against nuclear right now. THIS is the reason why nuclear is having some trouble competing in the "free" market. It's not that it is inherently expensive or uncompetative. It's that the regulatory (and subsidy) playing field is ridiculously unlevel and unfair. Speaking for the nuclear industry, "we don't want subsidies, we want justice!" On a fair playing field, nuclear wouldn't need any.
Permalink
JimHopf Posted 5:57 pm
12 Apr 2005
You're right, wind is indeed safer than nuclear, and I agree that the bird issue is not all that big in the overall scheme of things. Both wind and nuclear's risks, however, are tiny compared to coal and oil. As wind (and solar) have even lower risks/effects than nuclear, I believe they should be used, as the 1st choice, wherever practical. You are also right that the per kW-hr costs of wind are now similar to nuclear (perhaps even a little cheaper, at some sites anyway). In terms of comparing the "investments required", it really all just boils down to per-kW/hr cost. So yes, wind would have a similar cost, and you'd get a "similar return".
If I thought that they could provide all (or even most) of our energy, at a price that is not too much higher, I wouldn't be as supportive of "less perfect" options like nuclear, gas, hydro, or even gassified coal (all of which I do in fact support). But alas, I do NOT think that wind can supply all, or even most of our power for the forseeable future. For that reason, I believe that the sources I mentioned above should be actively encouraged, despite their (relatively minor) flaws, as that will be required to reduce our reliance on the truly damaging sources (conventional coal and oil) as much as possible.
What limits wind's potential to provide most of our power? Intermittantcy. The fact that the wind doesn't blow all the time. Wind farms generate on average, over the year, ~25-33% of their rated power. That is, they only generate power ~1/3 of the time. As of now, there is no means of storing electric power that is even remotely economical.
Thus, for every 1000 MW of wind capacity, you have to have a 1000 MW fossil plant sitting in ready-reserve. And the fossil plant will end up generating ~2/3 of the overall power. The windfarms only avoid the fuel costs of traditional plants (they do not avoid any capital or fixed operating costs, as these plants have to be ready in reserve). For this reason, wind is only economic if it displaces gas plant capacity, since gas is the only fuel expensive enough to approach the cost of the wind power (~5 cents/kW-hr w/o subsidy). Wind would have to cost ~1 cent/kW-hr before it would make economic sense to build wind farms just so we can throttle back our coal plants ~1/3 of the time.
This is a real limitation, given that the capacity factor is only ~33%. Right now we use gas for ~20% of our power. This would mean that we could only effectively (and economically) use wind for ~7% of our overall annual generation. If you try to build more windfarms, you will start cutting into your coal generation at times of peak wind. Tragically, peak wind periods are not correlated at all with peak power demand periods.
The above is somewhat of an over-simplification, and there are mitigating factors. It is not windy, or calm, at the same time in all parts of the country. We could send wind power back and forth over long distances from parts of the country where it is windy to parts of the country where it is not. This will require significant investment in the grid, however, which would add to wind's cost. Also, one exception to the "no economic storage" point I made earlier is large hydro dams. In regions where there is a lot of hydro (e.g., the Pacific NW), one can shut off the flow of the dams and let the water build up in the reservoir during high wind times, and then let water flow through the turbines at an accelerated rate during times of low wind. Thus, in high hydro areas, wind could be effectively used for a larger fraction of overall generation.
For some of the reasons given above, the American Wind Association believes that it MAY be possible to generate ~15-20% of our power with wind by ~2020. This is their upper bound (optimistic) goal. These are the actual engineers who are working in the field of renewable energy. In terms of what wind's (and other renewables') real limitations are, I'm inclined to take their word over those of dogmatic environmentalists.
Renewables DO have some significant limitations, and they are likely to be able to provide, at most, ~15%-25% of our electricity. Traditional sources will be needed for the rest. And given that electric power demand is expected to grow by more than 15%-25% by 2020, the total amount of traditional (non-renewable) generation will actually have to grow over that period, even under the most optimistic conservation scenarios.
This is why issues concerning WHICH traditional sources we should use are so important. The more benign traditional sources (nuclear, gas, hydro, and perhaps even gassified coal), are better than the truly bad actors (conventional coal and oil) by an order of magnitude or more. For this reason, the attitude held by many environmentalists that non-renewable sources are "all bad", none better than the other, is simply not going to cut it. Which sources we use for the other ~80% of our energy will be of vital importance. Simply using the more benign traditional sources can remove ~90% of the environmental problems.
BTW, one more thing that may limit wind power has to do with the fact that the amount of land area required to generate 1 GW of wind power is vastly larger than that required for any traditional source. At some sites, dual land applications like ranching and farming can reduce this problem. However, in wilderness areas, more scenic areas, or areas where there is a greater population density (such as Europe or the East Coast) this may become a real problem. Even though wind is still a tiny fraction of power, resistance (NIMBYism, etc..) is already starting to appear. In Europe, where the population density is higher, and where the countryside is valued as a tourist attraction, the resistance is much stronger. This should be less of a problem in the US, with our lower population density and our vast unpopulated (and un-picturesque) plains. Resistence is also appearing on the East Coast of the US, however. It's not clear what the public reaction will be if we try to use wind for ~20% or more of our power, as windfarms will have to be all over the place.
I personally don't put much credence in any of these issues, and will always strongly support wind development. I'm just letting you know what the public is capable of, and how they're likely to behave.
Permalink
Ender Posted 11:46 pm
12 Apr 2005
You really have no way of assessing the risk or damage claim from an nuclear accident. Chernobyl is really the only large accident that there has been and it was in an area that was relativly unpopulated compared to say the Indian Point complex. If this site ever had a problem then the costs, even if there were not to many deaths, could be astronomical by the time all the litigation had settled. If a person can get 1 million dollars for tripping on the pavement imagine the size of the claims after a nuclear accident. In this sort of case the 500 million cap in effect becomes a huge subsidy. The cap also has the effect of lowering insurance premiums as an most insurance companies would not underwrite the cost of insuring the Indian Point complex because the potential payout is so huge.
You have also not got to my points about supply of uranium or weapons proliferation.
As to winds intermittancy this is more to do with the fact that for the last 100 or so years the only type of economical power plant were huge central fossil fuel ones. The bigger they were the more efficient they were. NP is a continuance of this massive vunerable central power station.
Renewables require a whole new way of generating and using power. This is what traditional power producers find hard. Integrating fluctuating power sources into a grid that is totally designed around constant 24X7 power from a massive central power station is hard.
The solution is to change the grid. Power generation needs to be more local and distributed. In exactly the same way computing changed from massive mainframes to millions of PCs loosely connected to the Internet. There is no way that we could have this discussion the way we are having it if we were still stuck to mainframes. Small CHP gas turbines right at the consumer point can be just as efficient as a large one and can start and stop easily. Already renewable power utilities can make reliable 10 min predictions about how much power they are able to generate and can send signals to start and stop backup power. Widely dispersed but connected wind turbines in concert with solar thermal or PV power plants can also increase the availabilty of the whole system as it is usually sunny or windy somewhere.
The storage that you mentioned can be afforded if you make consumers pay for the storage and disguise it as efficient private transport. Electic cars with AC inverter drives and Lithium or NiMh batteries can supply power to the grid when they are connected for recharging. If a significant portion of the nation's cars were electric then this represents a massive storage resource that the utilities can use and they do not have to pay for. They would just pay for the power used.
Lastly some of the surplus renewable power can be used to generate storable gases for times when there is no renewable energy available. I have an idea to generate hydrogen and then convert it to methane and store it or use it in the conventional natural gas system. Vast areas of sunny and windy land have gas piplines but no major electricity feeders. If these just produced natural gas then it avoids the synch, loss, and cost problems of huge electrical feeder lines.
This coupled with power consumption reduction makes NP unecessary. Why do it if we really do not have to??
Permalink
jessica Posted 2:19 am
14 Apr 2005
Published on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 by the Baltimore Sun
Nuclear Power Still a Deadly Proposition
by Helen Caldicott
WHILE VICE PRESIDENT Dick Cheney is actively promoting nuclear power as a significant plank in his energy plan, he claims that nuclear power is "a safe, clean and very plentiful energy source."
The Nuclear Energy Institute, the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industries, is currently running an energetic campaign for the revivification of nuclear power. Ubiquitous TV and radio ads carry the admonition that "Kids today are part of the most energy-intensive generation in history. They demand lots of clean electricity. And they deserve clean air."
Also, a consortium of 10 U.S. utilities has requested funding from the federal government for the construction of new reactors based on a European design, and they hope to receive government approval by 2010. This is a major policy change since no new nuclear reactors have been ordered in the United States since 1974.
Nevertheless, the claims of the Mr. Cheney and the nuclear industry are false. According to data from the U.S. Energy Department (DOE), the production of nuclear power significantly contributes both to global warming and ozone depletion.
The enrichment of uranium fuel for nuclear power uses 93 percent of the refrigerant chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) gas made annually in the United States. The global production of CFC is banned under the Montreal Protocol because it is a potent destroyer of ozone in the stratosphere, which protects us from the carcinogenic effects of solar ultraviolet light. The ozone layer is now so thin that the population in Australia is currently experiencing one of the highest incidences of skin cancer in the world.
CFC compounds are also potent global warming agents 10,000 to 20,000 times more efficient heat trappers than carbon dioxide, which itself is responsible for 50 percent of the global warming phenomenon.
But nuclear power also contributes significantly to global carbon dioxide production. Huge quantities of fossil fuel are expended for the "front end" of the nuclear fuel cycle -- to mine, mill and enrich the uranium fuel and to construct the massive nuclear reactor buildings and their cooling towers.
Uranium enrichment is a particularly energy intensive process which uses electricity generated from huge coal-fired plants. Estimates of carbon dioxide production related to nuclear power are available from DOE for the "front end" of the nuclear fuel cycle, but prospective estimates for the "back end" of the cycle have yet to be calculated.
Tens of thousands of tons of intensely hot radioactive fuel rods must continuously be cooled for decades in large pools of circulating water and these rods must then be carefully transported by road and rail and isolated from the environment in remote storage facilities in the United States. The radioactive reactor building must also be decommissioned after 40 years of operation, taken apart by remote control and similarly transported long distances and stored. Fully 95 percent of U.S. high level waste -- waste that is intensely radioactive -- has been generated by nuclear power thus far.
This nuclear waste must then be guarded, protected and isolated from the environment for tens of thousands of years -- a physical and scientific impossibility. Biologically dangerous radioactive elements such as strontium 90, cesium 137 and plutonium will seep and leak into the water tables and become very concentrated in food chains for the rest of time, inevitably increasing the incidence of childhood cancer, genetic diseases and congenital malformations for this and future generations
Conclusion: Nuclear power is neither clean, green nor safe. It is the most biologically dangerous method to boil water to generate steam for the production of electricity.
Helen Caldicott, a pediatrican, is president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and author of The New Nuclear Danger, George Bush's Military Industrial Complex (The New Press). She lives near Sydney, Australia.
Permalink
JimHopf Posted 12:07 pm
15 Apr 2005
The concept of terrorists or rogue nations siezing spent fuel, at the plant site or on route to a repository, and processing it to make a nuclear weapon is ludicrous. This is the single most difficult way to obtain fissile material that anyone can imagine. Nobody will attempt this, as there is an inumerate number of vastly easier approaches to obtaining a weapon. These include literally obtaining a lost or stolen nuclear weapon (or the necessary material) from Russia or Pakistan, enriching raw uranium ore from their own nation's soil, or building their own reactor in their host nation. There are also small research reactors all over the world with weapons grade fuel. History bears out this fact, as nobody has ever attempted to obtain fissile material this way. Instead, they've enriched their own ore or built their own reactors.
Spent fuel from a nuclear power plant is no more useful for a weapon than the raw uranium ore that anyone, anywhere, can just dig up from the ground. Even if you could sieze a shipment, there is no way one could "slip away" and escape this country. The fuel is intensely radioactive and very hard to process. This would require a large facility, which would have to be in their host country (you couldn't hide such a facility here), which means they'd have to smuggle stolen spent fuel assemblies, weighing several tons and being intensely radioactive, out of the US. Not even remotely credible. It's not even clear that the plutonium in spent fuel can make a useful weapon, due to the concentration of the Pu-240 isotope.
If we ever did reprocess, the issue would be the shipment of the MOX (mixed-oxide) fuel back to the reactors for reuse. The only difference with this fuel is that it is less radioactive than spent fuel, but all the other difficulties due to the mass of the fuel, the difficulty in escaping detection, the Pu-240, etc.., would all remain. Besides, the fact is that many nations around the world DO reprocess, and if the risks were so great, terrorists could just get the stuff there, so us forgoing it would not reduce anyone's risks.
In any event, increasing or reducing the number of nuclear plants will have little effect on the chances of any such heists, or on the risk from any other type of terrorist attack for that matter. They would only need to steal some small amount of fuel (if that approach made any sense in the first place, which it doesn't). The only way to eliminate, or even significantly reduce this (already trivial) risk would be to eliminate nuclear plants entirely, something which is not on the table. Therefore, since this risk is tiny, and can't be reduced much by reducing the number of plants, we may as well increase the number of plants, since the BENEFITS of nuclear power (i.e., reduced air pollution, CO2 emissions, energy imports, etc...) all DO scale with the number of plants. BTW, the above logic also applies for attacks on plants. While the benefits scale with the number of plants, a smaller number of plants does not reduce the attack risk much, as they will just attack whatever plants are still around.
For the above reasons, it is clear that using more nuclear power in nations that already have a nuclear program will not affect proliferation. This leaves the question of new national nuclear programs. As I said ealier, I believe that using less nuclear power in developed nations will have the effect of increasing the level of use of nuclear power in the developing world, and the number of nations that have nuclear plants.
It's simply a matter of balance and economics. Using less nuclear will result in more use of natural gas (Europe being a clear example of this), which will cause supplies to become more limited, it's price to rise, and the projected remaining reserves to fall. All of this will make developing nations more eager to build their own reactors. Even nations that have large gas and oil reserves, like Iran, will want plants because the higher price will make them want to sell their gas on the world market instead of using it themselves, and because even they will know that their reserves will not last forever, especially if alternative sources aren't used wherever possible. Examples of this result are numerous. In addition to Iran's actions, Russia is building nuclear plants so that it can save its gas reserves for export to Europe, the reason being that the Europeans have started relying on gas instead of nuclear for most new power stations. The net result is that we have just as many reactors, but now more of them are in Russia, whose reactors are (if anything) less safe.
Concerning the notion of increased proliferation risk due to countries using "the cover of a nuclear energy program", apparently the idea is that this excuse allows them to develop weapons w/o being noticed, whereas it would be easy to notice if it wasn't for nuclear power. Any weapons program would be "obvious". To be frank, it's obvious anyway. Everyone knows that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. This is not an issue that has anything to do with nuclear power. The issue is entirely about the fact that nations can develop nuclear weapons right in front of everybody, and there is no political will to do anything about it. Reducing nuclear power use in the developed world will not change this situation one iota.
Even if one assumed that new nuclear energy programs could increase the likelihood of a nation obtaining weapons, the response of many nations/groups (specifically, the response from left-liberal, more anti-nuclear groups & nations, like Germany) is quite bizarre. They say they want to reduce or even phase out nuclear in their own countries to "set an example", with the notion that this will somehow reduce proliferation risk, but they also cling to the principal that developing nations have a "right" to peaceful nuclear power, and how developed nations (like the US) are being hypocritical.
For starters, the whole "setting an example" thing ain't going to work. Jimmy Carter tried that with reprocessing, and the rest of the world ignored him. The result, no reduction in risks. Reducing the number of plants in the US and Europe will not stop any developing nation from pursuing nuclear power programs. This certainly will not deter the nations that we should be most worried about (i.e., nations that actually do intend to develop weapons).
Instead, what we will wind up with is the worst of both worlds. Nuclear would be used less in the developed world, where it poses no proliferation risk, and where most CO2 emissions arise, resulting in none of the benefits of nuclear being realized. Meanwhile, all the developing nations, including nations we'd especially not want to have nukes, will exercise their "right" to nuclear power programs. Simply put, nuclear will be used less where it is most desireable and will be used more exactly where it is least desireable.
No, "setting an example" will not produce any of the desired results, so nations that already have nuclear programs should build more plants, and increase the benefits of nuclear power such as reduction in air pollution, CO2 emissions, oil and gas depletion, etc.... Conversely, we MAY consider restricting the flow of nuclear technology to smaller, less developed nations. One of the only ways to do this is to not sell any nuclear technology or expertise to these nations. Since these nations have a "right" to nuclear technology, and thus heavy-handed interventions to stop such programs are not legal or justified, the only thing that we can control (i.e., that is our perogative) is to decide not to sell them our technology.
This is yet another example, however, of how reducing nuclear power use in the developed world will have a pernicious effect. With no projects in their home countries, nuclear companies have no choice but to sell their technology for reactor projects in the developing world, if they are to survive. Politicians in these (anti-nuclear) countries know that supporting reactors at home may be a vote loser, but so is allowing these nuclear company jobs to be lost. They respond by opposing nuclear projects at home, while actively supporting nuclear projects in less developed countries, in order to preserve the jobs at their nuclear firms. Wouldn't it be better if we gave these companies plenty of work (i.e., new reactors) at home? We could ask in return that they refrain from exporting nuclear technology willy nilly all over the globe.
One final point is that reactors are nowhere near as much of a problem as fuel cycle facilities are. Almost all non-proliferation experts acknowledge this. The fact of the matter is that whereas the argument about a civilian program "providing cover" is weak for reactors, it may have some merit for fuel cycle facilities. Even if a country's intentions were purely pieceful, the fact remains that a nation with a full fuel cycle industry could develop a weapon very quickly if it ever changed its mind (Japan being a prime example of this). If you already have all these facilities, just enriching uranium further up to weapons grade would not take too long, or be much of a challenge.
On the contrary, if you only have reactors, and no fuel cycle facilities, you are no better off than if you had no reactor. To make a bomb out of spent fuel, you would have to build a fuel reprocessing facility w/o being noticed; an incredible task. Once again, it would be no harder to build an enrichment facility and just mine and enrich your own uranium ore.
For this reason, most non-proliferation initiatives have focused on fuel-cycle facilities. They propose that no new fuel cycle facilities be built, i.e., that we have no new states with fuel cycle capability. I support these initiatives. I also support rapidly converting all research reactors to low-enriched fuel. I also support increased funding and urgent implementation of all aspects of the Nunn-Lugar non-proliferation program (which focuses more on where the REAL poroliferation risks are, i.e., unsecured fissile material, largely in places like Russia and Pakistan, as well as efforts to reduce the world inventory of weapons-grade material, etc...).
When a nation does pursue a new nuclear power program (as is its right), proliferation is controlled through the fuel cycle aspect of the process. They pledge to build no fuel cycle facilites. They must buy the fuel from abroad. Spent fuel could be sent back to the fuel-cycle nation or they could bury it on their own soil as long as direct burial is used. Since few, if any, of the benefits of nuclear technology require having your own fuel cycle facilities, it would be hard for any such nations to argue that their "rights" under the NPT are being violated.
Violating these terms (to develop a weapon) would involve constructing a reprocessing or ore mining and enrichment facilities with nobody noticing. If someone were able to do this, they could develop a nuclear weapon anyway, even without any reactors. Thus, this is where the controls would be; where they would have to be (anyway). We HAVE to be able to detect it if someone were to try and build a fuel cycle facility (i.e., a reprocessing or enrichment facility). That is the core of the issue in any event.
As I stated earlier, I am already lukewarm about spreading nuclear power to every tiny little nation of the world. It would be better to focus on building larger numbers of plants in the large GDP nations that account for most fossil fuel use, air pollution, and CO2 emissions. Save the fossil fuels like gas for the smaller nations. For this reason, it doesn't bother me too much if policies like this makes things a little bit less convenient for small nations to start a nuclear program.
Permalink
JimHopf Posted 12:48 pm
15 Apr 2005
The US DOES have ample uranium supplies. It just can't be extracted at quite as low a price as it can from the handful of motherlode sites (in Canada and Australia, mainly) which have been supplying almost all of our uranium for the last 10-20 years. With the price of uranium ore now rising back up from its recent historical lows, many of these US mines are going back into operation as we speak. A somewhat higher extraction price does not necessarily mean a smaller amount of reserves.
Also, being dependent on our good friends in Australia and just across the border in Canada is not at all like being dependent on Russia and the Middle East.
An even more important point, however, concerns the fact that uranium is extremely small in volume , and therefore very easy to stockpile, and (unlike fossil fuels) is a tiny fraction of the overall power cost. These two facts make nuclear power virtually immune to supply cutoffs or fuel price increases/swings. Thus, nuclear provides a tremendous benefit for both energy security and for balance of trade.
For gas plants, fuel is ~75% of the cost. For coal, it is ~25%. For nuclear, the raw uranium ore is only responsile for ~2% of the power cost, i.e., only ~0.1 cents/kW-hr. For nuclear power, 98% of the cost is purely domestic technology and labor, which can be depended on, has a stable cost, and which benefits our economy. For example, a raw fuel cost increase of a factor of 10 (which would be analagous to $500/barrel oil!) would only incease nuclear power's cost by ~1 cent (~20%). For a gas plant, this would result in a factor of 7.5 increase (~36 cents). Coal would go up by 9 cents.
It is also true that uranium contains roughly a million times as much energy, per unit mass, as does fossil fuel. Thus, to stockpile a given amount of fuel (energy) reserve, nuclear would require only one millionth the volume. It would be like storing the equivalent energy of the Strategic Petroluem Reserve in someone's house! Not only is it easier to store a large amount of energy in the form of uranium from a practical/physical perspective, but because uranium ore is so cheap (a tiny fraction of the power cost) it is also much easier economicallyto set aside a given energy reserve (i.e., the costs are proportionally less).
We could easily store several YEARS worth of uranium supply, to insulate ourselves from any supply cutoff or market price fluctuation. Despite an infinitely greater economic investment, how much energy are we able to store in the SPR? A few weeks supply? A month or two perhaps?
Since the cost of ore has such a negligible effect on the cost of nuclear power, the US could choose to use its own slightly more expensive supplies without any noticeable economic effect. For the reasons given above, however, we have not even decided to do this, because there are no measurable risks due to importing ore from Canada and Australia.
And finally, since nuclear power can easily withstand much higher ore prices, we could easily tap the vastly larger reserves of uranium that can be produced at higher costs. A significantly higher price will also result in large exploration efforts, which have not ever been made up till now. This will result in numerous discoveries of new ore deposits, even at today's high ore grades. Many "official" uranium reserves estimates do not sufficiently appreciate the above effects, and therefore underestimate the real amount of eventually exploitable reserves by a very large amount (over an order of magnitude).
For the above reasons, yes I do "glibly" reject the concerns over long-term uranium supply. This is argued in more detail at:
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html
Energy security and cost stability are among nuclear power's strongest suits. On this issue, the arguments aren't hard to make.
Permalink
JohnJMiller Posted 5:30 am
19 Apr 2005
While I have encouraged many friends and family to check out Grist, I hope you wouldn't mind if I just cut and paste your comments and citations in this and previous comments from Gristmill as an effort to persuade and spread needed information about the disgraceful re-openiong of the nuclear discussion. Until the industry ceases to exist, we need to be the part of the environmental movement to kill it. In no way is nuclear power a reasonable alternative or solution to anything, short of sustainable life on the planet.
Thanks for your research and your willingness to speak out. In a mostly unrelated topic, have you ever read any Daniel Quinn? I think you'd dig his thoughts on living sustainably.
Keep writing, keep fighting,
Permalink
pstair Posted 6:15 am
20 Apr 2005
Renewable energy technologies have the potential to satisfy much of the demand currently met by fossil fuels and nuclear power. For good reasons, including that wind power is cheaper than nuclear power and nearly cost-competitive with coal, renewable energy is taking off around the world. Both solar photovoltaic and wind power capacity, for example, have been increasing at average annual rates greater than 20% for more than a decade; and both technologies are improving quickly and becoming cheaper. Solar thermal heating systems can now pay for themselves in just a few years through fuel savings alone. And following technological breakthroughs in processing biomass materials, biofuels are emerging as an increasingly viable alternative for oil.
Most of the phenomenal growth in renewable energy use recently is due to support from just a handful of governments. Countries like Germany, Spain and Japan have strongly and consistently supported renewable energy for myriad reasons--including insulating their economies from rising fossil fuel prices, creating local jobs, improving public health, and reducing the threat of global warming. And renewables can be brought on line rapidly. In just 2 years, Germany's share of power demands met by the wind rose from 3% to nearly 7%. Imagine the rapid growth and advances we will see as more countries join the renewables bandwagon - including China, which just enacted a landmark national renewable energy law.
Moreover, it is difficult to overemphasize the fact that efficiency improvements remain the cheapest source of energy today. Despite great gains since the 1970s, we continue to waste tremendous amounts of energy, and many promising energy-saving products and designs have yet to be fully implemented - or applied at all. If every U.S. household replaced the 5 regular bulbs it uses most with compact fluorescent bulbs, more than 20 large power plants could be shut down. Likewise, a building's demand for electricity and gas can be cut by more than half if it utilizes passive solar design to meet heating and lighting needs. Such "green buildings" can pay for themselves in energy cost savings (not to mention pollution reductions), and they are generally more pleasant to inhabit than "conventional" buildings. To give another example: if cars were built out of carbon fiber instead of steel, their fuel-efficiency could be more than doubled.
Why are we even debating massive subsidies to build and insure nuclear power plants when we can spend much less to deliver the same energy services in far cleaner, healthier, and more secure ways? The nuclear industry seems to have successfully latched onto the debate over mitigating climate change, but there are far better alternatives to an even greater reliance on risky and costly nuclear power. Meeting the world's future energy needs will not be easy - it will require a combination of conservation, efficiency improvements, and a dramatic ramp-up in the use of renewable energy. But these things are possible with the political will and the right policies. It's up to all of us to ensure that the will and policies are brought to bear.
Permalink