The Oil Drum has a long and technically rich piece on the pros and cons of nuclear power (updated and reposted from last year) by Martin Sevior, an Associate Professor at the School of Physics in the University of Melbourne. It's more sanguine about nuclear energy than I am, but it's dense with great info.
I have but one quibble. Here's how he starts his conclusion:
Technically, there appear to be no show stoppers for a considerable expansion of Nuclear Power throughout the world. It is a low carbon energy source with abundant fuel supplies. The technology works and has much potential for improvement.
Fair enough. But then there's this:
Whether or not a large scale expansion eventuates depends on how it competes with Coal on economic grounds and with the public on political grounds.
No. It depends on how nuclear competes with renewables and efficiency in a carbon-constrained environment.
Then:
This in turn will be determined by the performance of the nuclear industry over the next few years as these purportedly cheaper and safer plants are built.
All the nuclear industry can do in the "next few years" is permit and build plants. In ten years they'll be up and running.
Let's think about 30 years out. For nuclear, the first 10 were spent planning, permitting, and building plants. For the next 20, they produced power.
For R&E, that's 30 years of efficiency improvements, grid upgrades, R&D on thin-film solar and wave energy and batteries, deployment of solar thermal and solar PV and geothermal and offshore wind, domestic job creation, and behavioral changes as communities adjust themselves to increasing energy independence.
If you were an investor, where would you put your money?
Perhaps you think nuclear will win that race, but is there any good reason we're pouring billions of dollars into the first option and a pittance into the latter?
Comments
View as Flat
Erik Hoffner Posted 9:04 am
01 Mar 2007
The Orion Grassroots Network is a meeting place for 1000+ great grassroots organizations working for conservation and more: http://www.orionsociety.org/ogn
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 9:12 am
01 Mar 2007
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around B fire, car goes
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:15 am
01 Mar 2007
Give them 10 years to prove they can compete on an economical basis with safe operation, recycling of waste, and absolutely public oversight. These designs need to be proven to a point where they can actually buy insurance, congress gave them a liability pass for the plants in operation now.
Then compare the cost to renewables. Give them a fair and balanced chance. A chance to prove they can drop the secrey and coverup and act responsibly. And with all subsidies to nuclear power dropped.
Meanwhile we can't afford to wait for them. But due to past corruption and criminal negligence the nuclear industry/government regulator (revolving door)partnership must prove itself worthy of public permission to operate.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
eilonwy Posted 9:46 am
01 Mar 2007
"due to past corruption and criminal negligence"
Innuendo, check.
"drop the secrey and coverup and act responsibly"
Broad generalizations, check.
"in an already contaminated area, like Yucca Mountain"
Factually incorrect, check.
"??????"
Lack of anyproof for his own solution, check.
Typical anti-nuclear comment all around and you wonder why nuclear supporters think of such 'environmentalists' as long on shrill posturing and short on evidence.
Permalink
eilonwy Posted 10:03 am
01 Mar 2007
If you were an investor, where would you put your money?
First of all the life of modern nuclear plants would probably be 50 years or so minimum. I wish you had the courage to just openly admit you favor renewables for the fairly radical social and economic changes they entail. I find anti-corporate sentiment (not immune myself at times) lurking in many nuclear 'skeptics' (is your mind really open?). While 'a nation of small wind/solar farmers' may appeals to you and me, do you think this vision will apeeal to Wall Street and Co. They're going to follow the proven base-load, centralized, corporate approach until some day when renewables can compete or defeat the corporate energy sector without subsidies.
Perhaps you think nuclear will win that race, but is there any good reason we're pouring billions of dollars into the first option and a pittance into the latter?
Why do anti-nuclear environmentalist insist on seeing a competition? Maybe both technogical areas should both receive billions while spending less on utterly useless things the government pours money into. Unless you have a completely arrogant and unfounded belief in the absolute ability to deploy renewables on a scale to replace fossil fuel in the 50-60 years why would you handicap what is currently the most wide-spread and proven non-fossil technology?
Permalink
sunflower Posted 10:11 am
01 Mar 2007
Permalink
birdboy Posted 10:33 am
01 Mar 2007
While I don't put much stock in the 'faith' that some enviro's have that technology will save the Earth while we keep on living a life of luxury and convenience, I do beleive that with a little help from taxpayer dollars, we can find far better ways to produce and distribute energy and much more efficient ways to use energy, faster and safer than you can get new nuclear plants up and running. Oh, wait, we already have better ways.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 10:39 am
01 Mar 2007
Kevin's Law:If you're forced to rely on random blog commenters to make a point about the prevalence of some form or another of disagreeable behavior, you've pretty much made exactly the opposite point.
As for private capital investment, it's already streaming into R&E. The nuclear industry is moribund, pending the latest round of corporate welfare. If you want to check back in in a few years when the trend is even more clear, let's meet back here.
www.grist.org
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 1:15 pm
01 Mar 2007
There are some damn good technical reasons to favor a distributed energy system (renewable and otherwise) over the current approach:
Greater security, less vulnerability to attack
Greater reliability, less opportunity for cascading grid failure (which is already a problem)
Greater adaptability; the size of the generation source can scale with the demand on a period of years, rather than decades
In the case of fuel-based cogeneration, much higher total efficiency (80-90% vs 30%)
You are correct, Wall Street is going to favor a continuation of the current paradigm. But they will do so for the sake of self interest and lack of imagination. That's no reason for us to roll over for them.
... until some day when renewables can compete or defeat the corporate energy sector without subsidies.
That day is already here. Renewables are subsidized, but not nearly so heavily as the conventional system, and they are growing, fast. Without a great deal of special-pleading support to the conventional power industry, distributed and/or renewable generation will win. Unfortunately, inertia favors the established players, and they may get the subsidies that they need to fend off the onslaught of alternatives.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 2:35 pm
01 Mar 2007
There are no technical obstacles to distributed nuclear power. If home-sized nuclear-electric reactors, or radioisotope thermonuclear generators, were available for $500/kW at home-improvement stores, would you buy one?
.
GreenEngineer wrote: In the case of fuel-based cogeneration, much higher total efficiency (80-90% vs 30%)
How would thermal-efficiency be relevant?
Gas-core (vapor-core) nuclear reactors could theoretically operate at greater than 90% thermal efficiency. Since the price of uranium ore -- and the cost of spent-fuel dispensation -- contributes essentially nothing to the cost of nuclear-electricity generation, there is little motivation to develop terrestrial gas-core nuclear reactors.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 3:20 pm
01 Mar 2007
world-nuclear.org/info/inf104.html
United States
In the USA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received notice of application for joint construction and operating licences for 19 new units, and it is clear that there will be substantial new nuclear capacity by 2020. One of the reasons for the lack of new build in the USA has been the extremely successful evolution in maintenance strategies. Over the last 15 years, changes have increased utilization of US nuclear power plants, with the increased output corresponding to 19 new 1000 MW plants being built.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:07 pm
01 Mar 2007
I should really cite a few leaking nuclear plants and landfills. A South Carolina landfill with unlined trenches for radioactive waste disguised as high priced "low level nuclear waste storage".
The nuclear industry has a lot of mistakes to live down. So take a shot. Maybe the industry can process it's past waste in these new types of reactors that recycle and neutralize it.
That would be a great way to take care of the huge amount of waste already acumulated. Taxpayers don't want 10,000 years worth of storage and handling fees from the typical nuclear contractors that created this mess.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:51 pm
01 Mar 2007
So, is there something you want to tell us? The iCore will be Apple's Next Big Thing?
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 2:35 am
02 Mar 2007
There are no technical obstacles to distributed nuclear power. If home-sized nuclear-electric reactors, or radioisotope thermonuclear generators, were available for $500/kW at home-improvement stores, would you buy one?
Wow, you're funny! We live in a culture where people regularly mutilate themselves with simple power tools, and others need to call tech support to help turn on their computer. I would be perfectly comfortable with the requirements of operating such a device, but I sure wouldn't trust my neighbor to do so. (And don't talk to me about foolproof engineering. There is no such thing. Fool-resistant is the best we can do, especially in the context of a consumer product.)
Also, as I hope you are aware, RTGs are in an entirely different category from the big nukes. They are very low efficiency (less than 10%), which means they make alot of waste heat. They're really only useful when you need a small amount of power over a long period of time.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 2:46 am
02 Mar 2007
BTW, RTG needs a hot side and a cold side to function, red hot and ice cold for 10% efficiency.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 3:51 am
02 Mar 2007
Good point. Not a difficult thing to arrange in space. A bit harder here on earth.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 4:59 am
02 Mar 2007
There are no technical obstacles to distributed nuclear power.
True. The US$3-million-and-change license fee per reactor is a nontechnical obstacle, one of several that will go away when fossil fuels no longer subsidize government personnel so heavily. Of course it doesn't apply to naval propulsion reactors, so their minimum capacity, on the order of 100 thermal megawatts, is probably indicative of the minimum reasonable size.
If home-sized nuclear-electric reactors, or radioisotope thermonuclear generators, were available for $500/kW at home-improvement stores, would you buy one?
A pointless hypothetical that is misleadingly jammed into the same paragraph as the stuff about decentralization. Decentralized nuclear power makes sense, but not that decentralized.
All the nuclear waste in the world makes about 200 MW of low-grade heat, as I recall. Not much per person; no opportunity, even with adequate shielding, to heat any significant number of houses. (Obviously if there were such an option, there would also be the option of letting the stuff continue working as central-station fuel.)
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around B fire, car goes
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:49 am
02 Mar 2007
In short, Plutonium Reactors haven't been effective for the past 50 years.
That gives solid reason that they won't be effective anytime soon.
This article,
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/4891
And this article.
http://www.fissilematerials.org/ipfm/site_down/ipfmresear ...
Actually, ironically from what I get from these articles. The energy companies aren't really in it to even do anything meaningful. They just want the nuclear material off their property.
And they want the governement to take care of it, rather than being forced to babysit waste uranium for the next 10 years, or more.
"Reprocessing" just happens to be the easiest excuse to get that to happen.
Ironically though, it'd be far cheaper just to leave them where they are at.
$0.5 billion may seem like a lot of money to achieve that. However Reprocessing would easily double that yearly rate, and include a minimum of a $50B in onetime expenses.
On top of which, it's also an excuse to ask for subsidy handouts :P
As usual, politics is all about posturing :)
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 1:28 pm
02 Mar 2007
Third-generation CANDU's run on (low) enriched uranium.
world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html
The Advanced Candu Reactor (ACR), a third-generation reactor, is more a innovative concept. While retaining the low-pressure heavy water moderator, it incorporates some features of the pressurised water reactor.
[...]
The ACR-700 is 750 MWe but is physically much smaller, simpler and more efficient as well as 40% cheaper than the CANDU-6. But the ACR-1000 of 1200 MWe is now the focus of attention by AECL. It has more fuel channels (each of which can be regarded as a module of about 2.5 MWe). Projected overnight capital cost of US$ 1000/kWe and operating costs of 3 cents/kWh have been claimed. The ACR will run on low-enriched uranium (about 1.5-2.0% U-235) with high burn-up, extending the fuel life by about three times and reducing high-level waste volumes accordingly.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:43 pm
02 Mar 2007
However thats irrelevant.
We've already reached a point that if they opened up Yucca Mountain right now, it'd be full on the first day.
Reprocessed fuel doesn't reduce the waste by any meaningful degree.
And it certainly doesn't make it easier to store underground, since depleted MOX is so radioactive it can't be stored underground for 150 years.
_
Face it, without a waste solution, Nuclear is dead.
And no, successful Breeder Reactors aren't any more likely to happen than burning Unicorns for electricity.
All the current buzz is merely just the utilities coming to the startling realization that they could very easily get stuck babysitting their waste onsite indefinantly.
They don't want to be left holding the bag (full of hot potatoes :P)
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:45 pm
02 Mar 2007
GreyFlcn wrote: depleted MOX is so radioactive it can't be stored underground for 150 years.What is "depleted MOX"? Could you please point to the source of your information on its radioactivity?
GreyFlcn wrote: without a waste solution, Nuclear is dead.Is there a nuclear-waste problem? If there is, could you please qualify and quantify it for the readers of this thread?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:30 pm
02 Mar 2007
The reprocessing arguement is implied. Since it's the first kneejerk reaction for proclaiming the waste issue is solved.
(Followed by effective Fast Breeder Reactors aka Unicorns)
_
What is MOX?
By blending plutonium and depleted uranium, in a ratio of 8 percent to 92 percent, the plant created so-called mixed-oxide, or MOX, fuel, which can be substituted for enriched uranium fuel after just minor modifications to a conventional reactor. http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/4891</quote>
_
Would I show my source on the 150 years comment?
Sure thing.
Spent MOX is also three times as hot as spent uranium fuel, thanks to an accumulation of transuranic isotopes such as americium and curium, making it less fit for underground storage.
Therefore, according to a 2000 consensus report on reprocessing prepared for France's prime minister, spent MOX must cool for 150 years before it can go into an underground waste repository such as Yucca Mountain. Meanwhile, spent MOX fuel is piling up quickly in La Hague's cooling ponds: the 543‑metric‑ton accumulation grows by 100 metric tons every year.
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/4891
_
Well, I'd be happy to read through your long linked article if you'd read up on these two.
Be warned, they are rather damning of the technical feasibility of reprocessing nuclear fuel.
http://www.fissilematerials.org/ipfm/site_down/ipfmresear ...
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/4891
The short of it. Swapping in Plutonium instead of U235 only reduces the ammount of waste by about 1%. In return you get waste which is impracticle for permanent storage or further use.
The only solution is effective Fast Breeder Reactors, and so far it's the same "solution" that hasn't worked for the past 50 years.
Without a real solution to the waste, Nuclear is dead.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 5:34 pm
02 Mar 2007
.
GreyFlcn wrote: The energy companies [...] just want the nuclear material off their property. And they want the governement to take care of itThe Department of Energy (DOE) is continuously paid 0.1 cents per nuclear-electric kilowatt hour (contributing to a sum total so far of $20 billion, not including interest) -- by electric utilities that operate nuclear reactors -- for final geological fuel disposition. Perhaps they would like to either receive the promised services, or receive refunds on their payments.
.
GreyFlcn wrote: rather than being forced to babysit waste uranium for the next 10 years, or more.Is on-site dry-cask storage difficult or expensive?
.
GreyFlcn wrote: On top of which, it's also an excuse to ask for subsidy handoutsIs the receiving of services that one has paid for out of his own pocket considered a subsidy?
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 5:44 pm
02 Mar 2007
There is a Preview button. Also, when naked links are included in a post, some of the nearby text gets deleted by the blog software (and, unfortunately, this bug does not announce itself during the Preview).
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:07 pm
02 Mar 2007
NucBuddy: What is a "plutonium reactor"?
Fast Breeder Reactors
_
Perhaps they would like to either receive the promised services, or receive refunds on their payments.
Rather than asking for one or the other, they are asking for both.
They are also asking taxpayers to kick in even more for the reprocessing and more fast breeder testing. (atleast $50-100 Billion dollars)
Not to mention, I've heard that there were quite a few "incentives" for the 2005 Energy Act. Including a 1.8cent subsidy per KWh. However those may only apply to subsidizing new generation capacity.
U.S. utilities therefore have been suing the DOE for the costs of building on-site dry-cask storage for the spent fuel that would have been shipped to Yucca Mountain on the originally contracted schedule. The Department of Energy has informed Congress that the cost of settling these lawsuits is likely to climb to $0.5 billion per year of delay in licensing the Yucca Mountain repository.
International Panel on Fissionable Materials
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 7:39 pm
02 Mar 2007
fas.org/rlg/021507PlutoniumRecycle3L.pdf
I add here also material from the EPRI report: of May 2006, "Program on Technology Innovation: Room at the Mountain - Analysis of the Maximum Disposal Capacity for Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel in a Yucca Mountain Repository. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2006. 1013523." There we read, "EPRI is confident that at least four times this legislative limit (~260,000 MTU) can be emplaced in the Yucca Mountain system..." And EPRI believes that with additional site characterization this minimum factor of 4 could well be a factor 9.
"It is important to note that despite the extended timetable for introducing reprocessing in the U.S. (due to R&D prerequisites to satisfy cost and nonproliferation objectives, policy considerations, etc.), that a single expanded-capacity spent fuel repository at Yucca Mountain is adequate to meet U.S. needs, and that construction of a second repository is not required under this timetable..
GreyFlcn wrote: Yes, there's a nuclear waste problemCould you please be more explicit? Why do you believe there is a nuclear-waste problem?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:52 am
03 Mar 2007
They already knew there as atleast double the legistlated capacity back in the 70's.
But assuming they could muscle Nevada into taking as much nuclear waste as possible.
And assuming fuel costs are low.
Then whats all this foolishness about reprocessing and fast breeder reactors?
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 9:35 am
03 Mar 2007
CANDU clones are starting up as I write.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around B fire, car goes
Permalink