Nuclear Energy’s Moment of Truth

[wtmusic]

"Greentech Media, as the name suggests, focuses on renewable energy and a green sustainable future. There is contention in the green culture at large and in the Greentech Media offices as to whether nuclear can be categorized as truly “green.” (See the comment thread in this blog piece to witness the contention amongst our readers.) Nuclear plants do not produce greenhouse gases, but they definitely present a radioactive material and security risk. And uranium is certainly not a renewable resource.

But the bottom line is — nuclear power is part of the energy mix in the U.S. and around the world and the nuclear waste produced is not going anywhere. Four-hundred-and-thirty-eight nuclear plants are operating today, more are being built, and the issue has to be dealt with.

<>

I am a knee-jerk environmentalist and have a visceral response to the word “nuclear.” But the more I learn and read, the more experts I speak with, the more my mind is changed — nuclear is a necessary part of the energy mix, albeit with enormous risk.

These risks need to be confronted head-on by sound technology, policy, diplomacy and science."

http://greenlight.greentechmedia.com/2009/02/19/moment-of-truth-for-nuclear-energy-1114/

[Hugabear]

1. Absolutely no way

"Albeit with huge risk" - that's an understatement to say the least! We've already seen what can happen with Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Then there's the issue of what to do with the nuclear waste. No way.

[wtmusic]

2. A realistic look at risk

[TheCoxwain]

3. I am not against Nuclear Energy - Infact

I am a supporter.

BUT

If Nuclear Energy were to replace all fossil fuels - we would need about 10,000 reactors and all the available Uranium will not last 20 years.

So Nuclear Energy energy based on Uranium can, at best be bridge till a more lasting solution can be found.


Other options iclude Nuclear Energy based on Thorium Fuel Cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle) ( Earth has plenty of Thorium) - But the issues with radio active waste remain and developing a Thorium based reactors will take a while.

Fusion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER) holds the most promise and I have my fingers crossed.

[wtmusic]

4. Available uranium could provide power for thousands of years.

"Current economic uranium resources will last for over 100 years at current consumption rates, while it is expected there is twice that amount awaiting discovery. With reprocessing and recycling, the reserves are good for thousands of years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium

[TheWraith]

5. Not to mention, once again, that there's uranium dissolved in ocean water.

Tiny, trivial amounts--until you consider how much ocean water there is. Some Japanese scientists invented a kind of composite "sponge" material that can be trawled behind a boat and soaks up uranium and other heavy metals out of the water. It's about twice as expensive as current mined uranium, but in kilowatt-hour terms it's still an astrisk.

[bananas]

7. That's why bathing suits are made of lead.

Surfers wear wetsuits because the water is cold.
They wear sunscreen to prevent radiation burns from the sun, not from the meager amounts of uranium in seawater.
The amount of energy available from uranium is tiny compared to renewables.
It can be concentrated, which is great for making bombs, but not for making electricity.

[TheWraith]

9. Um, yes, and that's why batteries are made of wind!

Either you don't know what the hell you're talking about, or you're just hoping to convince others who don't know the facts.

There's about three parts per billion of uranium in seawater--which translates to 4.6 billion tons worldwide. At our current use rate of 41kt per year, that's 110,000 years of supply. If we assume a theoretical scenario under which nuclear energy provides 100% of all global energy demand, then that's still a 15,000 year supply without reprocessing.

[bananas]

6. "at current consumption rates"

To replace fossil fuels, consumption would increase by more than a factor of 10,
reducing economic reserves to 10 years, and hundreds of years with expensive reprocessing and recycling.
Renewables keep getting less expensive, while nuclear keeps getting more expensive.

[wtmusic]

8. Stopping global warming won't necessarily be cheap

Can you outline any realistic scenario where renewables could replace fossil fuels in the next 100 years, based on anything besides blind faith?

Do you disagree with Al Gore that we not only need nuclear power, but should continue to build new plants?

"So I maintain that in order for nuclear to still be contributing one fifth of the nation’s electricity ten years from now, we will need to build a lot of new nuclear power plants. According to the EIA, we need to add about 120 gigawatts of new generation over the next ten years to meet projected growth and to replace retiring power plants. (The nuclear fleet alone is 26-years old, on average.) So if nuclear is still going to make up one fifth of the mix, an estimated 24 gigawatts of that new generation will need to be nuclear."

http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/7/26/clarifying-al-gores-position-on-nuclear-power.html

[Kolesar]

12. How about a combined heat-and-power system in one out of every five factories instead?

http://seekingalpha.com/article/110452-department-of-energy-chp-systems-a-big-target-for-power-savings

Department of Energy: CHP Systems a Big Target for Power Savings

How about a combined heat-and-power system in one out of every five factories instead?

When it comes to low-hanging energy efficiency fruit, capturing the heat wasted by the industrial sector and turning it into electricity is a huge apple ripe for the plucking.

At least that’s what a new report from the U.S. Department of Energy says. The roughly 9 percent of U.S. factories that now use these so-called combined heat and power, or CHP systems (also known as cogeneration systems) produced about 506 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2006 — about 12 percent of the power consumed that year, the report says.

That was enough to save the country 1.9 quadrillion British thermal units (quads) of fuel used to make electricity — about 2 percent of the nation’s total appetite. One BTU equals the energy of one burning match — multiply it by a quadrillion, and you’ve got about the same amount of energy that is contained in 8 billion gallons of gasoline.

But if 20 percent of U.S. industrial facilities were to install CHP systems by 2030, that energy savings would grow to 5.3 billion BTUs, about half the power U.S. households now consume, according to DOE’s report.

That would also reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 850 million tons a year, or the equivalent of taking 154 million cars off the road, Doug Kaempf, program manager for DOE’s Industrial Technologies Program, said Thursday in a presentation for the Virtual Energy Forum.
...snip...
There’s plenty of waste heat to go around. Arun Majumdar, the Almy and Agnes Maynard professor of mechanical engineering at University of California at Berkeley, estimates that up to 60 percent of the 100 quads of energy the U.S. consumer per year is wasted as heat (see Tapping America’s Secret Power Source).
...snip...

addendum: US DEPT OF ENERGY
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/distributedenergy/pdfs/chp_report_12-08.pdf?bcsi_scan_6E0FCBF224647A7E=0&bcsi_scan_filename=chp_report_12-08.pdf

[AZCat]

14. How about CHP for housing complexes?

Same benefits.

[Kolesar]

18. That would make sense in a location with a long heating season

...like here. Our furnace turns on between September and May.

[AZCat]

20. You can do this for cooling also.

You can use an absorption chiller. Even here in the southern Arizona desert you see these (used to produce chilled water from waste heat), although not as frequently as traditional chillers.

[bananas]

13. Al Gore didn't say that

You're not quoting Al Gore, you're quoting some blogger trying to "interpret" what Gore said.
That blogger correctly quotes We Can Solve It:

The group “We Can Solve It”, founded by Gore, reports that his plan includes a mix of energy sources, including “existing nuclear”.

That blogger then bizarrely "interprets" this very clear statement to mean something completely different.

Gore's plan is on www.repoweramerica.org, there's no need to "interpret".

Gore's plan is for 10 years, not 100 years. He keeps nuclear generation at current levels, which can be done by extending the licenses of existing reactors, so no, he doesn't say we need to build new reactors. Keeping nuclear generation at current levels means that as a percentage it falls from 20% now to 17% in 2020. He also mentions that other scenarios could reduce nuclear further:

http://www.repoweramerica.org/plan/analysis/

<snip>




* Repower America Scenario A: Energy efficiency policies and programs reduce demand by 28%, nuclear and hydropower – neither of which emits CO2 – remain at current levels, America ramps up wind consistent with recent sectoral growth rates, solar thermal with storage is deployed at scale, and solar PV and geothermal grow at levels consistent with the projections of industry experts.

* Repower America Scenario B: Like Scenario A, includes a mix of efficiency, renewables, and existing generation but assumes fossil fuel industries deploy approximately 20 large coal and natural gas power plants that capture and sequester their CO2 emissions (these are known as coal and natural gas plants with CCS). Wind levels are reduced commensurate with the additional contribution from fossil power with CCS.

* Additional Scenarios: As referenced earlier, there are numerous possible pathways for reaching 100% clean electricity by 2020 — it would be impossible to predict exactly what technologies will comprise the mix. Once the transformation to a system that is highly efficient, renewables–based and connected via a unified smart grid commences, a variety of configurations become possible. For example, industry experts indicate that the 2020 generation mix could include larger contributions from geothermal, solar photovoltaics, and other rapidly emerging renewable technologies — along with new ways to improve efficiency. A modernized grid diminishes the magnitude of traditional baseload plant required for system stability, potentially allowing decreased reliance on aging nuclear power resources. For reference, the ranges described below represent Scenarios A, B, and portfolios with higher geothermal and solar PV levels supported by industry analysis.

The Scenario Details:

Start with carbon-free power at today’s levels: In all scenarios, today’s generation from nuclear and conventional hydropower is held constant. These two sources combined provide over 1 million GWh or 23% of the 2020 projected demand.

<snip>

[bananas]

15. "Privately, I am told that Gore now opposes atomic energy, including new reactors."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserman/al-gore-inches-toward-sol_b_113736.html

Harvey Wasserman

Al Gore Inches Toward Solartopia
Posted July 21, 2008 | 01:39 PM (EST)

Bit by bit, Al Gore seems to be inching toward a Solartopian view of a future that must be completely sustainable in green energy. This week he advocated getting to an electric power system that is "carbon free" within ten years.

<snip>

But just prior to the 2000 election, then-Vice President Gore wrote me a letter (posted at www.nirs.org) firmly renouncing atomic energy as a possible solution to global warming. Apparently due largely to his efforts, nukes were not included in the Kyoto Accords as a route to be taken for reducing carbon emissions. This was huge victory for the safe energy movement.

But Gore's stance on building new reactors today has not been part of the public dialog. If the issue is mentioned on his web site, I couldn't find it. Just prior to this week's speech, he apparently told the Associated Press that he expects reactor generation to stay at "current levels." But does that mean it will continue to account for about 20% of our overall electric consumption, or does it mean the same gross amount will be produced? Would that require building new reactors, or expanding the capacity of existing ones, or none of the above?

Privately, I am told that Gore now opposes atomic energy, including new reactors. But if so, his public silence -- and lack of action -- is deafening, incongruous, and ultimately unsustainable.

<snip>

[wtmusic]

22. That's a shame.

His buddy James Hansen, who knows quite a bit more about climatology, is a big fan of nuclear:

"James Hansen, who runs NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), has struck again. The political activist/scientist, global-warming guru, and boon companion to Al Gore has written a letter to Barack and Michelle Obama, imploring the president-elect and his wife to "decarbonize" the economy by imposing a steadily increasing "carbon tax" on coal, oil, and gas.
<>
So, how would Hansen have us power the United States in his post-carbon world? According to his third and final recommendation to the Obamas, this would be accomplished through ... (drum roll) ... nuclear power. However, before rejoicing that another militant greenie has embraced nuclear energy (which has been brought to a standstill in the United States, while the rest of the world races ahead with this technology that America developed), it should be noted that Hansen's recommendation comes with a critical caveat. You see, like many supposedly "reasonable environmentalists," he is all for nuclear power — but not with the currently available nuclear power technology. He's in favor of shutting down our current carbon-based economy even before his proposed new "clean" nuclear power plants are available. Under Hansen's plan, billions of tax dollars would be pumped into research and development projects aimed at producing "4th generation nuclear power (4th GNP)" that would be "cleaner" than the current generation."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/654

[Massacure]

10. The United States would need to build 300-450 reactors.

Assuming U.S. electrical demand stays constant 24/7 anyways. I cannot find any data for how much more power the U.S. uses during the day than during the night or during the summer versus the winter.

[bananas]

11. That information is available

I'll try to post it later.

[bananas]

16. That information is on the EIA website

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat3p2.html

Table 3.2. Net Internal Demand, Capacity Resources, and Capacity Margins by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, Summer, 1996 through 2007
(Megawatts)
Region and Item 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996

<snip>

Contiguous U.S.
Net Internal Demand<2> 764,476 760,108 746,470 692,908 696,752 696,376 674,833 680,941 653,857 638,086 618,389 602,438
Capacity Resources<3> 915,292 906,155 882,125 875,870 856,131 833,380 788,990 808,054 765,744 744,670 737,855 730,376
Capacity Margin (percent)<4> 16.5 16.1 15.4 20.9 18.6 16.4 14.5 15.7 14.6 14.3 16.2 17.5

<snip>

I think the 16% capacity margin is a regulatory requirement to ensure reliability.
To go all-nuclear and maintain that margin would mean 915 one-gigawatt reactors would have been needed in 2007.

[Massacure]

17. So roughly 590 to 820 reactors depending on the reactor types

Depending on the mix between the AP1000, ABWR, and ESBWR.

The AP1000 produces the least power of the three at 1100 megawatts and the ESBWR the most at 1550.

[TheWraith]

19. True, but the AP1000 has some very big benefits.

For starters it can be mass-produced as a module; it's incredibly reliable; and is more advanced in terms of engineering than other reactors. Plus the mass fabrication makes it cheap.

[NNadir]

21. I would suggest that it is the moment of truth for so called "renewables," not nuclear.

Nuclear is cleaner, safer, and more reliable than any form of climate change gas free energy on earth.

It has been the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free primary energy for more than two decades, this while people who work solely out of ignorance have been working overtime to sabatoge it with stupidity and ignorance.

Nuclear has nothing to prove. It works, and works on a scale of tens of exajoules.

You poke a dangerous fossil fuel "renewables will save us" apologist to find just ONE person in this country killed by nuclear energy and they can't do it.

(I've been doing this here for better than half a decade.)

The solar industry - which is actually older than the commercial nuclear industry - has yet to produce its first single exajoule.

So what has a moment of truth?

The nuclear industry that operates at 90% capacity utilization at the world's largest production.

I find these people suddenly having "revelations" about their knee jerk mindless reactions for the last twenty years tiresome.

They get no awards for having stumbled into less ignorance than they have held - and loudly preached - for many years.