‘Fourth generation’ nuclear power a buzz phrase with little behind it

[madokie]

This oped is by George Plumb, the executive director of Vermonters for Sustainable Population. He lives in Washington.

The Vermont Senate is to be congratulated for its historic vote to not re-license Vermont Yankee. With almost 40 years of experience learning about nuclear energy, in hindsight it is now logical to say it should never have been built in the first place. The combination of so many dangers, some of which we never realized were possibilities, the environmental and social problems of mining and processing uranium and plutonium, the fact that taxpayers would be the ones responsible for the costs of there was regional problem, owners that lie to us, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission that is more of a promoter than a regulator, the risks of terrorism, and the terrible burden we place on future generations for thousands of years, just don’t make sense.

However, on Feb. 16, President Obama gave a late Valentine to the nuclear industry, promising nearly $8 billion in federal loan guarantees for the southern company to build two new nuclear power plants in Georgia. Unfortunately, this does not mean that the numerous problems with nuclear power have suddenly been solved. Despite the Bush administration — and now again with President Obama — pushing for a “nuclear renaissance,” it has yet to materialize, outside of these two plants.

“Fourth-generation” nuclear power is another buzzword that has little success behind it. The idea is that these new reactors will close the loop for fuel and waste; that is, reprocess the spent rods into new fuel that can be reused. However, much like carbon capture and sequestration, this has yet to be done, despite over 60 years and billions of dollars in research. While some countries, like France and Japan, do reprocess fuel in a limited way, it still produces hundreds of tons of toxic waste, which could potentially be used in nuclear weapons. One French plant dumps 100 million gallons of liquid radioactive wastes into the English Channel every year, and the French government found the costs of reprocessing waste to cost $25 billion more than storing it. There is no truly closed-loop cycle; we will still have to mine uranium, a toxic process, and to contend with the spent nuclear waste, which still does not have a home despite years of wrangling on Yucca Mountain.

Fourth-generation nuclear power is no safer than existing nuclear power. In fact, it has its own unique hazards. One type of this reactor uses highly-reactive sodium coolant, which catches fire when exposed to air and explodes when it comes in contact with water. And the fuel is still radioactive. Since the fuel cycle has yet to be closed, despite attempts around the world, the American people still face the threat of spent fuel. Currently, nuclear waste is stored in 121 different sites throughout the country, and is transported through even more communities on its way to those sites.

(much more) http://vtdigger.org/2010/03/03/fourth-generation-nuclear-power-a-buzz-phrase-with-little-behind-it/

[joshcryer]

1. ... there are no Gen IV reactors being built or even considered.

Bit premature of an article. Didn't read past the blurb.

[madokie]

2. Good for you

[bananas]

6. The Gen IV Pebble Bed Modular Reactor was considered and rejected

after wasting billions on R&D: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x233033
No, the OP is not premature at all.
What the hype about Gen IV reactors really demonstrates is how lousy the Gen III reactors are.

Let's recall what MIT's report The Future of Nuclear Power had to say about Gen IV reactors:

On page 5, they highlight their "most important recommendation":

Our analysis leads to a significant conclusion: The once-through fuel cycle best
meets the criteria of low costs and proliferation resistance. Closed fuel cycles
may have an advantage from the point of view of long-term waste disposal
and, if it ever becomes relevant, resource extension. But closed fuel cycles will
be more expensive than once-through cycles, until ore resources become very
scarce. This is unlikely to happen, even with significant growth in nuclear
power, until at least the second half of this century, and probably considerably
later still. Thus our most important recommendation is:

For the next decades, government and industry in the U.S. and elsewhere
should give priority to the deployment of the once-through fuel cycle,
rather than the development of more expensive closed fuel cycle
technology involving reprocessing and new advanced thermal or fast
reactor technologies.

On page 75, they highlight their "paramount recommendation":

This analysis leads us to a conclusion of great significance: the open, once-through
fuel cycle best meets the criteria of economic attractiveness and proliferation resistance.
Closed fuel cycles may have an advantage from the point of view of long-term
waste disposal and, if it ever becomes relevant, resource extension. But closed fuel
cycles will be more expensive than once through cycles, until ore resources become
very scarce. This is unlikely to happen even with significant growth in nuclear
power deployment until the end of this century. We also find that the long-term
waste management benefits of separation are outweighed by the short-term
risks and costs.

Thus our paramount recommendation is:

For the next decades, government and industry in the United States and
elsewhere should give priority to deployment of the once-through fuel
cycle, rather than development of the more expensive closed fuel cycle
technology involving reprocessing and new advanced thermal or fast reactor
technologies.

<snip>

We have not found and, based on current knowledge, do not believe it is realistic
to expect that there are new reactor and fuel cycle technologies that simultaneously
overcome the problems of cost, safety, waste, and proliferation.

And the reason ore resources won't become scarce is because nuclear power won't grow enough to make a difference.

[Confusious]

3. Getting the FUD out early isn't he

Reminds me of a story post a month ago, where people were complaining about a radio tower causing their headaches, poor health, etc, etc.

Only one problem.

The radio tower hadn't been turned on.

[RC]

4. Propaganda. For instance...

"One French plant dumps 100 million gallons of liquid radioactive wastes into the English Channel every year, and the French government found the costs of reprocessing waste to cost $25 billion more than storing it."

Now read it again. That second "waste" has nothing to do with the first "wastes" Absolutely nothing. Much like bu$h's "Iraq" and "9/11" used in the same sentence to get his war going.

"100 million gallons of liquid radioactive wastes..."? Isn't that the amount of cooling water used in a year?

The Opening Post is nothing more than propaganda.

[wtmusic]

9. +1 nt

[kristopher]

5. About the comments

First says it doesn't apply to today (but he didn't read it so he doesn't know if it does or not).
Answer: Yes it does since the topic is the promise that future technology is being touted as a solution to the problems with the ones they want to build toady.

Second is even less relevant since it has absolutely nothing to say about the content of the OP at all. This is the only kind of post that poster *ever* contributes - strictly a disruptor.

And the third concludes that a clear statement is some sort of attempt at deceit and that the OP is "propaganda". Again, not even the most flaccid attempt to actually address the content, the poster just used the tactic of trying to portray one statement as flawed (a false claim) and uses that to dismiss the entire piece.

In short - the usual meaningless nonsense from the same bunch.

[TheWraith]

7. What possible "meaning" is there to bashing technology that isn't used yet?

He's claiming that there's no real world benefit to something that hasn't ever been tested under real world conditions. I might as well complain about the outcome of the 2014 World Series.

[kristopher]

8. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x234000#234020

[TheWraith]

12. So scientific research determined a way that isn't practical. That's how it's supposed to work.

That you do research until you have something that works in the real world. So far Gen 4 nuclear technology is still in the experimental stage. Contrary to your link, that has no bearing on Gen 3 reactors supposedly being "lousy" any more than the 2015 model year of cars will be better than the ones from 2005.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

10. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't reprocessing of fuel rods not allowed in the US?

I understand european countries reprocess "spent" rods several times but legislation in the US blocks reprocessing of spent rods and the rods muct be stored/buried/disposed.

Also, don't gen III+ and Gen 4 refer to the newer design of thorium based breeder reactors?
Thorium is much more abundant than Uranium.

[bananas]

11. You are wrong, Reagan revoked the ban on reprocessing way back in 1981, it's still "a goofy idea"

The reason we don't use reprocessing is because it's expensive and unnecessary.
Ford and Carter banned reprocessing to set an example for other countries.
Although wikipedia mentions "the key issue driving" the ban was proliferation, it does not mention the fact that there was no good reason to do it anyway because it was known to be completely unnecessary and extremely expensive.

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

In October 1976, fear of nuclear weapons proliferation (especially after India demonstrated nuclear weapons capabilities using reprocessing technology) led President Gerald Ford to issue a Presidential directive to indefinitely suspend the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium in the U.S. On April 7, 1977 , President Jimmy Carter banned the reprocessing of commercial reactor spent nuclear fuel. The key issue driving this policy was the serious threat of nuclear weapons proliferation by diversion of plutonium from the civilian fuel cycle, and to encourage other nations to follow the USA lead. <4> . After that, only countries that already had large investments in reprocessing infrastructure continued to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981, but did not provide the substantial subsidy that would have been necessary to start up commercial reprocessing.<5>

Bush wanted to begin reprocessing with his GNEP program, it was "a goofy idea" according to MIT, the National Academy of Sciences, the Federation of American Scientists, and just about everyone else. After the National Academy of Sciences report came out, Congress defunded it.

MIT's "most important recommendation" back in 2003:

Thus our most important recommendation is:

For the next decades, government and industry in the U.S. and elsewhere
should give priority to the deployment of the once-through fuel cycle,
rather than the development of more expensive closed fuel cycle
technology involving reprocessing and new advanced thermal or fast
reactor technologies.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/index.html

In 2007, the National Academy of Science came to a similar conclusion, as reported at the Federation of American Scientists blog:

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/10/national_academy_of_science_re.php

National Academy of Science Report Calls for Putting the Brakes on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) Program.

This afternoon, a committee of the National Research Council, a research arm of the National Academy of Science, issued a report that is extremely critical of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, an administration plan to restart separating plutonium from used commercial nuclear reactor fuel, something the United States has not done for three decades. I have argued that the goals of GNEP, while scientifically possible and perhaps someday economically justifiable, are decades premature. I am relieved to discover that the committee report comes to essentially the same conclusion.

<snip>

While all 17 members of the committee concluded that the GNEP R&D program, as currently planned, should not be pursued, 15 of the members said that the less-aggressive reprocessing research program that preceded the current one should be. However, if DOE returns to the earlier program, called the Advance Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI), it should not commit to a major demonstration or deployment of reprocessing unless there is a clear economic, national security, or environmental reason to do so.

John Deutsch, one of the main authors of the MIT report, called the GNEP reprocessing plan "a goofy idea":

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclear_power_and_fuel_cycle/gnep.html?formAction=297&contentId=525

<snip>

A telling point is that almost no independent analysts, that is, those not working for the Department of Energy, have anything good to say about the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. In the Greenwire article cited above, Deutsch called GNEP a “goofy idea.” Even overall supporters of nuclear power, like Ernest Moniz of MIT (Moniz was, along with Deutsch, cochairman of the panel that wrote the very influential MIT study, The Future of Nuclear Power), oppose GNEP if for no other reason than it is premature. It may be a good idea at the end of the 21st Century, but not now. Even the nuclear power industry is at best tepid in its support, worrying that GNEP is a diversion from the immediate problem of a geological repository. Recent questions from members of Congress highlights another concern: even potential supporters of the idea of reprocessing are wary of entrusting the gargantuan technical task to the Department of Energy because DOE has shown repeatedly and consistently that it is incapable of managing such complex projects.

<snip>

[TheWraith]

13. It's not really that expensive.

But simply buying new uranium is even cheaper.

[Nihil]

14. It's the good old two-faced "Green" argument again

In practically every other field, every other material, the re-use
and recycling of the material is seen as A Good Thing even if it
does cost more as it Reduces The Mining Of Raw Material at the same
time that it Reduces The Amount Of Waste Produced.

The only difference here is that the material in question begins
with "U" and ends in "ranium" ...

:eyes:

[madokie]

15. Nope, the only difference is the danger of it

All I know for a fact is that the Nuclear power industry will and do lie to us like there was no tomorrow. I happen to think there is and the last thing I want to do is to continue with the waste disposal we're now finding out is how the European's are doing it, Dumping it in the ocean and that is wrong wrong wrong. Do you actually think the fishes know better how to deal with that waste than we humans do, I think not. And don't try to tell me it was only medical waste and such either that they have been disposing of in the ocean. The cats out of the bag, so to say, and it ain't never going to go back in there. We pretty much knew years ago that this would ultimately be the mode of disposal, dumping in the ocean, that many would follow. :hi:

Add: I remember not too long ago when the pro nukies were telling us that just wait until the fourth generation reactors come on line and it will change everything, now some of the same peeps are saying it never was to be. Another lie used to try to win the argument at the time as the nuclear industry uses as their MO..

[kristopher]

16. two- faced "Green" argument?

Wow, where to start?

You encourage nuclear power to address climate change when there are better, faster cheaper alternatives.
You encourage addressing ONE of the problems with that approach by enhancing the probability of nuclear weapons proliferation with an even less efficient, less economically competitive technology.

Now recall you are justifying this because you are supposedly "Green" and want to do something about climate change.

And the only problem you see is the "Greens" are "two-faced" because they think breeder reactors are a bad idea...

Wow.

[Nihil]

25. Yep

> You encourage nuclear power to address climate change when there are better,
> faster cheaper alternatives.

Get it right: I encourage nuclear power to replace coal, not wind, not solar PV,
not solar thermal but coal.

I also encourage nuclear power to replace long period gas - not the use of gas
to "top up" (as this will always be required for PV / wind generation) but for
the *long-term* use of what should be "quick power".

I openly state that so-called "greens" are two-faced when they decry the use
of well-established re-use methods when applied to nuclear fuels at the same
time that they support the re-use (or recycling) of every other substance
under the sun.

To put it plainly: if you do not agree with getting every bit of useful energy
out of whatever source then you are not "green" in any shape or form.

I have no wish to "convert" people from their chosen religion but I object to
people completely misrepresenting their case (or mine).

I accept that people do not want nuclear as a primary energy source.
I have no problem with that (especially w.r.t. America, as stated elsewhere).

I have a problem when people think that they can magically switch from the
existing coal-based energy supply to a mythical wind-based energy supply:
not because this is somehow unrealistic but that it is *currently* unrealistic.

The coal will *not* go away - even the current occupant of the White House
doesn't pretend that he is sufficiently interested in the planet as to go against
the people who pay him/his friends - but the goal *should be* to reduce the
input from coal and replace it with renewables.

I repeat: I have no problem with "RENEWABLES"; I just want them to replace
the most devastating fossil fuels first and stop with all the bullshit about
"nuclear is deh evil" as an alternative.

[kristopher]

28. I'm calling bullshit on that assertion

You wrote, "I have a problem when people think that they can magically switch from the
existing coal-based energy supply to a mythical wind-based energy supply:
not because this is somehow unrealistic but that it is *currently* unrealistic."

Please support that statement with some sort of convincing evidence. If you cannot (and since I know it is a false statement I am very sure you cannot) then your entire argument fails and you are just one more blind, faith based supporter of nuclear power.

[Nihil]

30. I'm calling bullshit on your bullshit.

> If you cannot (and since I know it is a false statement
> I am very sure you cannot) then your entire argument fails and
> you are just one more blind, faith based supporter

You are not arguing from facts or evidence here: you are arguing
from faith and belief in your chosen Messiah (the All-Holy J*c*bs*n).

In other words, "your entire argument fails and you are just
one more blind, faith based supporter".

Go back and read what I said - the whole post, not just the bit
that you consider to be blasphemous against your Prophet.

>> The coal will *not* go away - even the current occupant of the
>> White House doesn't pretend that he is sufficiently interested
>> in the planet as to go against the people who pay him/his
>> friends - but the goal *should be* to reduce the input from
>> coal and replace it with renewables.

When it gets to the point where renewables can replace both coal
and nuclear, I will be truly delighted in the progress that has
been achieved.

Here and now, we are not at that point. Moreover, we are not near
to that point. People who pretend otherwise are not just deluding
themselves but wilfully deluding others - especially when the
direct result of such delusion is to allow Business As Usual with
respect to the coal industry.

Utopia is a worthy goal. Pretending that Utopia is within reach
when it only exists on paper is not a worthy behaviour.

[kristopher]

31. Exactly as I thought - you cannot support your assertion regarding the deficiency of renewables.

Instead you embark on a meaningless rant. There has been recognition for more than 20 years that a renewable grid is a practical and achievable objective will within the limits of existing technology. It is faster, less expensive and cleaner than nuclear at achieving the same end.

In other words, when you say that you support nuclear because renewables "Can't replace coal" it means you have absolutely no justification for supporting nuclear.

I'll ask once more, please, if you have a valid analysis demonstrating why renewables cannot replace coal more rapidly and at less cost than nuclear would you mind sharing it with us?

I truly don't understand why you insist that false statement is true.

[Nihil]

32. Exactly as I thought - you didn't read the thread, just reacted to key words.

> There has been recognition for more than 20 years that a renewable grid
> is a practical and achievable objective will within the limits of existing
> technology.

And yet do we see one? No. In "more than 20 years" we *still* have the view
that it is "a practical and achievable objective" rather than a hard fact.

> It is faster, less expensive and cleaner than nuclear at achieving the
> same end.

It would definitely be cleaner and probably less expensive but in the
"more than 20 years", the "faster" aspect is (ironically) still theoretical ...


I repeat: I have no problem with "RENEWABLES"; I just want them to replace
the most devastating fossil fuels first and stop with all the bullshit about
"nuclear is deh evil" as an alternative. It is an unnecessary distraction
that only divides the anti-coal argument and results in delays which only
benefit the coal side.

I do not encourage nuclear power to replace wind, solar PV or solar thermal.


Although you've probably just slipped into the usual groove in response to
the word "nuclear", please recall that my entry point into this thread was
regarding the re-use (re-processing) of nuclear fuel.

>> I openly state that so-called "greens" are two-faced when they decry the use
>> of well-established re-use methods when applied to nuclear fuels at the same
>> time that they support the re-use (or recycling) of every other substance
>> under the sun.

I support the re-processing of nuclear fuel (albeit with the usual caveat that
I don't expect Americans to be any more capable of being trusted with it than
they are of nuclear power stations en masse).


>> To put it plainly: if you do not agree with getting every bit of useful energy
>> out of whatever source then you are not "green" in any shape or form.

>> The coal will *not* go away - even the current occupant of the White House
>> doesn't pretend that he is sufficiently interested in the planet as to go against
>> the people who pay him/his friends - but the goal *should be* to reduce the
>> input from coal and replace it with renewables.

These points still stand. Once-through processing is cheaper than re-processing.
Disposable plastic containers are cheaper than reusing glass ones. The cost is
not seen as a justifiable reason for doing the wrong thing in any other aspect
of life so why do some people insist on making an exception for nuclear fuel?


As regards to your pious request ...

> I'll ask once more, please, if you have a valid analysis demonstrating
> why renewables cannot replace coal more rapidly and at less cost than
> nuclear would you mind sharing it with us?

... as you well know, there have been many threads by people more patient
than I who *have* provided valid analyses but you, I and most readers are
well aware that you *only* accept the Word of your Prophet and, as I have
been pleasantly surprised that you have restrained yourself from spamming
this thread with "The Gospel", I have no intention of feeding you an
invitation to shut it down in the usual manner.

[bananas]

19. No, the "Green" argument is very consistent: we shouldn't be making this stuff in the first place

[Nihil]

26. Hey we "shouldn't" be making CO2 either so what's your next step?

The "Green" argument is anything but "consistent" ... it sucks ...

[bananas]

29. You can't really "recycle" uranium

You can take a recycled aluminum can and throw it in the recycle bin,
re-using the aluminum over and over again,
but you can't do that with uranium fuel rods.
You can't take a fuel rod made from "recycled" uranium and "recycle" it again.
The uranium from a spent fuel rod is contaminated with isotopes which poison it is a fuel.

http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/nuclear_recycling_fails_the_test

Nuclear Recycling Fails the Test
July 2, 2008 · By Robert Alvarez. Edited by Miriam Pemberton

The debate over nuclear power is heating up, along with the planet. Can nuclear fuel recycling be part of the mix? Not a chance.

<snip>

Recycled Uranium

In 2007 the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that “reprocessed uranium currently plays a very minor role in satisfying world uranium requirements for power reactors.” In 2004, about 2 percent of uranium reactor fuel in France came from recycling, and it appears that it now has dwindled to zero. There are several reasons for this.

Uranium, which makes up about 95 percent of spent fuel, cannot be reused in the great majority of reactors without increasing the levels of a key source of energy, uranium 235, from 1 to 4 percent, through a complex and expensive enrichment process.

Reprocessed uranium also contains undesirable elements that make it highly radioactive and reduces the efficiency of the fuel. For instance, the build up of uranium 232 and uranium 234 in spent fuel creates a radiation hazard requiring extraordinary measures to protect workers. Levels of uranium-236 in used fuel impede atom splitting; and to compensate for this “poison, recycled uranium has to undergo costly “over-enrichment.” Contaminants in reprocessed uranium also foul up enrichment and processing facilities, as well as new fuel. Once it is recycled in a reactor, larger amounts of undesirable elements build up – increasing the expense of reuse, storage and disposal. Given these problems, it’s no surprise that DOE plans include disposal of future reprocessed uranium in landfills, instead of recycling.

<snip>

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

Reuse of reprocessed uranium has not been common because of low prices in the uranium market of recent decades, and because of the undesirable isotopic contaminants

* uranium-236 (which absorbs neutrons without fissioning and becomes neptunium-237 which is one of the most difficult isotopes for long-term disposal in a deep geological repository),
* uranium-232 (whose decay products emit strong gamma radiation making handling more difficult), and
* uranium-234 (which is fertile material but can affect reactivity differently than uranium-238).<1>

[Statistical]

20. Exactly.

Reprocessing is more expensive than new uranium on both dollars and energy requires basis.

The only reasons for reprocessing are not economic:
1) Doubles to triples lifespan of uranium reserves (US reserve is good for hundreds of years so this isn't needed).
2) Reduces the amount of High Level Nuclear Waste (At an increase in amount of low level waste generated)

Utilities are currently charged a flat rate of 0.1 per kwh for waste disposal & storage.
since they are charged per kWh and not amount of waste there is no economic incentive for #2 above.

[Statistical]

21. Reactor has to be specifically designed for Thorium

Natural thorium (Th-232) is not fissile.

Put 30 tons of natural thorium in a reactor and it will sit there doing absolutely nothing.



Hit some Th-232 with neutrons and you will transmute it into Th-233 which IS fissile.

So a Thorium reactor must be seeded with enough fissile material to start it.

This can be Th-233 from previous fuel cycle, U-235 (current reactor fuel), or even Pu-239 (reprocessed plutonium).

Also notice the n in the above diagram. Converting Th-232 into Th-233 requires neutrons. Those neutrons are removed from the neutron economy in reactor and slow down rate of fission. As a result reactors need to be designed to allow a larger range of neutron flux.

So you can't just take a reactor designed for Uranium and dump some Thorium in it.

Current GenIII+ reactors (ESBWR, AP1000, EPR, etc) are designed for Uranium. They could be modified for Thorium however the most benefit would come from completely new GenIV designs.

[NNadir]

17. I wonder if George Plumb, who clearly is unfamiliar with nuclear technology knows about COPD

epidiemology that is now inevitably going to become an issue in his state because of his ignorance of and obliviousnes to wastes that actually kill, as opposed to risks that he, in his scientific ignorance, imagines could kill.

The minute Vermont Yankee goes off line he will show zero interest in the epidemiological consequences of the people who will certainly die as a result.

He is a poster child for the statement "IGNORANCE KILLS."

He knows zero about nuclear technology, as his pablum about Gen IV - probably loaded off some dumb website - shows.

As I will show citing Lancet this weekend, tens millions of people will die from biomass and fossil fuel burning in China this year, easily wiping out many times more than the population of Vermont thousands of times over.

I will calcuate by extrapolation - providing references about the increased carcinogenicity of woodsmoke relative to tobacco smoke - the number of Vermonters who will die because some assholes who don't know much stayed up all night dreaming that they might drink as much tritium as people deliberately drink in imagining and medical treatments by digging a big whole under Vermont Yankee and sucking thousands of liters of water down.

Ignorance is not neutral. It is not forgivable. It kills.

[kristopher]

18. It isn't a choice between fossil fuels and nuclear

Renewable energy sources are the best way to meet our climate change, energy security AND air pollution mortality concerns. Nuclear power is, literally, a third rate solution:

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security.

Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[NNadir]

22. The soothsaying crap has NOTHING to do with reality. Every nuclear plant shut by ignorance

and similar soothsaying appeals has been replaced by dangerous fossil fuels.

Every. Single. One.

Reality trumps prayer every time.

Dangerous fossil fuels replaced Maine Yankee, which was also accompanied by wishful thinking and outright lying by anti-nukes.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept05me.xls

Dangerous fossil fuels replaced Rancho Seco - which was a poorly run nuclear plant but was still nowhere near as dangerous as the fossil fuels that replaced it. In the case of Rancho Seco, the anti-nuke frauds put one "MW" that operates with less than 20% of capacity utilization of unreliable solar toxic shit outside the grounds and claimed it "replaced" a 938 MW plant. Then they went on with the happy horseshit of dumping dangerous fossil fuel waste in the atmosphere and killing people.

Dangerous fossil fuels replaced the Trojan Nuclear Plant in Oregon, which was also accompanied by bull shit and fraud about how renewables would replace it. There was all sorts of similar lying connected with that bull, and then they went on to burn more gas and coal.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept05or.xls

Anyone citing the same garbage paper over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, soothsaying as it is, will not check in on Vermont's death rate from respiratory disease, just as they cannot produce ONE person in the entire state who is contaminated with actionable tritium.

As I will show, 65 million people will die in China in the next 23 years from respiratory disease, and that's NOT COUNTING the deaths that will result from climate change, some of it which will clearly result from dangerous fossil fuel waste dumped by the state of Vermont because of vandalism by anti-science anti-nukes who destroyed, for no morally justifiable reason, the largest piece of climate change gas free infrastructure in the state of Vermont, using fear and ignorance as weapons. NOT ONE of these vandals cares who dies as a result of their actions.

People ask me why I'm so angry. Because I am tired of watching oblivious mystics kill people, that's why.

[madokie]

23. I think that anger of yours has a much larger base than that

:rofl:
:hi:

[Nihil]

27. Not wishing to jump in on the personal argument betwen you two ..

... but I really wish that both of you would direct your energies towards
getting a sensible power environment in both of your counties/states.

:shrug:

By all means fight for what you believe in, but fight *there* not *here*.

[kristopher]

24. That's the "man wasn't meant to fly" fallacy

The economic and political forces that have been in place for the past 40 years are different now. How many new coal plants were built of planned in the past 2 years?

Renewable energy is here economically and it is the future.

Here is a sample:
Wind Power Myths Debunked

November/December 2009

Michael Milligan, Kevin Porter, Edgar DeMeo, Paul Denholm, Hannele Holttinen, Brendan Kirby, Nicholas Miller, Andrew Mills, Mark O’Malley, Matthew Schuerger, and Lennart Soder

IEEE Power and Energy Magazine (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)

The natural variability of wind power makes it different from other generating technologies, which can give rise to questions about how wind power can be integrated into the grid successfully. This article aims to answer several important questions that can be raised with regard to wind power. Although wind is a variable resource, grid operators have experience with managing variability that comes from handling the variability of load. As a result, in many instances the power system is equipped to handle variability. Wind power is not expensive to integrate, nor does it require dedicated backup generation or storage. Developments in tools such as wind forecasting also aid in integrating wind power. Integrating wind can be aided by enlarging balancing areas and moving to subhourly sched- uling, which enable grid operators to access a deeper stack of generating resources and take advantage of the smooth- ing of wind output due to geographic diversity. Continued improvements in new conventional-generation technolo- gies and the emergence of demand response, smart grids, and new technologies such as plug-in hybrids will also help with wind integration.

Read the article in full in PDF format: http://www.poweracrosstexas.org/files/IEE_Wind_Power_Myths_Debunked.pdf (11 pages, 1.7MB)