Nuclear vs. wind comparison - land use, material requirements and costs

[GliderGuider]

A lot has been made of the fact that wind turbines have a low impact on the land they occupy, due to the fact that little land beyond the tower pads is permanently impacted. I wanted to see what the situationa actually is.

A quick Google found this paper from the National Renewable Energy Lab entitled "Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States" (PDF). It contains an assessment of the land used by wind turbines, broken down into "permanent impact" and "temporary impact", and backed up by a data from of virtually all the large modern wind installations in the USA.

The paper indicates that 0.3 ha of land is permanently impacted for each MW of nameplate capacity. This translates to around 1 ha or a bit more for a MW of actual generation, or 1000 ha per GWe.

This article from Westinghouse as referenced by Brave New Climate indicates a site size of between 3 and 4 hectares for an AP1000 reactor with an output of 1 GWe (allowing an 87% capacity factor).

This means that wind power requires about 250 times more land to be taken out of the biosphere to support a given amount of generation compared to nuclear power.

BNC's TCASE4 analysis also indicates that wind power requires 8 times as much concrete and over 30 times as much steel as nuclear power, again on an actual generation (not nameplate capacity) basis.

The EIA's analysis of the levelized cost of electricity indicate that onshore wind is about 25% more expensive than nuclear power.

The capital cost of wind and nuclear power (when normalized for capacity factors) is very similar at around $8/watt.

It seems to me that those who oppose nuclear power are forcing everyone else to pay a very high price in all these areas in order to allay their low-probability fears of radwaste and proliferation.

[Ruby the Liberal]

1. This should be a fun thread.

:popcorn:

[Tesha]

14. It's not worth arguing with the pro-nukers.

They pick-and-choose their criteria to get the answer
they want.

Tesha

[GliderGuider]

39. Here's a bit more nuance

To an extent you are correct. Underlying all discussions of the technical pros and cons are implicit policy and investment positions. People who support either side in such discussions inevitably bring in their desire to present their case in as favourable a light as possible, and to expose weaknesses in the opposing side. Considered from that point of view this is essentially a political debate.

It’s not so much that pro-nukes or anti-nukes cherry-pick the facts from a desire to be mendacious, though certainly that’s how each side paints the other. Rather, it comes from a desire to ensure that all the facts on both sides, both pro and con, are fully aired and understood.

This process seems painful and frustrating, and leads to a lot of ad hominem arguments, but in the end it helps us all make more rational decisions, choices based on factual assessments of the situation rather than purely emotional reactivity. It ends up being an adversarial process that’s much like legal disputes in a courtroom, and not much different than trial by combat.

[msongs]

2. u forgot to include stats on waste disposal and cost of chernobyl experiences nt

[GliderGuider]

3. No, those have already been heavily discussed here.

In my opinion the risk of another Chernobyl-type event is minuscule, and the problems with the long term safe storage of high-level waste are political rather than technical. Even the risk of proliferation is being well-managed in the international arena compared to the risks of atmospheric carbon.

[bananas]

8. You are entitled to your wrong opinions.

:)

[bananas]

9. 1 in 10 chance of another Chernobyl

if we try to keep the existing reactors running for another 20-25 years.
That's not miniscule.

[GliderGuider]

13. So in other words

We could expect to have an accident of that scale every 250 years. Compared to all the other equally lethal but higher probability risks we accept in this life, that doesn't seem like that big a deal. Given all the work that's being done to prevent that from happening, it's likely that the risk, low as it is, will be even further reduced over time.

Kind of like what we're doing about nuclear weapons.

Unlike what we're doing about carbon.

[bananas]

42. 1 in 10 odds are not miniscule - the nuclear industry is playing russian roulette

In your post I was responding to, you wrote "In my opinion the risk of another Chernobyl-type event is minuscule".
But 1 in 10 odds are not miniscule.
It's like playing russian roulette with a 10-shooter instead of a six-shooter.
No one in their right mind would do it.
But the nuclear industry is doing it.
They are taking a huge gamble not just with people's lives, not just with turning NYC or another large city into a Chernobyl exclusion zone, they are taking a huge gamble with their own future. They've been outright lying saying that another Chernobyl is impossible, and you can see on these forums how many people actually believe that lie. If another Chernobyl happens, that will be the end of the nuclear industry for the rest of this century. By trying to keep these old reactors running, they are putting a bullet in a 10-shooter, pointing it at their head, and pulling the trigger. No sane person would take a risk like that.

The odds may be actually be much higher than 1 in 10, because these old reactors are running up the far end of the bathroom curve, where the risk of failure increases rapidly.

Those odds are just for the existing reactors. It gets worse when you consider the new reactors, which will be entering at the high infant mortality part of the bathroom curve.

The Russian scientists and engineers working on-site in Iran are warning that the Bushehr reactor could go Chernobyl, they've appealed to the Kremlin to intervene. They also say the management sucks and has no regard for safety or human life.

China is now acknowledging it can't maintain quality control (safety) at the build rate it was aiming for.

These are very serious risks, they are not "miniscule", and they are completely unnecessary.

[GliderGuider]

43. No, but 1 in 250 odds are pretty small.

The 1:10 figure looks impressive until we realize that this is over 25 years. That means that for any given year of the next 25 years there is only a 1 in 250 chance of such an event.

And that's assuming that the underlying risk calculation is correct and that human effort (such as continually redesigning reactors to increase their safety) doesn't lower the odds. In fact, it's virtually impossible to transfer a risk calculation based on a specific design and accident scenario (that no longer exists) to the current reactor fleet.

I said in a post above that the parties to this discussion generally aren't being deliberately mendacious, but I have to say that this particular argument strikes me as being mendacious in the extreme. I know that it's emotionally powerful, but it's very hard to support with facts.

[madokie]

52. You're willing to take a chance on killing a large number of people near a nuke

plant and make the area uninhabitable for many years for what?
I'm not willing to take that risk myself. I'll take my chances with finding a solution for the co2 in other directions. Just think of all the methane that is going and is being released as we go through our lives every day that we have no control of whatsoever. As usual your argument is too long on picked info and way to short on actually whats going on.

[NickB79]

54. "I'll take my chances with finding a solution for the co2 in other directions"

So, in other words business as usual and the same approach that's gotten us into to the worst-case scenarios projected by the IPCC: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x271933

Good luck with that. We'll all need it.

[madokie]

56. I don't like coal any more than anyone else does

but I also know that we could have and should have and it's still possible to clean it up considerably by gasifying the coal first. fuck the sequestering part just extract the energy from coal with a gasifier for a 50 to 60 percent less co2 being produced up front. Google gasifiers and do a little reading and you'll see what I'm saying in the less co2 produced. By burning the coal directly we're extracting the energy from coal the dirtiest way possible. Once built the gasifier is a lot cheaper to operate also as it is so much more efficient in extracting the energy it holds.

We missed a bullet at TMI and anyone who says otherwise are fools in my book

[PamW]

88. Poor chemistry leads to poor understanding

The only way you get energy from coal is by combining it with oxygen, and that produces CO2. You completely misunderstand the concept of coal gasification:

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

Coal gasification produces a gas that can then be burned in an engine. When you do so, you get all the CO2 that you would have if you had burned the coal
outright. There's zero way around it if you want the energy. The energy comes from the oxidation reaction:

C + O2 --> CO2 + energy

There are two products to the reaction, CO2 and energy. They come as a matched set. If you want one, you have to accept the other.

PamW

[madokie]

97. You need to do some more research

I fully understand gasifiers and how they work and you've no idea. I won't do your work for you, you'll have to do that.

[GliderGuider]

100. Gasification only reduces the amount of CO2 going into the air if it is captured and sequestered

The sequestration step is proving to be the most troublesome. Gasification solves a number of other small problems like particulates and NOx, but CO2 still has to be dealt with. If solid wastes can't be safely stored underground in perpetuity then gaseous waste presents problems several orders of magnitude greater.

The real only "CO2 solution" for coal (and any other fossil fuel) is not to burn it in the first place.

[madokie]

102. That is false

please read up on a gasifier so we can have a different conversation. You have no idea what or how a gasifier works if you're going to make that statement. With all due respect. Its an easy subject to research as there is much to learn out there.

[PamW]

103. You are the one that doesn't understand

You are the one that doesn't understand how coal gasification works based on the laws of chemistry.
Telling other people to go read up on it doesn't show that you know how it works.

The basic chemistry is that if you oxidize coal in order to get the energy, you end up with the same byproduct, namely CO2

The energy that we release is the difference in energy between the energy in Carbon-Carbon bonds, and the energy in Carbon-Oxygen bonds.
There's no magic in coal gasification that changes that simple chemistry.

PamW

[kristopher]

104. Another case of nuclear inspired pseudo-science?

In a thread filled with false information designed to mislead people about the true costs of nuclear power, this subthread stands out for its obvious inaccuracy.

First let me point out that both coal and nuclear are 2 sides of the same coin - it doesn't matter whether it is Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (IGCC) coal (their premier product) or a GenIII nuclear reactor they are both products that are designed specifically to promote the interests of an entrenched and greedy energy industry trying to maintain their stranglehold on the pipeline supplying the most fundamental human need. They serve the needs of an elite within a corrupt and sick system, not the population that depends on that system for its survival.

We should not invest one cent in either technology.

However, your attempt to pretend knowledge where none actually exists needs to be addressed:

Coal gasification IS a method of significantly reducing carbon emissions. You steer people wrong by failing to understand that the CO2 emissions are measures per unit of energy delivered, not per unit of fuel consumed.

A typical thermal coal plant effectively harnesses only about 28% of the energy contained in the coal. An IGCC coal plant is able to operate at better than 50% efficiency. This means that it delivers nearly twice the amount of energy per unit of coal, with a consequent reduction in CO2 emissions of nearly 50% when compared to a regular coal plant.

In addition to that the resulting CO2 stream is concentrated and virtually pure, an important first step that enables carbon capture and sequestration to be accomplished far more easily than in a conventional coal plant.

There are other advantages when compared to conventional coal, but those are the two most germane to the discussion at hand.

The good news is that we don't need coal or nuclear since renewable energy sources can, with comparatively minimal external costs, meet 100% of modern societies' needs with plenty of room to spare.



http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/index.html

[GliderGuider]

106. The efficiency point is a good one, thanks.

The CCS issue remains unsolved, but the increase in efficiency is good news.

[joshcryer]

108. Gen IV (LFTR) can take advantage of combined cycle (Brayton) generators, too.

[joshcryer]

107. Agreed, we need Gen IV. LFTR and IFR. Burn the waste, produce little CO2 over lifecycle.

[kristopher]

109. Sure, we can just wait 30 years until those are ready to deploy.

[joshcryer]

111. IFR nearly fully researched and could be deployed in 5. LFTR could be in under 10.

That's why Hansen backs those two technologies.

[GliderGuider]

105. I've read up on it.

What I've found is that virtually the same amount of CO2 is produced in gasification as in burning the coal directly, it's just in a more concentrated form that would make it easier to sequester if we developed reliable sequestration facilities.

If you have information that contradicts this, I'd like a link to it. I don't need you to explain it, I'd just like a link so I can read up on it.

So far today I have read the following to refresh my memory of the process from a few years ago:

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gasification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasification
http://ns.energyresearch.ca/files/Ian_Potter.pdf
http://www.iea.org/speech/2008/sb_brasilia.pdf

My position at this point is reflected in this excerpt from a 2009 article from New Scientist:

The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) just released a comprehensive study on coal gasification that came to the following conclusions:

Without geologic storage of the CO2 produced in the conversion process, the greenhouse gas emissions from coal-based fuel would be about twice that of oil.
With geologic storage, CO2 emissions would be nearly equivalent to those from oil.

As far as I can tell, it all depends on CCS, and we don't have that - at least not at the scale and with the safety required to make gasification a major player in the decarbonization of the global industrial economy. As I said, if you have information that changes this picture, please post a link.

[madokie]

110. Heres a couple of links with more to come.

I've got to go back to my old bookmarks (so it may take me a moment or two to find it) to find the link to where they're explaining the fact that less co2 is produced in a gasifier as direct burning all other things being equal.

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/index.html
(snip)
Rather than burning coal directly, gasification (a thermo-chemical process) breaks down coal - or virtually any carbon-based feedstock - into its basic chemical constituents. In a modern gasifier, coal is typically exposed to steam and carefully controlled amounts of air or oxygen under high temperatures and pressures. Under these conditions, molecules in coal break apart, initiating chemical reactions that typically produce a mixture of carbon monoxide, hydrogen and other gaseous compounds.

Gasification, in fact, may be one of the most flexible technologies to produce clean-burning hydrogen for tomorrow's automobiles and power-generating fuel cells. Hydrogen and other coal gases can also be used to fuel power-generating turbines, or as the chemical "building blocks" for a wide range of commercial products. <> Read more about hydrogen production.>

The Energy Department's Office of Fossil Energy is working on coal gasifier advances that enhance efficiency, environmental performance, and reliability as well as expand the gasifier's flexibility to process a variety of coals and other feedstocks (including biomass and municipal/industrial wastes).
Environmental Benefits

The environmental benefits of gasification stem from the capability to achieve extremely low SOx, NOx and particulate emissions from burning coal-derived gases. Sulfur in coal, for example, is converted to hydrogen sulfide and can be captured by processes presently used in the chemical industry. In some methods, the sulfur can be extracted in either a liquid or solid form that can be sold commercially. In an Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (IGCC) plant, the syngas produced is virtually free of fuel-bound nitrogen. NOx from the gas turbine is limited to thermal NOx. Diluting the syngas allows for NOx emissions as low as 15 parts per million. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) can be used to reach levels comparable to firing with natural gas if required to meet more stringent emission levels. Other advanced emission control processes are being developed that could reduce NOx from hydrogen fired turbines to as low as 2 parts per million.

The Office of Fossil Energy is also exploring advanced syngas cleaning and conditioning processes that are even more effective in eliminating emissions from coal gasifiers. Multi-contaminant control processes are being developed that reduce pollutants to parts-per-billion levels and will be effective in cleaning mercury and other trace metals in addition to other impurities.

Coal gasification may offer a further environmental advantage in addressing concerns over the atmospheric buildup of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. If oxygen is used in a coal gasifier instead of air, carbon dioxide is emitted as a concentrated gas stream in syngas at high pressure. In this form, it can be captured and sequestered more easily and at lower costs. By contrast, when coal burns or is reacted in air, 79 percent of which is nitrogen, the resulting carbon dioxide is diluted and more costly to separate.
Efficiency Benefits

Efficiency gains are another benefit of coal gasification. In a typical coal combustion-based power plant, heat from burning coal is used to boil water, making steam that drives a steam turbine-generator. In some coal combustion-based power plants, only a third of the energy value of coal is actually converted into electricity.

A coal gasification power plant, however, typically gets dual duty from the gases it produces. First, the coal gases, cleaned of impurities, are fired in a gas turbine - much like natural gas - to generate one source of electricity. The hot exhaust of the gas turbine, and some of the heat generated in the gasification process, are then used to generate steam for use in a steam turbine-generator. This dual source of electric power, called a "combined cycle," is much more efficient in converting coal's energy into usable electricity. The fuel efficiency of a coal gasification power plant in this type of combined cycle can potentially be boosted to 50 percent or more.

Future concepts that incorporate a fuel cell or a fuel cell-gas turbine hybrid could achieve efficiencies nearly twice today's typical coal combustion plants. If any of the remaining heat can be channeled into process steam or heat, perhaps for nearby factories or district heating plants, the overall fuel use efficiency of future gasification plants could reach 70 to 80 percent.

Higher efficiencies translate into more economical electric power and potential savings for ratepayers. A more efficient plant also uses less fuel to generate power, meaning that less carbon dioxide is produced. In fact, coal gasification power processes under development by the Energy Department could cut the formation of carbon dioxide by 40 percent or more, per unit of output, compared to today's conventional coal-burning plant.

The capability to produce electricity, hydrogen, chemicals, or various combinations while eliminating nearly all air pollutants and potentially greenhouse gas emissions makes coal gasification one of the most promising technologies for energy plants of the future.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another link that explains the gasifier
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/howgasificationworks.html

[PamW]

87. It's not for many years

It's a 1 every 250 years for an accident with a release path. However, US reactors are made of metal and water and can't catch fire like the mostly graphite Chernobyl RBMK reactor did.
It was the fire that propelled long lived radionuclides which are heavy metals out of the core. Without the fire, you only have short lived radionuclides.

This reminds me of all the people that say that a nuclear bomb will make an area uninhabitable for thousands of years. We have two cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that actually were
hit by nuclear bombs and they were / are not uninhabitable for thousands of years. The radiation levels in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were back down near background level in a few months.
The history disproves the speculation.

PamW

[madokie]

98. A bomb and a meltdown is two different animals completely

Ask the ruskies about that one ok

[PamW]

101. Same complement of radionuclides

Sure a meltdown and a bomb are different event, but we are concerned about what the radiological fallout constituents are.

Do you know what is in fallout that is so radioactive? It's the fission products and neutron activation products created
when the bomb operated by creating a whole bunch of fission events.

What are the constituents of the radioactive material that would be dispersed if there were a meltdown? It's the fission
products and neutron activation products created when the operating reactor created a whole bunch of fission events.

If I burn coal in a pizza oven for that nice crispy crust, it creates CO2.

If I burn coal in a power plant to create electricity, it creates CO2. It creates the same byproduct molecule.

Saying that a pizza oven is different than a power plant doesn't make the byproduct any different.

PamW

[txlibdem]

41. Talk about pulling figures out of an orifice

Where in the world did you get that 1 in 10 number? Not to mention that American reactors can *never* have a disaster like Chernobyl. We have no reactors built without containment vessels --zero, none, zip, nada. The radiation from the affected Chernobyl reactor only entered the environment *until* construction workers built a containment vessel around the reactor core --there is no further material getting into the environment from this reactor. And the other 3 reactors at Chernobyl continued to operate for another 14 years, until the year 2000 when political pressure forced the government to shut down the entire site --no further incidents have occurred.

"A careful examination of the Chernobyl incident reveals that it was a stupid, completely unnecessary accident resulting from gross criminal negligence and total managerial incompetence. This problem could only have happened within a political system that was completely out of contact with the real world. Moreover, the entire tragedy stemmed from what experts call a unique "accident chain" - a series of missteps that as a whole led to a particular breakdown. Chernobyl hinged upon the reactor becoming unstable when the coolant flow slowed, but this can only happen in the RMBK reactor design. All other reactors in use would have shut themselves down.

Those who have waved the banner of Chernobyl in a campaign to ban nuclear power worldwide have ignored the facts of this incident, in particular the reality that such an explosion is impossible in other reactor designs."

http://argee.net/DefenseWatch/Chernobyl%20Reality%20and%20Myth.htm

[bananas]

45. US reactors can go Chernobyl

The failure rates are in MIT's 2003 report "The Future of Nuclear Energy":

Expert opinion using PRA considers
the best estimate of core damage frequency to
be about 1 in 10,000 reactor-years for nuclear
plants in the United States.
...
Potentially large release of radioactivity from fuel accompanies
core damage. Public health and safety depends
on the ability of the reactor containment to prevent
leakage of radioactivity to the environment. If containment
fails, there would be a large, early release (LER) and
exposure of people for some distance beyond the plant
site boundary,with the amount of exposure depending
on accident severity and weather conditions. The probability
of containment failure, given core damage, is about 0.1.

I read the PRA's when they first came out in the 1970s,
they were widely discussed at the time,
I discussed them with nuclear engineers I knew,
and those estimates have been consistent since then.
If those estimates apply to the 440 reactors worldwide,
then the expected global core damage frequency is:
(10,000 reactor-years/core damage) / (440 reactors) = 23 years/core damage
so if all those reactors are kept running for 23 years,
we can expect another meltdown like TMI,
with a 0.1 probability of containment failure and large early release.
A 0.1 probability is a 1 in 10 chance.
So there's a 1 in 10 chance of another Chernobyl (or worse).

And yes, we really are talking about a Chernobyl-scale accident (or worse):

Discovery.com: Could a Chernobyl-type accident happen in the United States at a nuclear power plant? Yes.

http://news.discovery.com/tech/is-nuclear-energy-safe.html

<snip>

Often times the topic of Chernobyl comes up when nuclear energy is mentioned. Could a Chernobyl-type accident happen in the United States at a nuclear power plant?

Kaufman: <snip misleading nuclear industry PR>

Lyman: The short answer is yes. An accident resulting in a large radiological release to the environment comparable to or worse than that of Chernobyl could definitely occur at a U.S. nuclear power plant. While the particular accident mechanism resulting in a catastrophic release of radioactivity would be different for a U.S. light-water reactor than for a Chernobyl-type reactor, the outcome could be similar. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a policy that if a core-melt accident occurs (such as the one at Three Mile Island in 1979), then the probability that the event could result in a large radiological release should be less than 10 percent.

According to computer simulations, some U.S. reactors would comfortably meet this limit, while it is less clear for others. Some reactor-containment buildings could be ruptured by a hydrogen explosion, for example. In addition, when a plant is down for a refueling outage, the containment building is open to the environment, but the fuel remains hot and is still vulnerable to melting if cooling is interrupted. And finally, terrorists with the tactical skill to attack a nuclear plant would find it fairly easy to blow a hole in the containment building.

<snip>

The reason reactors are required to shut down when hurricanes approach or when the grid becomes unstable is to reduce the chance of a Chernobyl:

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=514

The Current State of US Nuclear Safety Regulations and Transmission Grid Reliability
10.22.03 Stephen Maloney, Principal, Devonrue LTD

<snip>

As plant operating experience developed through the 1970s, however, it became evident to most risk analysts that the potential for extended transmission grid unavailability coincident with the loss of the onsite emergency power supplies was sufficiently high to warrant additional measures. In the nuclear power industry, this scenario combining transmission grid unavailability (such as occurred in the 2K3 Blackout) with total loss of all onsite emergency power is referred to as a “Station Blackout.”

Depending on circumstances, the Station Blackout reactor accident scenario can be particularly dangerous to public health and safety. The reactor core can melt on time scales comparable to the TMI accident. Unlike the limited loss of cooling event at TMI, however, the core damage scenario in a Station Blackout can be particularly severe, including a so-called “early high energy release” comprising a particularly heavy “portfolio” of fission products dispersed far and wide within a few hours.

<snip>

On one hand, the hurricane threat was addressed in the Station Blackout rule. Specifically, the rule calls for early shutdown of nukes threatened by a hurricane track. We are now all familiar with the nukes prudently shutting down ahead of the hurricanes by the press reports on Fox and CNN at this time of year. This procedure alone substantially eliminated the risk from most long-duration power loss events known in the 1980s.

<snip>

Readers Comments

<snip>

Joseph Somsel 10.23.03
Having served with Mr. Maloney on the industry group that helped formulate and implement the improvements for station blackout, I can state that the man knows about which he speaks.

<snip>

[GliderGuider]

46. A couple of comments about the 2003 MIT study

1. The 1 in 10,000 reactor-years estimate was for a "core damage" accident, not an uncontained Chernobyl-type accident. The MIT report says this:

Potentially large release of radioactivity from fuel accompanies core damage. Public health and safety depends on the ability of the reactor containment to prevent leakage of radioactivity to the environment. If containment fails, there would be a large, early release (LER) and exposure of people for some distance beyond the plant site boundary,with the amount of exposure depending on accident severity and weather conditions. The probability of containment failure, given core damage, is about 0.1. Hence the frequency of a LER is 1 in 1,000,000 years.

As I understand it, this means that there must be both a core damage accident and a containment failure to produce what the report calls a "LER". This is presumably the closest thing we would have today to a "Chernobyl-style accident". The probabilities of both events have to be multiplied together to get the final result, the probability of an LER. So if there is a core damage accident once in 10,000 reactor years, and the probability of a containment failure is 0.1, then the probability of an LER (the actual "Chernobyl-style accident" everyone is concerned about) actually drops to 1 in 100,000 reactor years, or one every 230 years of fleet operation for the current fleet.

Note that the "1 in 1,000,000" figure mentioned above is the result achieved with an improvement in inherent reactor safety to reduce the core damage risk tenfold, to 1 in 100,000 reactor years. That multiplied by the risk of containment failure gives a probability of 1 Chernobyl style accident ever million reactor-years. Given the number of reactors in service, this indicates an LER accident every 2300 years. I raise the word minuscule again.

2. Speaking of that tenfold improvement in reactor safety, the report has this to say in the Safety Recommendations in Chapter 11:

The implied level of risk of serious nuclear accidents based on the existing level of worldwide deployment and number of serious accidents (2) that have been experienced is about 1 accident per 10^4 reactor-years of operation. If nuclear power is to expand to the mid-century benchmark of our global growth scenario, and if we assume the public’s tolerance for nuclear accidents is unchanged, then the safety level that must be met should progressively improve by about one order of magnitude to 1 accident per 10^5 reactor-years. Advanced light water reactors are believed to achieve this improvement.

And in the 2009 update they say the following:

The judgment of the 2003 study that new light water reactor plants, properly operated, meet strenuous safety standards discussed in the 2003 report is unchanged.

So what we have here is a judgement from MIT that modern reactors present a probability of an uncontained release of radiation (that might or might not be on the scale of Chernobyl) on the order of 1 in 1,000,000. I'll even grant that the actual probability may be a bit higher than that because there are some older reactor designs still operating, but any speculation about a 1 in 10 chance of a Chernobyl under the current operating regime is FUD at its finest.

On edit: They even mention in their Recommendations that HTGR designs will better even that stringent requirement, though they don't provide any analysis to support that view.

[bananas]

50. My calculations are correct.

My post was about keeping the existing fleet of Gen 2 reactors running for another 23 years.
Your first excerpt is for the new Gen 3 designs that are just starting to be built.
The MIT report has frequency estimates for the Gen 2 and Gen 3 designs,
and explains why nuclear growth requires Gen 3 designs.

You wrote: "the probability of an LER (the actual "Chernobyl-style accident" everyone is concerned about) actually drops to 1 in 100,000 reactor years, or one every 230 years of fleet operation for the current fleet."
Yes, that's exactly the same as my calculation.
And if the current fleet is run for another 23 years, it's a 1 in 10 chance of a Chernobyl.
That's also what limited the total number of reactors - if we had built 4,400 Gen 2 reactors, we would expect a Chernobyl every 23 years. A lot of people have a hard time understanding this.

You wrote: "Given the number of reactors in service, this indicates an LER accident every 2300 years."
That's only if you build 440 new Gen 3 reactors.
It has nothing to do with the existing 440 Gen 2 reactors.

You wrote: "So what we have here is a judgement from MIT that modern reactors present a probability of an uncontained release of radiation (that might or might not be on the scale of Chernobyl) on the order of 1 in 1,000,000. I'll even grant that the actual probability may be a bit higher than that because there are some older reactor designs still operating, but any speculation about a 1 in 10 chance of a Chernobyl under the current operating regime is FUD at its finest."
Incorrect. You are confusing the failure rates for Gen 3 and Gen 2 designs.
The currently operating reactors are old Gen 2 designs which go Chernobyl every 100,000 reactor years.
The reactors that don't exist yet are the new Gen 3 designs which go Chernobyl every 1,000,000 reactor years.
If we keep the existing reactors running for another 23 years, there's a 1 in 10 chance of a Chernobyl.

edit to add: And if the new Gen 3 reactors aren't build, maintained, and operated to the requisite quality control standards, they won't be any safer than the old Gen 2 designs.

[txlibdem]

61. Again I agree with bananas: the old nuclear reactors need to be replaced asap with Gen IV

There are so many "dangerous" Gen 2 reactors, 103 or so currently is the USA alone. Why is that? Because anti-nuke zealots stopped all new nuclear power plant construction for 30 years. So, if you take Mr. Bananas' 1 in 10 chance of a nuclear catastrophe at face value you can see immediately that the people who have endangered all of our lives --wait for it-- are the "environmentalists" who blocked newer reactors from being built (designs based on safer Gen 3 technologies).

[joshcryer]

73. I agree completely. Gen II/III/III+ are unsafe, we need reactors that have hundred million year...

..catastrophe points. That is, we're talking about passively cooled, completely air cooled Gen IV MSR or IFR. Simple. Hansen agrees.

[txlibdem]

77. And to address the cost issue, I favor modular reactors with mass produced components

The construction firms love the current "business as usual" nuclear reactor designs: so many opportunities for jacking up the price, custom construction of each and every part, everything custom-built. What are they making, a high end sports car? I have come to believe that each company thinks a contract for building a nuclear reactor is their ticket to becoming a billionaire. The inflated costs are way out of line with the realities of what they are building.

The best solution is to make all new reactors modular and mass produced. This will permanently end the days of ballooning construction costs. The quality controls can be easily observed by DOE, the NRC, etc.

These modular reactors are in the works, designs are being tested and Westinghouse is even advertising them:

Westinghouse's development of a small modular reactor has been confirmed via an advertisement in its monthly magazine. "These factory built and easily transportable reactors will be more affordable to build," said the ad without revealing details of the technology. Elsewhere in the magazine, chief technology officer Kate Jackson said that the company is working to apply passive safety techniques to small reactors up to 300 MWe in capacity and pursuing "an integrated approach to the full fuel cycle."

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/IT_Westinghouse_trails_forthcoming_small_reactor_1101111.html

[GliderGuider]

78. After going back to basics, I agree.

pD is the probability of one reactor having core damage in any given year = 0.0001
pF is the probability of containment failure following core damage = 0.1
nY is the period in years = 25
nR is the number of reactors = 440
pLER is the probability of an LER in nY years

pLER(1) is the probability of a LER from one reactor in nY years
pLER(nR) is the probability of a LER from nR reactors in nY years

pLER(1) = (1-(1-pD)^nY)*pF
pLER(nR) = pLER(1)*nR

pLER(1) = (1-(1-.0001)^25)*.1 = 0.00025
pLER(nR) = 0.00025*440 = 0.11

So I agree that assuming the accuracy of pD=0.0001 and pF=0.1, the current Gen II fleet has an 11% probability of an LER over the next 25 years.

I have a few questions perhaps you could help with:

Do you know whether the "L" in "LER" is quantified? Does it refer to a release on a Chernobyl scale, or a TMI scale, or is it relatively undefined? It makes a difference in terms of how exercised we should get over that 11%.
How did they come up with the 1/10,000 for pD?
How did they come up with the 0.1 for pF?
I saw core damage estimates on the order of 10^-7 and 10^-8 for Gen III reactors. Thoughts?
I get the impression that the Gen IVs when they are built will be intrinsically safer than either Gen2 or Gen3. Maybe it's time to skip a generation?

In any event, it looks as though the answer from a safety perspective is to build out the more advanced designs as fast as possible, retiring the older reactors in the process.

As with nuclear weapons, we are actively addressing the risk factors in nuclear power, and making impressive strides doing so. The probability of a carbon catastrophe within the next 100 years, on the other hand, is rising, and is rapidly approaching 1.0.

[Confusious]

85. Your odds are bullshit

If what you say was true, then having 2 lottery tickets would decrease my odds by half.

But it doesn't. The odds are the same for both tickets. They don't decrease.

Unless, of course, you can show me that it APPLIES to EACH and EVERY nuclear plant in the United States.

From a scientific study, thank you.

[PamW]

86. Poor math leads to poor understanding

The probability
of containment failure, given core damage, is about 0.1.


then the expected global core damage frequency is:
(10,000 reactor-years/core damage) / (440 reactors) = 23 years/core damage
so if all those reactors are kept running for 23 years,
we can expect another meltdown like TMI,
with a 0.1 probability of containment failure and large early release.
A 0.1 probability is a 1 in 10 chance.
So there's a 1 in 10 chance of another Chernobyl (or worse).
==============================================================

Evidently you don't know how to do probability calculations with conditional probabilities. See in the original quote from the MIT study the words, "given core damage". Anytime you
see a probability "given" something else, it is a "conditional probability" See:

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

When you have conditional probabilities, like P(A|B) which is the probability of event A given event B, you have to multiply by the probability of event B to get the probability of
event A. P(A) = P(A|B)*P(B)

So using your figures above, we get core damage once every 23 years. However, the probability of containment failure given core damage is 0.1 or 10% Therefore, only 10% of the core damage
accidents will result in containment failure - so we have core damage with containment failure once every 230 years! If we have an accident with release only nearly every 2 1/2 centuries, or
quarter millenia - that's a low probability event. Additionally, safety technology improves with time. In the couple centuries before the next release, we will probably develop some very good
fail safe computer technology instead of having to rely on fallible humans.

Additionally, as "txlibdem" explained in post #41, it is physically impossible for a US reactor to do what the Chernobyl RBMK reactor did. The RBMK reactor has a well understood design defect -
it has positive reactivity feedback. That is the more it overheats, the more power it produces, and you get a viscious cycle that feeds on itself and you get the type explosion that dispersed
so much material. A US reactor is required by law to have negative reactivity feedback. They shutdown when they overheat. You can't get a "runaway" explosion. Three Mile Island was damaged
by decay heat, the heat produced by the radioactive material. It was not damaged by fission power.

Chernobyl was able to scatter radioactive material so widely because it caught fire. The bulk of the reactor was combustible graphite. A US reactor can't catch fire like that. US reactors are
made of metal and water. The longest lived radionuclides are heavy metals. Even if you have containment failure, something has to propel heavy metals out of the containment leak and scatter them
far and wide like the Chernobyl fire did. Yes, there are gaseous fission products that can escape by diffusion. But they are short-lived. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were contaminated with this type
of short lived fallout, and they were inhabitable within months of the bombings.

PamW

[GliderGuider]

90. Actually, his math is OK, it's his words that are in error.

He says "So there's a 1 in 10 chance of another Chernobyl (or worse)" which is, of course, a poorly formed statement. However, when you dig back into what he said before that, he talks about a 1 in 10 chance of an LER over 25 years, which is approximately correct given the starting assumptions in the MIT paper. He used conditional probabilities correctly as far as I can tell.

I put the derivation in my post above, where I wound up with 11% over 25 years. If you think my math is in error too, please tell me - I want to understand this stuff better.

[bananas]

92. I'm actually talking about the relicensing issue

Most of the plants are near the end of their original 40-year licenses.
They want to renew the licenses for another 20 years.
I didn't make it clear that I was addressing the issue of relicensing.
If we renew the licenses of all these plants for another 20 years,
then statistically speaking,
we can expect another TMI-scale accident,
with a 1 in 10 chance of a Chernobyl-scale disaster.
I think that's where the confusion is coming from.

[GliderGuider]

93. My assumption (correct me if I'm wrong)

is that relicensing involves more than just issuing new paperwork. Presumably there would be a full audit of the system condition, conformance to current operating practices, etc. If any shortcomings were found there would be upgrades, refurbishments, procedure refreshes and retraining required before a new license was issued. I think it would be difficult to say that a risk probability based on previous operating history would still be valid, since any identified risk factors would be mitigated during the relicensing process.

There could be pressure to keep a reactor operating when it should be decommissioned, but the relicensing process does give regulatory agencies the opportunity (and the legal responsibility) to reject substandard plants and force them to close.

Do you see the relicensing process differently?

[PamW]

94. MIT: Reactivity Feedback Explanation

An explanation of reactivity feedback courtesy of the Open Courseware web pages from an
MIT class in Neutron Science and Reactor Physics:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-engineering/22-05-neutron-science-and-reactor-physics-fall-2006/

can be found at:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-engineering/22-05-neutron-science-and-reactor-physics-fall-2006/lecture-notes/lecture30.pdf

Specifically with regard to Chernobyl, the MIT class notes state (from page 6 of the above):

"The Chernobyl reactor was of such different design ( positive coefficient of reactivity,
slow control rod system, lack of containment ) than the reactors of other nations that it is
not reasonable to conclude that such an accident could occur elsewhere."

PamW

[GliderGuider]

89. Reactor safety is improving over time quite dramatically

When I was thinking about nuclear reactor risks and safety last night, I realized that trying to applying single risk probability to an industry as diverse as the global nuclear power industry is a fool's errand.

First of all, the plants are of many varying types, each with virtually a custom design:



Second, the age of the reactors in the fleet is all over the map. The median age of the fleet is 25 years, and a full 75% of the fleet is over 20 years old.

Third, the plants operate in a wide variety of regulatory environments: 30 nations currently operate nuclear reactors.

So we have a fleet with a mix of reactor types with a wide spread in ages, operating in 30 countries. The error bars on any fleet-wide risk statement would have to be so wide as to render the assessment useless for any practical purpose.

One thing we can do, however, is look at the safety trend over time in broad terms.

Wikipedia's list of civilian nuclear accidents shows seven INES-classified accidents since 1970: 5 at INES 4 (Local consequences only), TMI at INES 5 (Wider consequences) and Chernobyl at INES 7 (Major). These accidents were spread over a total of about 11,000 reactor-years (my calculation based on startup dates of currently operating reactors from the WNA Database.)

From 1970 to 1989, nuclear plants generated 17,000 TWh of electricity over 3,000 reactor-years, with three INES Level 4, one Level 5 and one Level 7 accident.
Since 1990 nuclear plants have generated 47,000 TWH over 8,000 reactor-years, with two INES Level 4 accidents.

The level of reactor safety has apparently improved significantly in the last 20 years as the result of lessons learned in design and operation:

In terms of Level 4 accidents:
The first 20 years saw 1 in 1,000 reactor years and 1 per 5,700 TWh.
The last 20 years saw 1 in 4,000 reactor years and 1 per 23,500 TWh.

So reactors have been at least 4 times safer in the last 20 years than they were in the first 20 years of serious global fleet operation. When we factor in the two serious accidents that occurred in the first 20 years, it's obvious that the recent improvement in safety dramatically exceeds that fourfold increase.

So even in the absence of a numerical value for the fleet as a whole, we can say that newer designs and operations are substantially safer than older ones. Which is not exactly an epiphany...

[txlibdem]

95. Which makes me repeat: anyone who stops a new nuclear plant is endangering us all

eom

[bananas]

96. Wrong. nt

[txlibdem]

99. You proved it to us yourself, bananas

What happened to the 1 in 10 chance of an a'splosion if we kept the existing reactors going for another 20 to 25 years? That was your point. You convinced me.

Any person who knowingly slows down or stops a new nuclear power plant is guilty of causing a horrible catastrophe. I agree with you, bananas.

[txlibdem]

59. "if we try to keep the existing reactors running for another 25 years"

There you have it: bananas is stating clearly and concisely that we need to double up our nuclear reactor construction plans in order to replace the existing reactors while at the same time increasing the total number of reactors to keep up with global electricity demand. Opposition to building nuclear reactors endangers us all!

Now you're showing signs of sanity, Mr. Bananas.

[joshcryer]

64. Heheh, that is a brilliant observation.

[bananas]

10. "The Externalities of Nuclear Power: First, Assume We Have a Can Opener . . ."

The Externalities of Nuclear Power: First, Assume We Have a Can Opener . . .
Author: Karl S. Coplan
Publication: Pace Law Faculty Publications
Date: 2008
http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/489

The Intercivilizational Inequities of Nuclear Power Weighed Against the Intergenerational Inequities of Carbon Based Energy
Author: Karl S. Coplan
Publication: Pace Law Faculty Publications
Date: 2006
http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/491

[jpak]

23. You are wrong!!111 Chernobyl doesn't count in the area of land rendered unusable by nuclear power

cuz....ummm...it doesn't

see????

:D

[Exultant Democracy]

4. The only problem I have is that I don't trust the contractors. It may be safe

after we have some real regulation on corporations.

[bananas]

5. Cost analysis by Exelon and others have different numbers

Exelon gave up on nukes but is continuing with wind.

[msongs]

6. of course private industry is gonna build these things with NO taxpayer subsidies or loans :-) nt

[bananas]

7. Some other problems

The EIA estimate is for plants entering service in 2016.
For nuclear, that's fantasy, not reality.
A wind farm can go up in 2 years - why wait for 2016?

[GliderGuider]

12. Why not do both?

[txlibdem]

63. Indeed. Why not do both?

The people who are actively opposing zero-carbon energy sources like nuclear power and adequately-sized solar power plants in the desert don't want you to know that we need all the zero-carbon options, and we need to go full speed ahead with building as many huge solar plants, huge wind farms on land and off-shore, geothermal power plants in remote areas where the increased earthquake activity won't cause harm, tidal power every single place where it makes sense, and to tie all those together, at least double the current electrical energy output from nuclear power plants in order to avoid most of the devastating effects of global climate change.

[joshcryer]

76. Why not research Gen IV and mass manufacture LFTRs/IFRs?

The Hansen approach.

[Laelth]

11. k&r. n/t

-Laelth

[jpak]

15. Did this stupid analysis include the footprint of the entire nuclear fuel cycle - nope!

No uranium mines - including despicable in situ extraction, no uranium mills or mill tailings, no enrichment plants, no fuel fabrication facilities, no estimate of the area of Nevada desert required to dispose 750,000 tonnes of depleted uranium from US enrichment facilities, no spent fuel repositories, no low level dumps for operating or decommissioned nucular plants...

nope

nope

nope

Did this ridiculous "analysis" factor in the amount of area impacted from the potential release of fission products of spent fuel repositories centuries into the future?

nope

nucular fail

yup!

:rofl:

[Gregorian]

17. Why aren't we seeing Thorium reactors?

I only ask because I assume you are up on nuclear.

[jpak]

19. because they suck

yup!

:D

[Gregorian]

16. Wow, that's interesting about the concrete and steel use.

Here I was, thinking nuclear took a prohibitive amount. I find it hard to believe. I guess those wind generators have footings that are huge.




Maybe we'll be seeing Thorium reactors soon. I don't know why we haven't already.

[jpak]

21. He didn't include the entire nuclear fuel cycle - which we all know doesn't use concrete and steel

yup!

:D

[GliderGuider]

24. Do you have any numbers for that? I'd be glad to include them. n/t

[jpak]

25. Not my analysis - you need to do some homework before you post this stuff

yup

and...as the US is blending down US and Russian weapons grade uranium and plutonium for commercial reactor fuel, you need to include the areas of the Oak Ridge enrichment facilities, Hanford Reservation, Savannah River Plant, PANTEX and all ancillary facilities used to produce those weapons grade materials and blend them down.

and that's not including the vast areas of northern Russia and Siberia that were/are severely contaminated by the nuclear infrastructure of the former Soviet Union and present day Russia.

Major river systems are affected.

yup

edit

here ya go

Nevada Test Site = where the US DOE plans to dump depleted uranium in the desert =864,000 acres
Hanford Site = 500,000 acres
Savannah River site = 198,000 acres
Oak Ridge = 20,000 acres
Pantex = 18,000 acres

and Russia's Mayak facility that is repocessing spent reactor fuel and other fun stuff...

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

[joshcryer]

66. That's silly for such a simple assessment. There are hundreds of turbine building plants...

...around the world.

Then you can get even sillier and take it a step further and talk about rare earth mineral extraction plants and copper extraction plants and so on and so forth.

[joshcryer]

65. Processing plants could be included, but then you'd have to include the wind manufacturing...

...plants. It's obvious that the calculation is simple for simplicities sake. But the end result would be the same. Wind and solar use more concrete and steel than nuclear.

[Fledermaus]

18. How did you come up with 1ha for a MW of generation?

[jpak]

20. by pulling it out of an orifice

0.3 ha of actual turbine footprint is really 1 ha of magical turbine footprint if you divide the physical footprint by average turbine capacity.

too funny

:rofl:

[GliderGuider]

22. The NREL analysis says it found 0.3 ha per MW of nameplate cpapcity

I assumed a capacity factor of 30%. 0.3/0.3 = 1.0

I's necessary to normalize for capacity factor to make the actual amount of power generated by the two systems under consideration the same.

1 GW of nuclear nameplate produces about 3 times more electricity than 1 GW of wind nameplate, so we normalize in order to compare apples to apples (electrically speaking).

[jpak]

26. Well, if we are going to play these games, why not divide the area of nuclear power plants

by their thermal conversion efficiency (~30%)

:D

[GliderGuider]

30. Because the end product we're interested in is electricity.

The end product we really care about isn't the number of turbines or the number of power plants we have to build, but the MWh of electricity they produce. That's why we try to normalize all inputs to a constant, comparable output - how much xxx input does it take to get 1 MWh of electricity from various technologies?

That's why cost should be a good comparator, because a perfect free market is supposed to unerringly translate all the factors involved into dollars. Unfortunately, there are enough unaccounted/unaccountable factors (like CO2, nuclear waste, loss of biosphere and relative risk levels) that make the comparisons difficult. So we normalize what we can to the desired end product, and argue about the relative values of the rest.

[jpak]

32. America’s oldest commercial reactor is Oyster Creek in New Jersey

It has a once-through cooling system (no cooling towers) that impacts marine life throughout Barnegat Bay.

By your calculations, it (and all other US nuclear plants with similar cooling systems) have a "footprint" of only 4 ha.

Which it does not

yup

[txlibdem]

36. Comparing the "newest" wind turbines with the "oldest" nuclear plant designs? False equivalency much

Why don't you compare America's oldest wind turbine with the Oyster Creek plant? And would comparing the oldest anything have any meaning in discussions of what source of electrical energy is best for us to build moving forward into the future?

The real question is: would anyone build a carbon copy of the "oldest" nuclear power plant, if construction were to start today? Would anyone build a carbon copy of the "oldest" wind turbine today? The answers: No and no.

[joshcryer]

68. Indeed, and we're expected to believe that wind will have 40% capacity factors and last 20 years.

Neither of which has been demonstrated (only one of UKs offshore farms comes close, it was 38%, which was ruined by the average of other offshore wind which was sited badly).

[jpak]

33. No - the area of a wind turbine pad is not related to its capacity factor

nope

yup

[GliderGuider]

35. I'll say one thing for kristopher

He at least knows how to do arithmetic.

[madokie]

53. He also knows how to put in plain english what he's talking about

Nuclear energy is not the way going forward by any stretch of anyones imagination other than the pro nuclear people.

[GliderGuider]

55. I suppose tautologies are plain English...

"Only people who are pro-nuclear are pro-nuclear."

It's hard to disagree with that.

[joshcryer]

67. Because wind isn't thermal? You'd be rounding it back to GWe either way.

[Fledermaus]

34. Bad Science, par for the course for you.

You don't like a number so you arbitrarily change into something you would prefer.

Should I call you Dr. Wakefield?

[GliderGuider]

37. Fortunately there was nothing arbitrary about my decision to normalize for capacity factor.

That particular decision had nothing to do with my preferences, it's a requirement if the goal is to compare apples to apples (with land, material use and cost being the apples in this case).

If one wants to measure the required inputs for a particular output across two technologies, you have to make sure the outputs under consideration are as close to identical as possible. In this exercise the desired output is MWh delivered to the grid, so we have to make sure we're measuring the inputs required to deliver the same amount of electricity in both cases. Thus the absolute requirement to normalize for capacity factor.

This is not rocket science. Everyone who comments on electricity generation should be aware of the importance of this, and how to account for it.

[wtmusic]

44. Don't put lipstick on the wind-pig.

You want to draw a straight line across that peak at 195, and call that "output", don't you? For shame.

[Fledermaus]

47. Apparently, you and your friend want to pull a number out of your butt

without any reference to anything.

[GliderGuider]

48. Perhaps this might help...

with any comprehension issues.

Seriously, do you really not understand why normalizing for capacity factor is essential for these comparisons?

[Fledermaus]

51. Bad Sience! You have been shown to be making things up.

Do you not understand that you made up a number with out any sort of reference. Where did you get your number from? Out of your butt?

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[wtmusic]

60. .

[joshcryer]

69. I don't think you have showed anywhere where GGs analysis is flawed.

You just insulted him.

[Confusious]

84. Have you ever worked for a company that does science

or makes scientific instruments? Normalization is a standard for dealing with data.

Nice quote of the scientific method, but it doesn't deal with data.

[Fledermaus]

58. Apparently, your reference material comes from a site called "tinypic" a web page for photos.

http://tinypic.com/
What exactly are we looking at? Do you know?

[wtmusic]

80. We're looking at the average velocity of wind cubed over a ten-day period

in North America, which is proportional to the amount of power it can generate.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1996/ph162/l14.html

[Confusious]

83. Do you even know why he did that?

Really, you're going to argue over where he linked the pic from?

Do you think he should he linked from a science website?

Do you know the rules?

[jpak]

27. Well, by your argument we should dump wind and nuclear for coal and natural gas

The levelized costs of coal and gas-fired electricity are substantially less than wind and nucular.

Wouldn't want anyone to "to pay a very high price in all these areas"

nope

:D

[GliderGuider]

29. No, the point is to get rid of as much CO2 as we can.

Relative cost is a factor only between the potential replacements for coal and NG.

Low cost is what's preventing the move away from coal in the first place.

[joshcryer]

71. Reality: we aren't getting rid of as much CO2 as we can and forum posts won't change that.

Posts on activist forums won't change that.

Posts on websites for alternate energies won't change that.

All we can do is be honest with the information we have available.

[joshcryer]

70. No, it's more that liars keep saying that these energies are more cost effective than nuclear.

They are wrong for the reasons explained in the OP.

[NNadir]

81. Well, if you include external costs, not that fans of Amory Lovins know how to do that,

it's pretty clear that ccal and natural gas are far more expensive than nuclear.

Waste disposal, and health costs, um, count - or should count for every energy industry. Amory Lovin's pals in the dangerous fossil fuel industry have no idea what to do with their wastes, so they dump them in Earth's atmosphere.

In most places, nuclear is cheaper than either on internal costs as well.

It is impossible to divorce the vastly subsized failed wind industry from the highly subsidized gas industry. The wind industry would collapse in a New York second without the gas industry.

It's also unsurprising to hear you say that gas and coal are acceptable. There is NOT ONE anti-nuke who is not, when pushed, an apologist for those industries.

[hunter]

28. Couldn't tell with a quick look if that includes the transmission system.

How much metal for the transmission lines?

It seems to me wind would require more.

[GliderGuider]

31. No, it doesn't, and yes wind would require more. nt

[Dogmudgeon]

38. Wisecrack after wisecrack ... you must have hit a nerve.

It's the same way on other fora I visit. However, there are hopeful signs. There are more proponents of nuclear energy, and there are new opponents who can actually argue fact and evidence without rancor. Harvey Wasserman made some over-the-top remarks (what's new?) at DKos lately and pretty much got spanked off the forum. But the Brand v. Jacobson debate was well-received by nearly everyone who was able to stop cutting up long enough to listen.

With so much of the anti-nuke brigade devolving into ridicule and teenage hijinks, it actually makes me appreciate kristopher. (Well, at least a little.)

I'm enjoying the technical discussion, but I'm still fairly pessimistic. I think that natural gas is going to be coronated as The Answer, setting back nuclear development another ten or fifteen years as half of North America and Europe are fracked into warm, poisonous mush.

--d!
It's the same way on other fora I visit. However, there are hopeful signs. There are more proponents of nuclear energy, and there are new opponents who can actually argue fact and evidence without rancor. Harvey Wasserman made some over-the-top remarks (what's new?) at DKos lately and pretty much got spanked off the forum. But the Brand v. Jacobson debate was well-received by nearly everyone who was able to stop cutting up long enough to listen.

With so much of the anti-nuke brigade devolving into ridicule and teenage hijinks, it actually makes me appreciate kristopher. (Well, at least a little.)

I'm enjoying the technical discussion, but I'm still fairly pessimistic. I think that natural gas is going to be coronated as The Answer, setting back nuclear development another ten or fifteen years as half of North America and Europe are fracked into warm, poisonous mush.

--d!

[GliderGuider]

40. The growth of atmospheric CO2 is changing the dynamics of the debate

In addition it has given the argument a new urgency. There are strong emotional investments on the green side that have developed over many decades. It's really painful to have such deeply held and cherished positions challenged, and doubly so in this case when the positive memes around green energy have been matched by equivalent negative memes about nuclear power.

It's not surprising that the discussions are both upsetting and deeply personal. The only way forward is for both sides to give it their best shot, and to remember to argue in good faith (i.e. from the facts) as much as possible.

[joshcryer]

75. I think that you are surrounded by too many people like youself. CO2 is far from peoples minds.

Just watched the National News and the reports by people about this being the coldest winter yet.

They can never, if their life depended on it (and it probably doesn't but their grandchildren would have a different story)- they can never conclude that the weather they're experiencing is caused by the pollution that they're causing.

CO2, who cares.

edit: I do think that nuclear is becoming more accepted by liberals because of the environment, mind you, but if you go to pro-nuclear sites you'll find that most of the advocates are loony right wingers. IFR does present exceptions, though, with Tom Blees being pretty much a damn communist (wants to nationalize the grid). But, there exist no large IFR supporter group on the net (BNC advocates IFR but writes about nuclear generally speaking since IFR isn't being built).

[joshcryer]

74. Wind will be built out in EU and the US, but natural gas will play an overwhelming role in both.

Otherwise we are not reducing our emissions to the extent that is necessary. We're turning a blind eye to our emissions.

[joshcryer]

72. Correct. It's a simple analysis. Both the OP and BNC are just doing quick and dirty math...

...to show the relative resource requirements for a given technology.

Yes, wind would require significantly more metal than that. Especially if you buy jpak's argument that processing facilities for nuclear must be included, you must then include building facilities for wind, building facilities for increased transmission lines, building facilities for refurbishment plants (over 250,000 wind turbines must be refurbished every year from 15 years from now until forever etc), the list goes on and on.

[XemaSab]

49. Does your figure include

degraded land beyond the radius of the wind turbines? :shrug:

[GliderGuider]

57. No, although the NREL study includes it.

Making this study just about the direct impacts kept the boundaries sharp and clear. If I do a study of second-order land use, I'll include that on the wind side along with uranium mining.
I'm also thinking of looking into the land use impacts of the iron mining to make the required steel for both technologies.

[joshcryer]

62. Oh man, how did I miss this thread.

:rofl:

[wtmusic]

79. Latecomers are welcome

Did you bring something to drink? :shrug:

[joshcryer]

82. I left my mark.

:D

[GliderGuider]

91. I've posted an assessment of reactor safety above

Reactor safety is improving over time quite dramatically