Is the nuclear option really practical, feasible? - Prof Ewing - Univ of Michigan asks the question.

[JohnWxy]

http://www.energybulletin.net/21625.html


"...University of Michigan professor Rodney Ewing, who has analyzed just how much nuclear power would need to be produced to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, and the implications of the associated increase in nuclear power plants. Ewing will present his findings Oct. 23 as the Michel T. Halbouty Distinguished Lecturer at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in Philadelphia.

~~
~~

His presentation, which considers various fuel cycles, shows that nuclear power generation would need to increase by a factor of three to ten over current levels to have a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. "We currently have 400-plus nuclear reactors operating worldwide, and we would need something like 3,500 nuclear power plants," Ewing said.

Developing the necessary nuclear technologies and building the additional power plants is an enormous undertaking that probably would take longer than the 50 years that experts say we have in which to come up with solutions to global warming, Ewing said.

Even if they could be built and brought online quickly, that many power plants would generate tens of thousands of metric tons of additional nuclear waste annually. "The amount that would be created each year would be equal to the present capacity anticipated at the repository at Yucca Mountain," Ewing said, referring to the proposed disposal site in Nevada that has been under study for more than two decades. Ewing recently co-edited a book, "Uncertainty Underground," that reviews uncertainties in the analysis of the long-term performance of the Yucca Mountain repository.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the nuclear option realistic, or IMAGINARY? Maybe these practical consideratins should be given some thought before we further commit the earth to a radioactive future (at least for some several thousands, of years). Even if we could find the space for all that toxic waste, nobody really knows if the stuff can be isolated from the environment for thousands of years (there are plenty who doubt it's possible).


----Prof. Ewing's link:

http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/relw/groupmembers/ewing/ewing.htm

Rodney C. Ewing
Donald R. Peacor Collegiate Professor, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Michigan

William Kerr Professor, Department of Nuclear Engineering & Radiological Sciences, University of Michigan.

Professor, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Michigan

Adjungeret Professor of Geology, Aarhus University, Denmark - press release

Emeritus Regents' Professor, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, The University of New Mexico.

Address:
Dept. of Geological Sciences
The University of Michigan
2534 C.C. Little Building
1100 N. University Ave.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1005
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

[NNadir]

1. Three thousand is about the number I calculate as well.

I would say "let's get starting building them," but I don't need to do so.

The world is already well on the way to doing so, and it's about time. Given the pace of new announcements of nuclear power, I would not be surprised to see several thousand reactors in process within the next decade.

Of course, if Dr. Ewing is concerned about how many repositories would be needed, I would suggest that he discuss it with nuclear engineers. One of the important goals of the Gen IV program is to severely reduce the number of respositories required. It is almost certainly the case that the only isotopes that will go into respositories 25 or 50 years from now will be Cs-135 and I-129, if that.

If such repositories are built, they will be next to harmless in comparison to all other energy operations.

[TheWraith]

3. Good point.

"If such repositories are built, they will be next to harmless in comparison to all other energy operations."

People talk about nuclear waste being harmful, but hundreds of thousands of people a year die from the waste produced by fossil fuels and other incineration fuels, which get just pumped into the air.

[TheWraith]

2. It's more feasible than the alternatives, not that that says much.

Wind or solar power would have to be multiplied many hundred fold to make a dent in power consumption, most of the various combustion systems are either impractical or simply stopgaps, and most other options are still in development.

Fusion power is the obvious solution for the long term, but it will likely be 10 to 20 years before this is useful on a wide scale, and even then there will be the issue of plant manufacture.

[JohnWxy]

5. enough waste to fill Yucca mt. every year.

Developing the necessary nuclear technologies and building the additional power plants is an enormous undertaking that probably would take longer than the 50 years that experts say we have in which to come up with solutions to global warming, Ewing said.

Even if they could be built and brought online quickly, that many power plants would generate tens of thousands of metric tons of additional nuclear waste annually (that means each year, every year - enough radioactive waste to fill YUcca mt._JW). "The amount that would be created each year would be equal to the present capacity anticipated at the repository at Yucca Mountain,"


and it's not likely that that toxic waste can be effectively stored for 10,000 years.

[phantom power]

8. I assume then...

that you have a plan for producing the equivalent energy with ethanol, renewables, etc, in less than 50 years. And you can show that the environmental impact is significantly better than the impact of this nucler waste.

And before anybody leads off with "but we will also use conservation," remember: to make this a real conversation, you have to say what percentage of energy you're planning to cut with conservation, and clearly I then get to prorate the time for nuclear reactor deployment by the same percentage.

This is all assuming that the basic assessment of ">50 years" is true, which at the moment I'm agnostic about. If anybody thinks we can build a sufficiently monumental infastructure for ethanol and/or renewables in less time, I see no reason we can't build that many reactors.

[TheWraith]

21. Let's build us a railgun, then.

Shoot the crap into outer space on a collision course with the sun. We're already generating not kilotons, but megatons of poisons from existing plants which are NOT being sequestered, and the sooner that's stopped, the better. If we have to rely on fission plants for 30 or 40 years as a stopgap, I'd call that a not unreasonable trade-off. Europe has proven that it can be done safely. No, we don't have to like it, but we may have to learn to live with it for awhile.

[bananas]

24. Al Gore: "Even if you wish away the long-term storage ..."

Keep wishing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=72346&mesg_id=72492

[NNadir]

28. This is not a very good idea.

Spent nuclear fuel is an enormous resource. I really think we need to get away from the mentality that treats as "waste" in need of "disposal."

The actinides and many of the fission products represent precious materials. Around the world rational people everywhere are recognizing this important point.

The so called "waste" problem is mostly a concern of irrational people, but these are people who don't acknowlege for instance that carbon dioxide is a waste with which nobody knows what to do.

The "solution" such as it is, is actually represented by the de facto reality that has been obtained over the last 50 years without a single loss of life. Spent nuclear fuel needs to be stored in an above ground (or shallow) underground condition where access will be readily available for future generations. It can be stored in this way until it is needed. For the record I would be far more willing to have spent fuel casks in my community than I would be willing to have a coal ash dump.

[nodular]

33. I don't see how you can give an estimate on when will have fusion.

Progress has been agonizingly slow and really, I don't think
it's clear that we will ever have fusion power.

If we do have it, it seems to me it could easily take 50 years
or more.

[jpak]

4. Imaginary - stupid - and a monumental waste of money and resources

As is the false dichotomy between either fossil fuels or nuclear power...

[TheWraith]

7. You mean as compared to paving over Nevada with solar cells?

I love how people here are so attached to wind and solar that they ignore the obvious problems.

[jpak]

9. Who has proposed "paving over Nevada with solar cells"????

another red herring.

Renewable energy systems (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, biogas, tidal and hydro - not just PV and wind), energy efficiency, organic/low input local agriculture and public mass transit are the only mix of technologies and energy/agricultural strategies that can transition the US economy away from fossil fuels to a sustainable future.

Nuclear is a dead end and a One Trick Pony.

and it ignores the following:

$112 billion in stranded costs for canceled nuclear plants

$65 billion (and growing) for Yucca Mountain

$56 billion in pending suits by the nuclear industry against DOE for not disposing of THEIR spent fuel

$25+ billion in TVA debt for canceled nuclear plants

$12+ billion in subsidies to build 6 new nuclear power plants

$4-8 billion to clean up the defunct reprocessing plant at West Valley NY

$4 billion to dispose of depleted UF6

$1+ billion each for the Browns Ferry and TMI accidents

One could buy a whole lot more energy efficiency and renewable energy capacity for that there money....

Oh yeah - US consumes 62 million pounds of uranium ore each year for nuclear fuel but produces only ~2 million pounds per year.

We can ignore that problem too I suppose...

[AZCat]

11. What's wrong with paving Nevada with PV?

It's only one state - we've 49 others...

[NNadir]

31. If we paved over either Nevada or Arizona with solar cells...

...we would quickly find out what the external cost of solar cells are. The silica processing alone would raise screams of NIMBY in thousands of new places.

The main reason that nobody knows about that solar energy is still trivial, 50 years after the invention of the solar cell. Since it is so small, the impact of the waste is too small to get broad notice.

In the last 12 months the production of solar energy in the United States was 0.00187 exajoules down from the previous 12 months by 0.00011 exajoules.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epmxlfile1_1_a.xls

This represents 0.012% of US electrical energy demand.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table63.xls

Now I think that the claim that solar PV energy will someday supply an appreciable amount of energy is purely wishful thinking - a form of denial by rich brats with trust funds who know next to nothing about energy - and who therefore convince themselves that it is OK to next to nothing about climate change. I don't think therefore that we ever will see the true external cost of solar energy - the huge silica processing plants - the dust - the heavy metal run-off - the greenhouse gases belched to reduce silicon dioxide, etc. The main reason for this is that to build a plant that would produce the equivalent of a 1000MWe thermal plant of any type would cost, using the latest solar buzz numbers and assuming the high value of 25% capacity utilization - it is after all Nevada that's being paved - 21.8 billion dollars. And that's for enough energy to match a single normal sized coal plant.

That isn't going to happen. A few rich brats may spend this kind of money to live off grid, but it's not going to do any more than it has for the last 50 years: Next to nothing.

[TheWraith]

22. You'd have to pave Nevada to supply solar power for the entire U.S.

It's a simple matter of energy density. Not to mention the massive strip-mining you'd have to do to get the resources to build that many solar cells, the cost and pollution of producing them, and even then you've only supplied the US with power enough to meet its current demands.

"$112 billion in stranded costs for canceled nuclear plants"

And all of it wasted because of public outcry whipped up by anti-nuke activists playing fast and loose with facts.

"$65 billion (and growing) for Yucca Mountain"

I'm more than happy to design them a fairly cheap and effective disposal system for just 10 cents on the dollar of that.

"One could buy a whole lot more energy efficiency and renewable energy capacity for that there money...."

Really? How much money, pray tell, would it cost to replace every vehicle in America, every power plant, pave Nevada with solar cells, and cover the plains with windmills? Hmm? I'm all for spending efficiency, but you're talking about this as if it's a fairly small project.

Also, are you aware that every year roughly 5,000,000 pounds of radioactive material is released into the air, not by nuclear plants, but by coal-fired power plants?

I suggest you watch an episode of the TV series The West Wing entitled The Hubbert Peak. It talks about oil dependence and why the loose talk over energy alternatives is just that. Here's a hint: going oil free isn't as easy as it's made out to seem.

[jpak]

26. PV works everywhere in the lower 48 - no need to pave over Nevada

Also - the DOE estimates that a PV array 100 x 100 miles in size located in the Southwest could supply the US with all its electricity. That's an area much smaller than Nevada.

The DOE also estimates that wind turbines on 4% of the area of the lower 48 could supply the US with 150% of its electrical needs (and that's not counting off-shore wind farms).

...and that the US could easily produce a billion tons of solid biomass fuel each year - equal to the amount of coal used by US power plants today.

add into that wave and tidal energy potential (no nationwide estimates yet)

The Electric Power Research Institute estimates that the US could reduce its electrical demand by 24-45% with existing technology.

Massive strip mining for solar cells??? Where does that happen - over the rainbow???

$112 billion in stranded costs because utilities could not afford to build and operate them at a profit - no hippie protests required.

Coal fired power plants produce ~50% of the nation's electricity - consuming ~1 billion tons of coal per year. Using EPRI's numbers, the US could reduce its electrical demand by as much as 45%, eliminating the need for most coal-fired power plants. Biomass and other renewable power plants could pick up the slack.

The Nuclear Waste Fund will fund less than half of the cost of Yucca Mountain - taxpayers will pick up the rest of the $65 billion. Can you say corporate bailout???

I finally, I don't get my info from TV fiction dramas - and I was Peak Oil before Peak Oil was cool.

I bought Gever et al., (1986) Beyond Oil: The Threat to Food and Fuel in the Coming Decades back in 1987. The authors present a professional academic analysis of the the effects of Peak Oil and Gas on the US economy. They used numerous Hubbert Curves in this work.

I got the 2nd edition of that report sitting on my desk.

so what's your point????

[Porcupine]

30. I've been to Nevada. It's no great loss really.

or we could actually site the cells on the buldings that use the power and save all that transmission loss that one gets with centralized power plants.

[NNadir]

32. You should write to Harry Reid and offer him your opinion.

I'm sure he'll be impressed with what you learned by driving through Nevada.

I got married in Nevada, in Lake Tahoe. I dunno, it sort of would upset me to have that turned into a layer of glass.

But the whole solar game is just what it's been for 50 years - a fantasy. One may as well discuss covering the moons of Saturn with solar cells as discuss covering Nevada. An attempt to produce even as much solar energy as is now produced by natural gas would cost 7 trillion dollars, or 70% of US GPD - and that's not including batteries.

In fact we do not have to replace just gas. We need to replace gas and oil and most importantly, coal.

[NNadir]

6. Of course, we should define "have an impact..."

Three thousand nuclear reactors, coupled with conservation, would eliminate fossil fuels completely.

But the 440 operating nuclear reactors have had an impact already. It is straightforward to show that had nuclear power never been invented, the carbon dioxide concentration would be more than 3 ppm higher than it is now.

Since 1980, the world's nuclear reactors have produced 47,000 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. Since nuclear reactors have about 30% thermal efficiency, this is the equivalent of 560 exajoules of primary energy. This is the equivalent of 5.6 times the annual energy demand of the United States.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table27.xls

I hope no one will argue that 5.6 years of US energy (and carbon dioxide) output is insignificant. Only a moron would make such a case.

[AZCat]

10. 5.6 years of US energy (and carbon dioxide) output is insignificant.

One word: China.

Whatever we do pales in comparison to the projected Chinese power demand and catastrophic consequences of meeting that demand under their current paradigm (dirty, dirty coal plants).

[NNadir]

12. China has not surpassed the US for climate emissions.

The incredible thing about that state of affairs is that China has 4 times as many people as the US.

That about says it all.

The United States emitted 1.2 billion metric tons more carbon dioxide than China in 2004, and somehow everyone keeps saying that China is the problem.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls

I submit that this contention, that China is the problem, is more than a little disingenuous and self-serving.

Within a decade or so, China will surpass Japan and France as a producer of nuclear power, becoming the second largest producer. China now has ten reactors operating, 5 under construction, 13 ordered and 50 proposed. What's more they know how to build them.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htm

I would not be surprised to learn in a few years that China intends to surpass the US as the world's largest supplier of nuclear energy. I can easily imagine them being the first nation to have 200 or 300 reactors.

It follows that China at least has a rational program to displace its carbon dioxide output whereas the West does not.

[AZCat]

14. But will it be enough?

I understand that China has plans to produce a number of nuclear power plants. But will the completion of these plants be enough to prevent China from supplementing their power demand with coal-fired plants? I am also aware that their CO2 emissions are not as great as ours but their demand for power (IIRC) is increasing much more quickly than that of the US. If (as I wonder above) their growing nuclear power production isn't enough to feed their need will their emissions eventually exceed ours, and how long will it take?



Yes, my post was probably disingenuous, but I wanted to discuss the problem and sometimes the smartass in me gets loose.

[NNadir]

16. I know you were being a smartass. I am hardly the one to criticize that.

;-)

The current plans for nuclear expansion in China are not enough.

However I watch these figures rather closely and China's plans for nuclear power are rapidly increasing. Last year they were only talking about 20 to 30 reactors. It does not seem impossible to me that next year they will be discussing 100.

The Chinese have made a great effort to send its finest minds abroad to get excellent scientific and engineering training. Their problems are vast, almost insurrmoutable, but I believe they will make a serious effort to address them. No one should doubt with all of this education, the Chinese have any doubt about whether to proceed with nuclear power.

China produced more than 43 exajoules of primary energy from coal in 2004. This comes out to a continuous average power demand of about 1.4 terrawatts thermal. The number of nuclear reactors required to match this demand - and nuclear is perfectly suited to displacing coal - is about 450 reactors. I have no doubt that the Chinese could build them. Whether they will or not depends to a large extent on a number of factors, including whether anyone Chinese or otherwise, survives the immediate consequences of climate change.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee4.xls

[AZCat]

17. Hmm.

I will have to watch their power plant plans more closely than in the past. My point (I believe) still stands - that every country must embrace nuclear as a viable alternative to fossil fuels (primarily coal as we all know) in order to ensure that CO2 emissions are reduced. I am happy to see they (the Chinese) are not uneasy about building nuclear plants or developing the scientific and engineering community necessary to design and support the numbers of nuclear plants they would need. 450, while a large number compared to current world levels, is certainly within China's grasp (I would like to see them planning for double that number though).

[NNadir]

18. At some point in the future I will write a report either here or on Kos

about the status of China's nuclear hydrogen program. It is one of the most advanced in the world.

China is a big player in DME motor fuel commercialization. Regrettably their short term approach has been coal based, making their immediate DME plans an environmental disaster. However I believe that they will be pioneers in the long term for the hydrogenation of carbon dioxide to make DME.

[AZCat]

19. Please let me know when you do.

I read your material with great interest, even if I struggle with comprehension.

[nodular]

34. Pollution doesn't come from people, it rarely comes from economic activity.

"The incredible thing about that state of affairs is that
China has 4 times as many people as the US.

That about says it all.

The United States emitted 1.2 billion metric tons more carbon
dioxide than China in 2004, and somehow everyone keeps saying
that China is the problem."

The U. S. still has a vastly greater economy than China, and,
proportional to our output, much less pollution.

[jpak]

13. You are correct - China plans to build >550 new coal fired plants

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002545.html

Over 10 times more new coal plants than new nuclear plants (an Inconvenient Truth that the clown squad always ignores...)

[AZCat]

15. I'm not as concerned about the # of plants as I am their total capacity.

I quickly skimmed your link but did not find the info (total projected capacity of coal plants). Perhaps I will need to spend some time "googling".

[jpak]

27. It's over 100 GW...

http://www.environmental-expert.com/resulteachpressrelease.asp?codi=5398

<snip>

“,There will be changes in the coal-fired totals as well,”, predicts Bob McIlvaine, President of McIlvaine Company. “,Nearly 100,000 MW of coal-fired boilers have been ordered in China in the last 24 months. The capacity of offshore and local boiler manufacturers to construct these units, uncertain environmental constraints, and other factors add unpredictable aspects.”,

<more>

[AZCat]

29. Thanks, jpak.

I get queasy just thinking about this. How anyone can be talking about building new coal-fired plants (Texas, hello?) just boggles my mind. 100 freaking GW - my god...

[piedmont]

20. someone with more knowledge on this help me out...

How large is the world reserve of extractable fuel for nuclear plants?
How large is the U.S. reserve?

If you can provide estimates of how long these reserve will last at current or projected use levels, that would be awesome. Thanks

[NNadir]

23. It depends on the fuel cycle.

The "once through" fuel cycle will provide enough energy only for a few decades. Advanced fuel cycles are quite different.

At Fernald Ohio, the US has about 730,000 metric tons of depleted uranium. If converted to plutonium, this uranium would be enough to supply all of the energy now supplied by coal, oil, gas, hydro, and other renewables for about 600 years. The energy content is about 60,000 exajoules. In this case it would be unnecessary to operate a single mine, but it would be necessary to operate some reactors on a fast spectrum.

It would be probably better to include some thorium to allow for thermal breeding. Thorium supplies out number uranium by a factor of three. Most of the world's thorium is dumped as a side product of lanthanide mining.

I do not think that people will use the Fernald uranium in this way, though they should. Instead I think they will continue to dig up virgin uranium and use enrichment. This is regrettable.

The ocean contains three billion tons of uranium and it has been demonstrated that at the right price this is recoverable. Moreover the ocean is saturated with respect to uranium and will be recharged with it as uranium is removed, mostly from the weathering of granite and the redissolution of undersea deposits.

It is possible that there is so much uranium that it could be considered nearly a renewable fuel, but this is not proved definitively by industrial practice of seawater recovery. The Japanese have made noise about commercializing the process for security reasons, but I don't think that will happen for many decades.

The use of uranium will have the effect of reducing the radioactivity of the earth significantly. We do not know that this is necessarily a good thing. Life may depend on radioactivity in subtle ways of which we are unaware.

[jpak]

25. Here's some info...

US Uranium Overview 1949-2005

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0903.html

US reactors use 62 million pounds of yellowcake each year

The US currently produces only 2 million pounds of yellowcake each year.

The rest comes from diminishing stockpiles and imports.

More recent estimates of US uranium reserves...

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/reserves/ures.html

@ $50 per pound, the US has 890 million pounds of reserves

If the US were to rely solely on its domestic uranium for nuclear power, it would last 14 years.

At $100 per pound it would last less than 26 years.

No one has ever extracted significant quantities of uranium from crystalline rocks (ex. granite) or seawater.

To supply current US reactors with uranium from seawater (@ 3 µg per liter) would require processing >7400 cubic kilometers of seawater each year (assuming an unrealistic 100% extraction efficiency).

That's 100 times the volume of Chesapeake Bay and more than 10 times the annual discharge volume of the Mississippi River.

No one has ever extracted more than a few hundred grams of uranium from seawater.

Extracting uranium from low grade granite ores would require the removal and processing of "mountains" (literally) of granite.

In either case, more fossil fuel energy would be invested than uranium energy produced.

And they would be monumental environmental disasters...