Ocean Power may be cheapest Power source soon- EPRI

[philb]

Electric Power Research Institute- ocean power likely cheapest power source soon in coastal areas

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission- 11 ocean power commercial or pilot projects under way and 11 more being permitted

Florida Solar Energy Center- Florida Gulf Stream has enough energy for all of Florida and more

www.flcv.com/OPproj.html

[whistle]

1. What about 4th generation nuclear power

<snip>
Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors

Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 16

March 2007


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The next two generations of nuclear reactors are currently being developed in several countries.
The first (3rd generation) advanced reactors have been operating in Japan since 1996. Late 3rd generation designs are now being built.
Newer advanced reactors have simpler designs which reduce capital cost. They are more fuel efficient and are inherently safer.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The nuclear power industry has been developing and improving reactor technology for almost five decades and is preparing for the next generations of reactors to fill orders expected in the next fifteen years.
Several generations of reactors are commonly distinguished. Generation I reactors were developed in 1950-60s and outside the UK none are still running today. Generation II reactors are typified by the present US fleet and most in operation elsewhere. Generation III (and 3+) are the Advanced Reactors discussed in this paper. The first are in operation in Japan and others are under construction or ready to be ordered. Generation IV designs are still on the drawing board and will not be operational before 2020 at the earliest.

About 85% of the world's nuclear electricity is generated by reactors derived from designs originally developed for naval use. These and other second-generation nuclear power units have been found to be safe and reliable, but they are being superseded by better designs.

Reactor suppliers in North America, Japan, Europe, Russia and South Africa have a dozen new nuclear reactor designs at advanced stages of planning, while others are at a research and development stage. Fourth-generation reactors are at concept stage.




<MORE>
http://www.uic.com.au/nip16.htm

[philb]

2. whats the cost of storing nuke waste thousands of years- can it be done safely?

What about proliferation

can front end and back end radioactive materials be safeguarded from terrorists, etc.
to prevent use in dirty bomb if lots around everywhere?

But nuclear cost likely higher than ocean power anyway

[Dogmudgeon]

6. Nuclear "waste" could soon be a non-issue

First, what we call "nuclear waste" is simply the product of a single "burn". It can be recycled and its residual radioactivity decreased.

So why isn't this being done? It is, but not in the USA, due to a dumb-ass law that President Carter (whom I otherwise admire) signed 30 years ago, ostensibly to restrict proliferation. Both industry and the anti-nuclear movement oppose repealing it.

Second, the waste is well-stored in cement and ceramic casks designed to last hundreds of years.

But isn't nuclear "waste" dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years?

No. Most of it reaches safe levels in about 500 years. I would even accept a figure of 1000 years, unless some new mixture is used. At "safe levels" it is comparable to depleted uranium when it isn't being used as ordnance. Not 100% "cool", but not a significant threat. If a supervirus kills most of us off and our descendants find these casks in 2507, they will suffer an increased risk of cancer, but not much.

Of course, there are caveats to be followed; the pro-nuclearists may minimize them, but the anti-nuclearists have promoted hysteria with them. Bottom line: It's still too hot to play with, and it stays that way for a long chunk of historical time, but there are plenty of things that are far worse, that we even put into the air we breathe. And it's unnecessary for it to exist in the first place. Nuclear "waste" is NOT a horrible plague that will endure until puppydogs mutate into giant flying horned giraffes and start writing cat porn. As a poison, it isn't particularly fearsome. Lead, cadmium, arsenic, and some of the exotic stuff used in semiconductor manufacture (e.g., photovoltaic solar panels) do NOT decay -- they stay toxic forever.

Recycling nuclear material to reduce its radioactivity is vital to reducing this risk. In fact, when all the nuclear fuel has been "burned" into an atomically no-longer-useful state, the remaining radioactivity can be eliminated by nuclear transmutation. We need to develop this technology for widespread use. Our goal should be that all radioactivity be confined to the reactor -- period.

We can, and should, reduce the risks of nuclear power every way we can. But we should do that for all forms of energy. If we ramp up solar cell production, we are going to have a lot of eternally-poisonous metals to clean up. And we should NOT hold back on solar power. However, we should evaluate all our energy use and industrial processes with as keen a scientific eye as we can -- and then develop them responsibly.

Finally, a question, more to be answered in your ongoing search for information than on the spot: how many people have actually been killed by the power-plant "nuclear waste" that is so often the topic of concern? And how many have died from other forms of energy? Compared to the cost exacted by coal alone, how does it rate? I think nuclear power is very safe indeed.

Ocean power is an exciting possibility, but it isn't likely to be all that cheap for quite a while. And we hardly understand how tidal generators will affect coastal sea life. Solar and wind power have proven their usability, but it will take at least twenty more years before they can supply even a quarter of our electrical power needs. There is no singular answer -- we are going to need every answer we can get. And nuclear power should not be counted out.

--p!

[TheMadMonk]

8. The demonstrable deaths from Chernobyl are, to date, comparable...

...to the monthly toll in the world's coal mines.

The basis for the technology to "incinerate" waste that can not be "burned" for energy exists today as a table top device. Further the same device, a tunable free neutron gun, can be used to "burn" nuclear fuels in sub-critical amounts, gram quantities or less. Better still it goes and stops at the push of a button and will "burn" fuels that otherwise can not be burned.

Its drawback. It can make plutonium too.

[drm604]

3. I Like the Accelerator Driven Systems.

I'm certainly not a nuclear engineer, but ADS seem very promising to me. They appear to be safe and to have less really dangerous waste. Also, they can be used to "burn" currently existing high level wastes reducing them to less dangerous elements.

[bananas]

5. "Fourth-generation reactors are at concept stage."

"Generation IV designs are still on the drawing board and will not be operational before 2020 at the earliest."

Those are direct quotes from your post.
What does that mean to you?

[whistle]

9. It means that in 13 years these nuclear reactors will be functional and available

...and should be on the table for development now. Perhaps it should have the same urgency as the Manhattan Project or the Landing on the moon to bring this technology into full realization even sooner.

[Dead_Parrot]

10. To me, it means...

...that if we wanted to completely ban fossil fuels from grid power production before 2020, we'd have to use gen III reactors: If the planet could wait until 2025, we could throw some gen IV into the mix. Along with whatever renewables can be brought on line in the same time, naturally.

Not that I'd have a problem with either, although it seems a lot of "environmentalists" seem to think just dealing with 20 or 25% of grid production by then is "good enough" or "a good start". Which is rather bad news for the planet, but hey.

[NNadir]

11. Of course more than 430 Gen I, Gen II and Gen III reactors operate....

Except for some retarded Greenpeace Germans who are controlled by Gazprom and the coal industry, no one is talking about shutting these reactors. In fact, lots of people are talking about uprating these plants.

Even the German utilities are freaking out at the reflexive anti-nuclear element of the German establishment. Last week the German utility EON purchased land in Finland to build a new reactor. Previously they invested in Slovenia for new reactor capacity.

These reactors will all be Gen III, like the current Finn reactor under construction. (The Finns are already talking about a sixth reactor besides the EON reactor.)

As for the your reflexive antinuclear stance: I certainly hope you have given up driving because the perfectly safe Gen XX car has not been developed. There are no plans, I believe to deal with dangerous fossil fuel wastes from your car.

And of course you are waiting for Gen X aircraft before ever setting foot on a plane.

But Gen 0 coal plants are fine with you, Gen 0 coal mines, oil, natural gas, fine, fine, fine. Gen I oil refineries don't bother you either, since you care not a whit for the 15 people killed and 100 killed when the BP (Beyond Petroleum) refinery Texas City refinery blew up recently. You'd rather talk about Chernobyl, 20 years ago. Last month's hundred dead Russian coal mines. Who gives a fuck? Gen 0 coal mines mean nothing to you.

Only in the mind of a reflexive nuclear opponent could possibly contend that all the world's nuclear reactors operated over the last 50 years have killed as many people as coal will kill this week.

Generation I nuclear reactors were safer than fossil fuels in the 1950s. Solar cells were able to light a few light bulbs in daylight.

Generation II nuclear reactors were safer than fossil fuels in the 1960's through the 2000's. Solar cells were

Generation III reactors were safer than fossil fuels beginning in the 1990's. Almost 28 are under construction now, 68 are order, and more than 150 are proposed, representing in new capacity about 5 times as much energy as all the world's non-non-hydro renewables.

Generation IV reactors will have little in the way of safety improvements, since it is really hard to improve upon near perfection.

The Gen IV designs are primarily intended to give greater flexibility to nuclear operations, extend resources, and improve already outstanding economics.

If no Gen IV reactors were ever built or developed, nuclear power would still be the safest and cleanest form of energy on earth. But Gen IV reactors will be built, because the world has rejected reflexive nuclear opponents on the grounds that they make no sense whatsoever. The world is certainly expanding its nuclear energy capability because of the 50 year proved record of extraordinary success of the nuclear industry coupled with the extraordinary damage done by fossil fuel apologists.

Of course, you have a lot of difficulty comprehending this over in the Kucinich camp, where they are all waiting for the Gen XV Light Being. With all due respect to those of you in the Kucinich camp, powering the world by the use of Light Beings is, well, um, gee, probably impracticable.

Thanks for the pictures of Nancy Pelosi, by the way.

It's surprising that you post her picture given that you folks in the Light Being camp disagree so strongly with her position on nuclear power.

[bananas]

13. IPCC scientists agree with Al Gore: nuclear won't be much more of a percentage than it is now

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x95037

[NNadir]

14. Reflexive anti-nuclear fools were telling me just two years ago that nuclear was dying.

Too expensive. Too dangerous. Not economic.

30 exajoules per year of new capacity are either under construction, on order or proposed.

This number could easily double with in 5 years, since it has more than tripled in 5 years.

In fact, given the poor performance of renewable strategies, if nuclear energy does not increase it's percentage significantly the reflexive antinuclear movement will have succeeded in their coal sucking paranoid plot to kill the planet.

Nuclear the largest single climate change fighting strategy on earth, even if you can't count.

In the last 27 years nuclear energy production has tripled on an exajoule scale: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table27.xls

The reflexive anti-nuclear position is looking dumber and dumber every day. No matter. It's been internationally rejected.

[dweller]

4. ironic, isn't it?

since we initially crawled from it.

perhaps empowering in the long run, to say the least.
dp

[razzleberry]

7. sign up for renewable energy ...

costs nothing.
amount available, zero
...............
everybody wins

[philb]

12. Electric Power Energy Institute(represents utlity industry) conclusions on ocean power

EPRI Ocean Energy Feasibility Assessments

http://www.epri.com/oceanenergy/attachments/ocean/briefing/Duke_Sep_14.pdf

Conclusions:
• Without advances in technology, the cost of electricity rise steeply for carbon based technologies
• Electricity generation costs for these options can be improved substantially over the next 10 years, putting the entire portfolio in the “affordable” range –below 7 cents/kWh –

Our Ocean Energy Feasibility Studies are having an effect. In the past couple of months, we have seen:

1. Private investors have filed 26 applications for preliminary permits with FERC for tidal projects based on our studies
2. NSPI has announced a multi M$ pilot tidal plant project based on our study
3. A private investor filed with FERC for the 1st US commercial wave plant; a 50 MW plant at Reedsport OR, the site we selected and performed a feasibility study for in 2004.
4. Lincoln County Oregon has applied for a FERC preliminary permit for multiple wave plants along their coast 5. Expect a few more commercial wave power plant site applications to FERC soon