Nuclear Energy - I need to vent/rant

[luddite]

You don't live in Canada, do you ?
Yes, I do. As Schneibster has pointed out, the Zenn car is being developed in Canada.

[luddite]

Here's an update on the question about oil supplies. It seems as though the alarmists are becoming more mainstream:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2196422,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=environment

Steep decline in oil production brings risk of war and unrest, says new study

· Output peaked in 2006 and will fall 7% a year
· Decline in gas, coal and uranium also predicted

The German-based Energy Watch Group will release its study in London today saying that global oil production peaked in 2006 - much earlier than most experts had expected. The report, which predicts that production will now fall by 7% a year, comes after oil prices set new records almost every day last week, on Friday hitting more than $90 (£44) a barrel.

[Hindmost]

Glenn, we've had this back-and-forth a few times.

I'm aware that utilities promote conservation, so you don't need to convince me of that. I have 3 responses to this.

1. I said energy availability encourages demand increases. This does not necessarily pin the blame on the utility, so you're defending an argument I didn't make. I should point out that I agree the reverse is true too, just to confuse you. I know demand increases promote the construction of power plants.

2. I don't know the ins and outs of all utilities. Every utility that I'm more familiar with is paid to promote conservation. So the fact that they promote conservation isn't enough to convince me. Are the utilities you've pointed me to actually voluntarily reducing their market without compensation?

3. Once a utility builds a power plant, it wants to recoup its investment through energy sales. Can you show me any example of a utility advertising a goal of their conservation program being the closure of a recently constructed power plant?

The funny thing is, I don't think we actually disagree. Your comment about Henry Ford I completely agreed with.

You had indicated that I made an unsupported claim, so I provided the links. What I disagree with is that availability causes demand. I believe that low price of generated electricity has caused demand. Utilities would love to shut down old inefficient plants. However, with population increases, the demand increases--back in the 80s in the US, utilities mothballed some older plants--but revived them when demand went back up.

http://energyonline.com/Industry/News.aspx?NewsID=5371


glenn

[Hindmost]

PB Power, which wrote this report, build nuclear power plants. In their report they refer to "nuclear and other renewables". They have no involvement in true renewable power. The fact that they would find nuclear economical is not surprising. Wind developers will undoubtedly find that wind is far more economical. And while decomissioning costs are included in the study, disposal is not.

They report that the most economical generation option is natural gas. They also do work with oil and natural gas pipelines.

Finally, they state that the costs for nuclear and wind would remain unchanged if there were penalties from carbon use. This is false. Every generation option currently has tremendous carbon inputs. It is my understanding, not disputed by nuclear proponents, that the carbon inputs involved in generation from nuclear are significantly greater than those for wind, and also more difficult to overcome.

http://www.pbworld.co.uk/index.php?doc=53

The CERI study you quoted is frequently pointed to by nuclear promoters in Canada. Apart from that, I have no knowledge of CERI, though they are a Canadian energy consultancy. They do claim, in their own description, that their research program is guided by a board of directors named by their sponsoring organizations. These sponsors include Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. They do not include corresponding proponents of renewable power.

They also state that their research pertains to "oil, natural gas, coal, and electricity economics."

Their evaluation of biomass, landfill, small hydro, large hydro, solar and geothermal is based on a report whose principal author is the Nuclear Energy Agency:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=IBCJNmvWWMQC&dq=oecd+iea+nea+projected+costs+generating+electri city&pg=PP1&ots=ghSdvIZ2b_&sig=CEx1FFdnXMTHRt9Uv2wZB3Qggeg&prev=http://www.google.ca/search%3Fq%3DOECD%2BIEA%2BNEA%2Bprojected%2Bcosts% 2Bgenerating%2Belectricity%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26aq%3Dt%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26client%3Dfirefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPP1,M1

Interesting. I looked up your 3rd link and it was the same study that the second study was based on, whose principal author was the Nuclear Energy Agency.

I don't mean to discount any work done by the nuclear industry. But I don't think they can be relied on to produce reports that balance all energy sources fairly.

I am also concerned with the connections between nuclear proponents and the fossil fuel industry, as highlighted by both CERI and BP Power. As I've noted, it's the nuclear proponents in Canada who often take the side of coal as well. In Canada, the next big jump for nuclear will be the construction of two reactors to fuel tar sands extraction. Now, you may be pleased that they'll be replacing natural gas as a fuel, but they will also theoretically enable an expansion of the extraction of the dirtiest oil on the planet.



For the 4th study, Kevin Lowe already pointed out that it was for one year only in the US, during which no nuclear plants were built and none decommissioned. More importantly, the study included direct subsidies and research grants, but didn't include underwriting insurance nor spent fuel waste storage costs.

You're also mistaken about where the study said the greatest subsidies went.



Under renewables, they identified ethanol as the leading recipient of subsidies. They didn't even mention the others specifically. This suggests to me that subsidies for ethanol dwarf subsidies to other renewables. It has always been my understanding that ethanol subsidies are enormous, so this fits. Wind subsidies may be very modest, or even non-existent, for all we know. I see no basis for your conclusion that wind power is getting so much attention because it receives a high subsidy. With a difference of 18% of all subsidies for all renewables and 10% of subsidies for nuclear, and especially if you throw in insurance and storage subsidies, or building subsidies, nuclear may well come out the big loser compared to wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, etc. We just can't tell from these conclusions.

The first report on the subsidies had additinal data from previous years--just had to look at a few links. It showed the greatest subsidies for renewables and fossil...my mistake. Nuclear was last on the list. Either way, nuclear was a very small amount. However, that all changed with:

My next post pointed out that the subsidy has changed in the US with the 2005 energy bill. It added new subsidies for nuclear--construction and operation for the first few years of the plant. This brings it inline with wind power. There is no subsidy for insurance...US utilities pay into an account that feeds the price-anderson act. It has been a profitable segment of the US govt since there have been no payouts over recent years. I have to look at what is fueling the cost of reprocessing and disposal.

If wind, solar and other renewables were truly cost competitive, the utilities would have been building them already. Wind power in the US has only taken off since the subsidy and newer technology has made it marginally competitive--it is still more expensive. I tried to provide independent study links...the CERI said it was independent...I guess they could by fibbing. However, following the energy industry for many years, their numbers fall inline with many of the stuff I have read over the years.

As far as the tar sands...that is the biggest pipe dream next to oil shale. Very difficult to extract and must be enhanced with other fossil fuels before it is refinable. Plus, the amount of reserves stated is way more than is recoverable.

glenn

[Belz...]

Yes, I do. As Schneibster has pointed out, the Zenn car is being developed in Canada.

Do you know what 45 degres C below zero does to a battery ?

[Hindmost]

Actually, Glenn, as I said I'm not really counting on a link. I provided a link to the BC power company that targets 50% conservation reductions. It was jumped on by a number of people who said "It ain't gonna happen". Ditto my link to California's net-zero building program. I pointed to a conservative provincial study that identified vast and economical wind potential. It was ignored.

Likewise, Robinson has pointed out that building nuclear plants to replace coal plants isn't going to happen. And even you've expressed doubts for how far a nuclear renaissance can go. And that doesn't stop people from thinking it's possible.

I hope that I'm receptive to new information. That doesn't mean I'm likely, when I'm talking to dozens of respected people who say 50% reductions are entirely feasible, to accept a link to an organization saying "no it's not". Especially from a utility that would have to lay off 1/2 its workers and close 1/2 its plants and possibly cut its profits.

Any more than you're likely to accept that Luddite says 50% is possible and has a link to a BC utility when everyone you speak to says the opposite.

I'm far more likely to be engaged by real assessments of where vast amounts of power are needed and will continue to be needed in any sort of low-carbon future. "Industry" is not specific enough. What industry? Why will we need it?

A friend of mine, an engineer, recently sat down with the Greenpeace staff. He was engaged as a consultant to make their building net-zero. It was challenging because they had purchased a leaky heritage building. Their architects were saying it could not be done economically. My friend said "If you start with that attitude, it will surely never be done. If you assume it will be done, there's a good chance you'll succeed".

Conservation, renewables and nuclear each have their own sets of challenges. How much of each we end up with will hugely (but perhaps not entirely) depend on where we put our energies.

You've said recently that I seem to be resistant to seeing the viability of nuclear power. I see this as a very polarized forum, where there are nuclear enthusiasts and nuclear avoiders. And perhaps my biggest problem is that I don't understand the enthusiasm. I completely understand people thinking "we need enough power to keep people from freezing, starving, dying of heat stroke or otherwise suffering". If that must include nuclear, I'd have no argument. But all I hear are assertions. And I can dredge up assertions by the hundreds from environmental organizations that say the opposite.

So here's my question to everyone. If it were possible to feed, comfortably house and provide education and health care to a level where the majority was satisfied with the results, all without recourse to nuclear power, would you support a shift to complete renewables?

Because the question then becomes "Is it possible?" Right now, the questions are a muddle of "Is nuclear possible?", "Are renewables possible?", "What are the limits of conservation?", "Is luddite an environmentalist flake?", "Can environmentalists be trusted?", "Can the nuclear industry be trusted?", "Is nuclear economical?", "Are renewables economical?", "Is nuclear power safe?", "Aren't some chemical products more dangerous than nuclear waste?".

All of these questions are interesting to me. But I sense that they are disingenuous questions, at least to some authors. Most minds are more or less made up. There's a thrill about enormous amounts of power that's got a lot of appeal. It's that appeal that car companies cater to. "Imagine the freedom". If all I'm saying is I want to take your toys away, you're not going to like me. And you'll resist what I'm saying.

And, on the opposite side, I'll admit that I'm very skeptical about nuclear. I've said it all along. Fusion, which everyone is so excited about, seems like too much power to entrust to anyone. If you look at how well we've managed our affairs with our current energy, it's hard to feel optimistic about what we'll do to our rivers, aquifers, the air we breathe, the fish in the oceans and so on if we manage to get our hands on fusion technology.

It's funny, I don't really need links, especially for future projections. Who knows what's possible? Oh, maybe for some statistical claim that seems really off, I'd really appreciate a link. But I think most of the people here are honest about their backgrounds and knowledge. They aren't particularly dumber than folks who do studies to benefit particular interests.

So I'll grant you that in your experience, conservation from the industrial sector is severely limited. I know that. It follows what all the power workers I speak to say. I'm not sure that's at all indicative of what things will be like in a low-carbon economy. Right now, industries are being targeted in Europe. In Ontario, which has a strong industrial base, there are a lot of people saying our economy will collapse if energy prices go up. Meanwhile other analysts point out that in most of Europe and even New York State, higher energy prices have made the industries more efficient, and the economy is as strong as ever. Then people counter that by saying these places are de-industrializing. Well, so what, I say, does it matter? Are New Yorkers complaining? They have cleaner air. But even I know the answer to that. They're buying just as much stuff as ever, if not more. It's being made in China in factories powered by coal.

The question is whether all this is inevitable. Are past trends indicative of future trajectories? We are about to have an energy crisis. Either because we address global warming responsibly or because cheap oil becomes a thing of the past. In either case, we won't be able to build nuclear power plants quickly enough to completely offset the slide. I think when people can't fuel their cars, they're going to be pissed off that the government is bailing out the car companies yet again, or offering subsidies to petrochemical companies who continue to make unheard-of profits. When I speak to people about what happens when natural gas supplies can't meet demand, they respond in striking unison that the first thing any responsible government will do is to limit or suspend natural gas for industrial uses, then ration natural gas for home heating. People come first, because when push comes to shove, people protect their homes over their jobs. I cannot believe that the residential sector will be asked to make all the cuts.

So I may not be aware of all the different industries and all their different challenges, but the fact that steel and cement manufacture release a lot of CO2 (which I was aware of, by the way, I'm actually aware of most of the big industries) is strong indication to me that these industries will not survive in their present form at their present scale. We may not be building so many 50-story office towers of cement and steel that require huge cranes to build and elevators to operate once they're constructed.

I'm actually a lot more aware of the commercial sector. It's a lot more similar to the residential sector. It's also more homogeneous. I've mentioned the savings before. Again, I think when people are turning down their own lights and air conditioners, I don't think they'll be happy going to a store that has special spotlights to highlight the fish tank. Things will change.

Ralph Torrie, who is a highly respected energy consultant in Canada (the man who was the lead author of Canada's climate change strategy), spoke to me about how the utilities assess conservation potential. First they figure out what is "feasible", by which they mean "no more expensive than the least expensive generation option". Then they say they can attain 60% of that. Why? If we recognize that conservation has tremendous advantages in terms of safety, reliability, transmission costs and health and safety concerns over any generation option, why wouldn't you give it a much higher priority? Especially when we're facing a serious energy crisis.

Glenn, I respect your experience and value your opinions. I enjoy your input. If it can't singlehandedly counterbalance the input I get from my personal connections, don't be put off. There are things I doubt you'll convince me of. I doubt I'll ever convince you that nuclear power is unnecessary. That shouldn't prevent us from trading interesting information.

It is true that you won't convince me that nuke power is not needed--I actually . I still see it as the cleanest and most resonable answer to many issues. (strangely enough, even a former greenpeace exec seems to agree) However, I do know that it is not some panacea. No form of power is. Fusion would still have radiation issues although greatly reduced--and I think I will be dead before it becomes viable. However, I don't see what you mean about it being too much power to entrust to anyone. Fusion reactors would have essentially none of the safety issues related to fission and the waste problem would be reduced to a negligible amount...but not zero.


When I think that nuclear fission has a million times the energy yield of any chemical reaction, I wonder why people even think about other forms of fuel for electrical power. As for safety, well 40 years of safe operation, new passive safety features and most important--inherent safe fuel...it is designed to survive a worst case accident passively.

As I have indicated, it is only a combination of all types of energy that is going to get us out of the problem...I don't expect nuclear to replace coal...I expect coal techology to improve. Most problems are engineering, but we aren't engineering stuff quickly. IN the US, we could start to build about 20 nuclear plants at most right now. This would push industry to its limits I would imagine. New equipment would all have to be qualified as most of it would be new. (I am talking about control systems) This all is going to take time and engineering.

I believe conservation can eliminate much of the waste. The MIT study seems reasonable since it indicated about a 28% reduction...without having to sacrifice economic growth and lifestyle issues that people resist. I am all for it.

As far as the energy crisis...I agree with what you say...there is going to be a big issue. And maybe soon, which I interpret as about 20 years.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf100.html

this is a pro-nuke site, but I think this is why nuclear is considered carbon neutral. Through it life-cycle, it produced less C02 than all others...but it may be biased--however, they indicate it is conservative. (it does require centrifugal enrichment which I don't think is available in the US.) I will have to check.

8931

This is from a fuel loading at a nuke plant...the size of the reactor is so small and will produce enough electricity for 1.5 million people. By the way...the reactor is under water...tough to see since it is so clean.


A nuclear fuel pellet contains a lot of energy
One uranium nuclear fuel pellet the size of the tip of your little finger is equivalent to the energy provided by 1,780 pounds of coal; or 149 gallons of oil, as much oil as fits in three 50 gallon drums; or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas. .....
http://www.nmcco.com/education/facts/waste/waste_home.htm



I am enjoying our exchange as well. I went into nuclear power because I was concerned about environmental issues. It's also kinda nifty if you ask me.

glenn

I am fairly sure the French are just laughing at others that talk about energy problems.

[luddite]

(strangely enough, even a former greenpeace exec seems to agree)

Yes, well, what to say about Patrick Moore.

This is what the man says about environmentalists:

The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries. I think it's legitimate for me to call them anti-human

That's okay, he's entitled to his opinion. But then he goes on to call himself a "lifelong environmentalist". He gets paid by the Nuclear Energy Institute and by the lumber industry to say that building nuclear power plants and burning wood are appropriate ways of addressing global warming. For these purposes, he's happy to call himself an environmentalist who hates environmentalists.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=67623834-a1af-42e4-91cb-28492a462651
http://josephbergeron.com/Patrick_Moore_Interview.pdf

But then, he also says that global warming will be good because it will increase crop yields. And then he expresses doubts about whether global warming is anthropogenic in nature.

I think the man is a wingnut. I have much more respect for people like Tim Flannery and James Lovelock, who promote nuclear power but are really and truly concerned about the state of the planet, and aren't on the payroll of industries regarded as dangerous or harmful by other people who call themselves environmentalists. The difference, of course, is that Flannery and Lovelock see nuclear power as a regrettable necessity to be limited by maximizing the potential from safer renewables and conservation.

[luddite]

However, I don't see what you mean about it being too much power to entrust to anyone. Fusion reactors would have essentially none of the safety issues related to fission and the waste problem would be reduced to a negligible amount...but not zero.

When I think that nuclear fission has a million times the energy yield of any chemical reaction, I wonder why people even think about other forms of fuel for electrical power. As for safety, well 40 years of safe operation, new passive safety features and most important--inherent safe fuel...it is designed to survive a worst case accident passively.

I'm not worried about safety or waste. In that respect, fusion is definitely an improvement on fission.

It's the same message I've had for a long time. There's just been a study done about how we're using up our minerals. We're depleting the Oglalla Aquifer. The Colorado River doesn't reach the ocean anymore. We're tearing up entire mountains. We're poisoning rivers with mercury. We're destroying traditional fisheries that have been productive for centuries. We are threatening many resources that are supposed to be renewable, but cannot withstand the current assault.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3086
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/42483/story.htm

Cheap energy hasn't just threatened the climate, it is intrinsically connected to overfishing and overwatering and resource depletion. If we don't address the connection between these things, if we just solve the energy problem, we're likely to be fighting more of these life-and-death battles in the future.

So I'd rather see a future vision that is based on sustainability. This isn't incompatible with fusion. But neither is it necessary to have as much power as fusion promises if we're going to manage all the Earth's resources in a sustainable way. And I see every indication that if we have power to spare, we'll be tempted to use it in senseless and destructive ways. So I don't see much point in investing in the necessary research.

[luddite]

Do you know what 45 degres C below zero does to a battery ?
I don't think it has ever gone down to 45 degrees below zero celsius here. Most of Canada's population is hunkered down next to the US border, with climate very similar to that of the northern US. So maybe electric cars are a no-go in remote northern communities, but they'll do fine for most of us.

They also have interesting potential for load levelling. You can juice up your car at night. In the daytime, if there's a demand spike, you can actually sell excess energy to the utility as a profit. The Rocky Mountain Institute did a study that indicated that this could be economically viable even today if the infrastructure was in place (ie, the increased cost of an electric car would be more than offset by the profitability of its load-leveling capacity).

[luddite]

If wind, solar and other renewables were truly cost competitive, the utilities would have been building them already.

In the past, they could not compete with coal and hydro. I know in Canada, there was an interest in promoting nuclear technology with the hope that we could sell it. So AECL was actively encouraged in a way that wind was not. When I was a kid, there was a national pride associated with the CANDUs. We left the national pride for wind turbines to the Danes. So now we buy Danish wind turbines in Canada. The CANDU program is still hobbling along with government subsidy, but hasn't sold a thing in decades anywhere. Not even in Canada.

Power workers don't like wind. They like centralized power plants with union labour. I have a few associates who are labour leaders with power unions. One of them now envisions a meeting of the minds between unions and environmentalists. He is unusual among Ontario power workers in that he opposes new nuclear. But he can't imagine isolated wind turbines. He envisions wind farms or community power with unionized support structures. We're talking. I predict we'll come to some sort of shared understanding.

The utilities themselves may have also preferred building larger power plants than dickering with the planning and permitting of a hundred scattered wind sites.

We're running out of hydro possibilities. Coal has a bad name. I think renewables might be more promising today. If we take coal offline, power at peak will suddenly get very expensive. Solar will start to look good, too.

[Corsair 115]

Do you know what 45 degres C below zero does to a battery ?On the other hand, there aren't a lot of -45° C days in southern Ontario. In the prairies or up north, that's a different story.

[luddite]

I am enjoying our exchange as well. I went into nuclear power because I was concerned about environmental issues. It's also kinda nifty if you ask me.

It's kinda nifty if you ask me too.

A couple decades ago, I thought it was really nifty to have a disposable lifestyle. In my calculation, it left more time for my children. Gradually, I've come to realize that disposable is harmful and have gained an appreciation for enduring things. Doesn't mean I don't recognize the nifty aspects of just being able to chuck things away.

There's something nifty about grabbing your car and zooming off. There's something nifty about driving past the speed limit with your stereo blaring while you attempt to have a conversation on your cell phone. There's something profoundly nifty and difficult to give up about enjoying mangos year-round in Canada.

So with nuclear. Sure it's nifty. But on the whole, I think we would be better off with less of it rather than more.

So I guess you could think of nuclear power as the ripe juicy mango that's best appreciated rarely :-)

[Belz...]

I don't think it has ever gone down to 45 degrees below zero celsius here. Most of Canada's population is hunkered down next to the US border, with climate very similar to that of the northern US. So maybe electric cars are a no-go in remote northern communities, but they'll do fine for most of us.

REMOTE NOTHERN COMMUNITIES ???

That's insulting. There are 150,000 people in Saguenay, and over 300,000 people in other cities and villages around. That's not NYC, but it's not Shefferville, either.

And during winter it's not rare that it drops below 30, and once in a while, below 40. And I'm not talking about wind, yet.

With gasoline engines, at least the battery charges up when the motor is running. You don't have that luxury with an electric car. If it doesn't start, it won't.

[luddite]

REMOTE NOTHERN COMMUNITIES ???

That's insulting. There are 150,000 people in Saguenay, and over 300,000 people in other cities and villages around. That's not NYC, but it's not Shefferville, either.

And during winter it's not rare that it drops below 30, and once in a while, below 40. And I'm not talking about wind, yet.

With gasoline engines, at least the battery charges up when the motor is running. You don't have that luxury with an electric car. If it doesn't start, it won't.
Sorry. You're right.

And all you're saying is that there will necessarily be a market for non-electric vehicles until and unless some technological challenges are overcome. I can agree with that.

Still, without any mention of just how much of Canada would not be able to use electric cars, there is a large chunk that would, including most of the urban concentrations. Most of the rest of the world could also benefit from electric cars. I think that's the future direction of cars even though, as you say, there will be a residual need for some non-electrics.

[Lonewulf]

The thing is, most methods of transportation will take you long distances. Just letting your vehicle recharge overnight is... well... I don't see it working for most people, to be honest. Truckers probably won't like that, for instance, and that's where a lot of fuel gets pumped into, as well as airplanes. (In fact, jet travel takes up far more fuel than any vehicle on the ground, from what I understand).

With super/ultra capacitors... maybe. But I'm dubious.

[Hindmost]

It's kinda nifty if you ask me too.

A couple decades ago, I thought it was really nifty to have a disposable lifestyle. In my calculation, it left more time for my children. Gradually, I've come to realize that disposable is harmful and have gained an appreciation for enduring things. Doesn't mean I don't recognize the nifty aspects of just being able to chuck things away.

There's something nifty about grabbing your car and zooming off. There's something nifty about driving past the speed limit with your stereo blaring while you attempt to have a conversation on your cell phone. There's something profoundly nifty and difficult to give up about enjoying mangos year-round in Canada.

So with nuclear. Sure it's nifty. But on the whole, I think we would be better off with less of it rather than more.

So I guess you could think of nuclear power as the ripe juicy mango that's best appreciated rarely :-)

HMmmmmm...trying to get a false analogy (the car thingy) past someone on a skeptics forum....shame......

glenn:D

[luddite]

The thing is, most methods of transportation will take you long distances. Just letting your vehicle recharge overnight is... well... I don't see it working for most people, to be honest. Truckers probably won't like that, for instance, and that's where a lot of fuel gets pumped into, as well as airplanes. (In fact, jet travel takes up far more fuel than any vehicle on the ground, from what I understand).

With super/ultra capacitors... maybe. But I'm dubious.
Monbiot goes into transportation in his book "Heat". It's by no means authoritative, but he talks about having service stations with batteries to pop in in exchange for yours if it gets depleted. Another option would be to reserve electric cars for commuting and short hauls. That's what most driving is for anyway.

When I agreed with Schneibster that the future of cars was electric, I didn't mean to extend this idea to trucks as well. If you want my opinion, of which I think many people are weary, I would suggest we go to trains for a lot of hauling. There are great advances in container transport on trains. Reductions in the distances we moved stuff would be a good idea too. I'm not proposing centralized planning. But even with recent fuel price increases, transportation is cheap. Specifically, it is not paying for the damage it causes. If it did, we might choose not to transport toothpaste transcontinentally. We might not choose to bring in disposable diapers from China. A lot of things that used to be manufactured locally before the age of cheap oil will be manufactured locally again.

Monbiot also goes into the challenges of aviation and comes up with nada. Well, some limited ideas. But mostly, he sees the days of flying coming to a rapid end.

I went to a conference in the spring where a representative from the school of aviation at the University of Toronto spoke about the future of aviation. He mentioned Monbiot's book and praised its basic assumptions (like Canada has to cut emissions by 94%, which is relevant for the calculation below), but suggested that there was a sustainable future for aviation. Basically, if we throw massive public subsidies into the aviation, he says, we can hope to make it "sustainable" by which he means it will continue to burn the same amount of fossil fuels while moving ever more people around according to projections based on historical growth. This would require changing the way planes are made and major airport rebuilds to handle these giant flying triangular hulks. I pointed out to him that if aviation maintains the same 3 1/2% of current emissions it does now, that will leave us with 2 1/2% of today's levels for all other uses - cars, trains, space heating, industry, metal production for things like, oh, airplanes, for example. He had no answer except that we would find a way because people like to fly. If you consider that emissions from airplanes are more significant because they are higher up, we could allocate pretty much all our carbon for airplanes. Again, I think there are much more productive avenues for public funding.

I found this idea the hardest to envision - a future where emissions from flying were primarily reduced by enormous reductions in flights. But I have yet to meet anyone with a smart solution. The best alternative I've heard is dirigibles, but they are not the same. They are much bigger and slower. Not the kind of thing you pop over for a meeting on. Not the kind of thing you take to Australia for a one-week vacation. So if this is true, it suggests big changes not only for aviation, but for tourism, hotels, conference centers, etc.

We could go to nuclear planes. This is the nuclear forum, after all.

[Lonewulf]

Nuclear planes could work, yeah. If we have subs and space probes that run on nuclear power, that might just be a possibility. ;)

[Lonewulf]

I want to return to the previous point that Kevin_Lowe and Luddite both made, about the "hidden costs" of Nuclear Power Plants. I showed someone that was knowledgeable on the subject in the BAUT Forum (777_geek) this thread, and he had this to say:

Hmm. That poster does seem to be slightly more educated than the average anti-nuclear poster, but that is of course not saying much. All cost studies for Generation III+ include the full life cycle costs, including decomissioning and spent fuel storage.

A lot of the arguments that these are external costs are based around the myth that they cannot be done and hence quantified.

Spent fuel handling and decomissioning costs are included in the cost of the electricity in the US. There is however a lawsuit going on against the federal government for wasting it. That is not the operators' fault.

I then asked if I had his permission to post this, and he brought up that people here would probably like some other source.

http://www.externe.info/

Have fun. ;)

[Belz...]

Sorry. You're right.

And all you're saying is that there will necessarily be a market for non-electric vehicles until and unless some technological challenges are overcome. I can agree with that.

Unfortunately, I'd rather work with the technologies we know we can use, not those we speculate we might eventually have.

And there's also the issue of how much distance you can cover in an electric, and if the thing's going to sell on the market if it doesn't cover much...

[Lonewulf]

With supercapacitors, though... who knows? Quick refills, lots of storage capacity, long lifespan. If Schneibster is correct, we're already using them in the world. We can't stick around the way we are forever; if there is one consistent thing about technology, it's that it never stays the same... nor should it.

[Belz...]

Perhaps, but I don't like to assume that some technology will exist soon in order to make an argument for a particular course of action.

[luddite]

I want to return to the previous point that Kevin_Lowe and Luddite both made, about the "hidden costs" of Nuclear Power Plants. I showed someone that was knowledgeable on the subject in the BAUT Forum (777_geek) this thread, and he had this to say:



I then asked if I had his permission to post this, and he brought up that people here would probably like some other source.

http://www.externe.info/

Have fun. ;)
I've seen no indication that spent fuel handling and storage costs are included in the costs of nuclear power anywhere. Is there any evidence for this?

Glenn sent links that demonstrated that decommissioning costs are paid by the operators in the US during the lifetime of the plant. However the decommissioning itself will be paid by governments. I sent articles which showed that the estimated costs of decommissioning Sellafield in Britain had to be revised upwards 3 times within a single year. So it's not clear that decommissioning fees estimated when the plant is built will prove to be enough at the time it is decommissioned. Britain and Canada leave decommissioning to the government, and it is generally not included in the costs of nuclear power unless explicitly stated. Given the limited experience with decommissioning large nuclear plants, any estimate will be imprecise. Estimates by nuclear agencies can be expected to be low, while those of environmental groups are likely to be high.

The ExternE site you sent the link for is bizarre. It certainly doesn't mention spent fuel handling, storage or decommissioning. Nor does it include government research, construction or other subsidies. It limits itself to health and environmental damages. More significantly, it only assesses health risks from fossil pollutants, none from radiation. Now the risks may be low, but there are undoubtedly radiation risks from nuclear generation. It may even be true that there's more in your coffee, but the fact of the matter is that it's not assessed in this document at all. Here's what they assess:

http://www.externe.info/

In Canada, the CANDUs release enormous amounts of tritium. So Canadian standards for tritium in water are an order of magnitude greater than those permitted in Europe, even though this is one of the wettest parts of the world. It's a problem because it's persistent. The Great Lakes only turn over 1% of their water annually.

So while I expect to see that these risks are much lower than the risks from coal generation, the fact is that they're not assessed at all. They aren't even mentioned.

Here's the Nuclear Energy Agency's assessment of the external costs of nuclear power.

http://www.nea.fr/html/ndd/reports/2003/nea4372-generation.pdf

It's conclusion is:

Aspects of nuclear energy that often are suggested to entail external costs
include: future financial liabilities arising from decommissioning and dismantling
of nuclear facilities, health and environmental impacts of radioactivity
releases in routine operation, radioactive waste disposal and effects of severe
accidents. It has to be acknowledged that those aspects could become external
costs if adequate funds for discharging them would not be established on a
timely basis, guaranteed through reliable and independent bodies, and included
in the costs (and the market price) of nuclear-generated electricity. However, a
number of mechanisms have been established to provide such funds, thereby
largely internalising these potential externalities, as highlighted in the following
paragraphs.

This leaves me very confused. It claims that radioactive waste disposal, decommissioning and accident insurance are all covered by the nuclear industry. It does mention that the accidental liability coverage is limited but doesn't mention just how limited it is (less than 10% or 1% for Canada in the case of a major accident).

They imply that all OECD countries have mechanisms in place to cover waste disposal and decommissioning.

It has been estimated that decommissioning costs represent some 10 to
15% of overnight capital costs of nuclear power plants. Since decommissioning
activities and expenses occur after the plant has stopped producing electricity,
decommissioning funds are accumulated, as a part of the electricity price, while
the plant is in operation, according to the “Polluter Pays Principle”. In OECD
countries a wide variety of mechanisms and schemes are in place for ensuring
that decommissioning costs are comprehensively estimated and that the
necessary funds are accumulated and securely reserved, to be made available
when needed.

Since I had already looked this up for Canada and Britain and knew they didn't collect decommissioning costs from the power plant, this had me confused. I looked up the NEA's own detailed report about Canada. Nowhere in the discussion about decommissioning does it say that these are covered by the operator:

http://www.nea.fr/html/rwm/wpdd/canada.pdf

So going back to what they said, they didn't actually say it was always covered. They said it might be an externality if it wasn't covered, said it was often covered, and then made a blanket statement about OECD countries that implied that it was always covered in OECD countries.

I'm disappointed. This is deceptive writing designed to confuse people who don't have the time to double-check.

The same kind of "many countries" so "the cost is already internalized" without specifics applies to the discussion of spent fuel storage.

I assure you spent fuel storage costs are not internalized in Canada. Furthermore, we have no idea what we're going to do with it anyway, so how would we assess the costs?. A friend of mine who is an environmental lawyer summarized the decisions the AECL has made so far as "Dig a big hole and seal it, but not so well that you couldn't recover the waste if you wanted to go back and get it later". She says that the only two options we have definitively eliminated are shooting it into space or pitching it into the ocean depths. 30 years of thought went into that decision.

The NEA document then goes on to tackle the issue of radiation effects and state that this is addressed in the ExternE report. They make extensive reference to it. It's not, as I said. So what am I to make of this? Is there an updated ExternE document somewhere? I found a bunch of old ExternE sites still on the web stating that the information was no longer being updated, so maybe the link you sent is another of these?

The NEA document does not mention at all R&D or any direct government subsidies, past or present.

So does the NEA come up in the end with a cost for externalities? Nope. It seems to be a lot of handwaving saying "yeah, yeah, it's all covered", but a closer look says well, not really. This is frustrating.

Just found this anti-nuclear site which summarizes unaccounted costs:

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/630-31/main.php

Can they be trusted? Like I said, the debate is very polarized. Hard to find a middle ground.

[robinson]

One reason that the true cost is hard to discover, is that Nuclear Power Plants were used to create the material for Nuclear weapons. It was the main reason so many expensive power plants were built.

In a great irony, much of the fuel being used for power generation now comes from nuclear warheads.

[luddite]

I think I want the ExternE Volume 5 on Nuclear. It's not very well organized. Apparently all the volumes are available by email request here:

domenico.rossetti-di-valdalbero@cec.eu.int

I'll try that now.

[luddite]

The European Environment Agency has this to say about the ExternE assessment:

Nuclear external costs are in the range 0.2-0.4 cEUR/kW. However, these external costs factors have to be treated with caution, as they reflect to a large extent the small amount of emissions of CO2 and air pollutants, and the low risk of accidents. The methodology to evaluate the impacts due to accidents is risk-based. Risk can be broadly defined as the probability of accident multiplied by its consequences. A low probability of an accident would therefore result in a low external cost. However, it would seem that in cases where risks have a very high damage but a low probability, the risk assessment of the public is not proportional to the risk. ExternE concludes that quantification of this risk has not been successful but that research is clearly needed to estimate the external-cost factors from nuclear energy production.

http://themes.eea.europa.eu/Sectors_and_activities/energy/indicators/EN35,2007.04

That's pretty close to my assessment. Though I would specify what they didn't include: R&D susbsidies, direct subsidies, decommissioning, insurance, waste removal and storage, risk from radiation exposure as well as cost of major accidents. It may well be that in some cases, some of these are included in the costs. But there are definitely cases where they are not.

[luddite]

I think I want the ExternE Volume 5 on Nuclear. It's not very well organized. Apparently all the volumes are available by email request here:

domenico.rossetti-di-valdalbero@cec.eu.int

I'll try that now.
This was returned undeliverable.

[luddite]

This, surprisingly, comes from a pro-nuclear source, Nuclear Engineering International. It's an article that tackles the fact that financing for new nuclear plants has been very unsuccessful. Most of the article talks about how these challenges can be addressed through clearer regulations, but there are these revealing tidbits:

It is clear that financing new nuclear build in the financial markets will prove very challenging. Nuclear has a bad reputation there, with memories of the cost overruns of plants in the 1970s and 1980s still strong, with the attendant power utility ‘stranded costs’ – those investment costs never likely to be repaid by future electricity sales.

Without being able to demonstrate a workable solution to the waste issue, it will be difficult to build new nuclear plants.

as the revenue from billions of kWh of electricity is the only outside funding coming into the nuclear industry (a point often forgotten by those engaged in uranium production and other fuel cycle activities), the shape of power markets, the contracting and other market mechanisms, are very important. Investors have to take major risks with selling nuclear power at good prices for many years in the future, to recoup the heavy initial plant investment costs.

Understanding all the risks and allocating them to their correct location is clearly something that financiers find very difficult.

[Hindmost]

One reason that the true cost is hard to discover, is that Nuclear Power Plants were used to create the material for Nuclear weapons. It was the main reason so many expensive power plants were built.

In a great irony, much of the fuel being used for power generation now comes from nuclear warheads.

Commercial light water reactors in the US were not used for plutonium production and are essentially useless for that purpose. Plutonium was made at the Hanford washington site--it was a government site. Most of the reactors were pu production only. The exception was the N reactor which produced some electricity. Some pu was also made at the savannah river site--but the reactors didn't produce electrical power. Savannah river was also a govt. site.

There are just a few plants in the US that can handle pu from weapons due to the increased reactivity of MOX fuels. However, I am not aware of any plants in the US that are fueled with any significant portion of MOX combined with regular uranium fuel. Duke power had a pilot program to do a few test assemblies...but I don't know if it was ever done.

glenn

[Hindmost]

This, surprisingly, comes from a pro-nuclear source, Nuclear Engineering International. It's an article that tackles the fact that financing for new nuclear plants has been very unsuccessful. Most of the article talks about how these challenges can be addressed through clearer regulations, but there are these revealing tidbits:

All 100% true..and one of the major reasons the industry died in the US and why the govt. put some subsidies into the 2005 energy bill that passed.

It will be a rough start in the US. The real key will be clear licensing requirements and keeping the lunatic fringe out of the mix.

glenn

[robinson]

Commercial light water reactors in the US were not used for plutonium production and are essentially useless for that purpose.

I wasn't talking about just the US, lots of other countries built nuclear power plants, and lots of nuclear bombs.

[robinson]

But speaking of those weapon reactors...

Most of Hanford's reactors were shut down in the 1960s but nuclear waste still remains at the site. Parts of the 560 square mile (1,450 km²) site are highly contaminated. Examples of the scale of the problem are:

* Some 54 million U.S. gallons (204,000 m³) of radioactive liquid and sludge is stored in 177 underground tanks of which about a third were reported as leaking in 2001.

* Nearby aquifers were not protected and contain an estimated 270 billion gallons of contaminated ground water.

* More than 40 billion gallons (151 million m³) of contaminated water were dumped directly onto the soil and there have been radioactive leaks from storage ponds and tanks

* The site includes 25 million cubic feet of solid radioactive waste.
Wolman, David. "Fission Trip", Wired Magazine, April 2007, p. 78

You might think getting rid of nuclear waste is a real problem. No wonder nobody wants to keep building them in the US.
http://www.populist.com/99.12.krebs.blob.html

[luddite]

This 2004 paper on energy subsidies by the European Environment Agency mentions the EU commitment to 22% electricity from renewable sources by 2010 and the goal of 20% of all energy use from renewables by 2020. They state that these measures are achievable but are unlikely under the current policy framework.

They address the same issues as the Nuclear Engineering article above from a different angle, but it's actually clear that the issues are the same:

Since the 1990s, the energy sector in western Europe (particularly the electricity sector) has undergone significant liberalisation and privatisation, resulting in declining and more volatile (fluctuating) electricity prices. Existing fossil fuel and nuclear generators, established with public money and benefiting from depreciated assets, have lower marginal costs than new renewable technologies and are better able to manage the downward price pressures. To some extent, electricity prices in the EU 15 reflect only the marginal costs of production from existing capacity and do not include a contribution to the capital cost of the capacity used (or to the capacity that will be needed to replace this when it is retired). This fact and volatile energy prices have created barriers to private investment in new capacity, resulting in falling reserve margins in a number of countries compared with those present in the 1990s as the replacement of old capacity lags behind retirement.

http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2004_1/en/Energy_FINAL_web.pdf

There is a trend in these articles that ties in with what the Rocky Mountain Institute is saying and what Glenn asserts.

1. Power plants used to be built more by governments who took all the risks.
2. Energy markets are being liberalised.
3. Financiers are wary of taking risks on long and large projects of any kind.
4. This opens the door for efficiency to meet new demand (I think especially when efficiencies are encouraged with public money).
5. Penetration by micro-generation is impeded by the existence of power plants built prior to market liberalization.
6. Micro-generation still comes out ahead for rapidly producing small incremental increases in generation. Large power plants are at a disadvantage.
7. Nuclear is particularly vulnerable because of its history of cost overruns and early closures - financiers see it as risky.
8. Nuclear has additional concerns about the lack of coherent plans for permanent waste disposal.
9. Nuclear has benefited from very high subsidies in the past.
10. Subsidies for renewables are higher today.
11. Subsidies for fossil fuels remain high.

The bit about historic subsidies is the conclusion from a 2000 US Goldberg study that this paper quotes. It compares the development periods for nuclear and wind, and puts nuclear subsidies at US$15.3/kWh and wind at US$0.46/kWh during their respective development periods.

For the year 2001, excluding externalities, the highest subsidies were for solid fuel at 13 billion euros, followed by oil and gas at 8.7 billion euros. Renewables came in at 5.3 billion euros with nuclear now lowest at 2.2.

I approve of higher subsidies for renewables. I can't agree with higher subsidies for fossil fuels.

If you include externalities, add 25.6-46.2 billion euros annually for solid fuels, 12-21.4 for oil and gas, 2.7 for nuclear and 2.0-2.7 for renewables.

This has gotta change.

[luddite]

Here's a link to the Goldberg study mentioned above:

http://www.unplugsalem.org/FES.htm

It also compares subsidies for solar, which are intermediate between nuclear and wind. If you forget the subsidy per kilowatt hour produced and just consider the dollar value of the subsidy, it's even more dramatic:

"Nukes received much higher levels of government support per kilowatt-hour when they first started than either wind or solar power. And subsidies heaped on nuclear power have not been cheap. Since 1947, cumulative subsidies to nuclear power had an equivalent cost of $1,411 [1998 dollars] per U.S. household, compared to $11 for wind, for example."

[Schneibster]

Perhaps, but I don't like to assume that some technology will exist soon in order to make an argument for a particular course of action.Well, it's pretty far along, Belz. A thin-film expert from the hard disk industry has a patent on the technology, and has acquired funding from Kleiner, Perkins, Caulfield and Byers; you might want to check them out, they've been involved in most of the high-tech IPOs of the last two decades; most of their clients are household names, like Sun, AOL, LSI Logic, Genentech, Netscape, Google, and so on. The guy is setting up a production line down in Texas; the name of the company is EEStor. They've got a contract to provide power storage units for Zenn Motor in Canada, to make electric cars. Zenn is owned by Feel Good Cars, and they're in for a couple million bucks. They reportedly remain on track to begin producing the power units this year; CNN did a story on them in September. As far as I know, the smart money don't go throwing several million bucks around on things that are too awfully speculative, especially in the current investment climate.

[Hindmost]

This 2004 paper on energy subsidies by the European Environment Agency mentions the EU commitment to 22% electricity from renewable sources by 2010 and the goal of 20% of all energy use from renewables by 2020. They state that these measures are achievable but are unlikely under the current policy framework.

They address the same issues as the Nuclear Engineering article above from a different angle, but it's actually clear that the issues are the same:



http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2004_1/en/Energy_FINAL_web.pdf

There is a trend in these articles that ties in with what the Rocky Mountain Institute is saying and what Glenn asserts.

1. Power plants used to be built more by governments who took all the risks.
2. Energy markets are being liberalised.
3. Financiers are wary of taking risks on long and large projects of any kind.
4. This opens the door for efficiency to meet new demand (I think especially when efficiencies are encouraged with public money).
5. Penetration by micro-generation is impeded by the existence of power plants built prior to market liberalization.
6. Micro-generation still comes out ahead for rapidly producing small incremental increases in generation. Large power plants are at a disadvantage.
7. Nuclear is particularly vulnerable because of its history of cost overruns and early closures - financiers see it as risky.
8. Nuclear has additional concerns about the lack of coherent plans for permanent waste disposal.
9. Nuclear has benefited from very high subsidies in the past.
10. Subsidies for renewables are higher today.
11. Subsidies for fossil fuels remain high.

The bit about historic subsidies is the conclusion from a 2000 US Goldberg study that this paper quotes. It compares the development periods for nuclear and wind, and puts nuclear subsidies at US$15.3/kWh and wind at US$0.46/kWh during their respective development periods.

For the year 2001, excluding externalities, the highest subsidies were for solid fuel at 13 billion euros, followed by oil and gas at 8.7 billion euros. Renewables came in at 5.3 billion euros with nuclear now lowest at 2.2.

I approve of higher subsidies for renewables. I can't agree with higher subsidies for fossil fuels.

If you include externalities, add 25.6-46.2 billion euros annually for solid fuels, 12-21.4 for oil and gas, 2.7 for nuclear and 2.0-2.7 for renewables.

This has gotta change.


Quote:
It is clear that financing new nuclear build in the financial markets will prove very challenging. Nuclear has a bad reputation there, with memories of the cost overruns of plants in the 1970s and 1980s still strong, with the attendant power utility ‘stranded costs’ – those investment costs never likely to be repaid by future electricity sales.

Quote:
Without being able to demonstrate a workable solution to the waste issue, it will be difficult to build new nuclear plants.

Quote:
as the revenue from billions of kWh of electricity is the only outside funding coming into the nuclear industry (a point often forgotten by those engaged in uranium production and other fuel cycle activities), the shape of power markets, the contracting and other market mechanisms, are very important. Investors have to take major risks with selling nuclear power at good prices for many years in the future, to recoup the heavy initial plant investment costs.

Quote:
Understanding all the risks and allocating them to their correct location is clearly something that financiers find very difficult.

Please do not post what I do or do not assert. I agreed with the points shown italicized above in one of your previous posts.

However, I don't agree with everything in else in this post and I certainly don't agree with the Rocky Mountain institute article as I consider it bad from a science point of view.

glenn

[luddite]

Please do not post what I do or do not assert. I agreed with the points shown italicized above in one of your previous posts.

However, I don't agree with everything in else in this post and I certainly don't agree with the Rocky Mountain institute article as I consider it bad from a science point of view.

glenn

Apologies. That was wrong of me. Especially putting your name and that of RMI in the same sentence, when I knew you had disagreed with them. Sorry. Sorry.

A question then.

Do you agree with the points I made, which are my attempted summary from a number of sources about trends in subsidies and the resulting market? I don't expect you to agree with all of them necessarily, but I thought you would agree with points 3 and 4, in particular.

[Hindmost]

I wasn't talking about just the US, lots of other countries built nuclear power plants, and lots of nuclear bombs.

The only country that I know that combined weapons production reactors with electricity on a large scale is Russia. I don't see how that would compare with cost of nuclear power in the west. France had a few electricity production reactors that were bomb builders as well, but they were shut down a while ago. Only the phoenix plant is left to make pu.

It doesn't take much reactor capacity to make a bunch of plutonium.

glenn

[DRBUZZ0]

I wasn't talking about just the US, lots of other countries built nuclear power plants, and lots of nuclear bombs.


Power plants are generally no good for weapons. A light water reactor or a heavy water reactor makes crap plutonium for weapons. Too heavy on the Pu-240, and you really don't want pu-240 in a weapon because it has way too high a spontaneous fission rate and thus will cause you a fissile.

What you really need is a fast breeder reactor and if it's for military purposes the breeder rods need to be removed and separated frequently or you'll also end up with too much pu-240 (and other heavy isotopes as well).

Bringing up the contamination of Hanford or other nuclear weapons fabrication sites is a strawman. You're comparing power plants to a military operation which was designed to generate massive amounts of plutonium and to separate it. It is also a very early and crude system.

Nuclear fuel does not get into the environment as long as the rods are intact and kept in the reactor or storage. Hanford was a processing center and an especially waste-intensive one at that. The reactors did not simply generate plutonium. They also used the facility for dissolving the materials and chemical separations on massive scales. Some of the early experiments with separation were done there and not all turned out so well.

[DRBUZZ0]

One reason that the true cost is hard to discover, is that Nuclear Power Plants were used to create the material for Nuclear weapons. It was the main reason so many expensive power plants were built.

In a great irony, much of the fuel being used for power generation now comes from nuclear warheads.

No. A few weapons breeders produced energy as well as a biproduct. No commercial light water reactors in the US or any other nation in the world are weapons material reactors.

[Hindmost]

Apologies. That was wrong of me. Especially putting your name and that of RMI in the same sentence, when I knew you had disagreed with them. Sorry. Sorry.

A question then.

Do you agree with the points I made, which are my attempted summary from a number of sources about trends in subsidies and the resulting market? I don't expect you to agree with all of them necessarily, but I thought you would agree with points 3 and 4, in particular.

It will take me a bit to research everything for a coherent post...and it is late, so I will look at it tomorrow. I really have to look at the subsidy issue more comprehensively. The US energy bill certainly added a bunch to nuclear. However, the past 20 years or so, the subsidy seemed minimal.

Thanks for the apology and let's just forget about it.

glenn:)

[luddite]

The US energy bill certainly added a bunch to nuclear. However, the past 20 years or so, the subsidy seemed minimal.

Yes, the era of highest subsidies, identified by Goldberg, was from 1947-1961.

[luddite]

Glenn, here's another question.

Do you know if the Korean power plants are publicly or privately owned? What about Finland's Okiluoto? Just wondering if the "skittish investors" idea fits in with this. Can't find it on the web.

[Corsair 115]

Zenn is owned by Feel Good Cars, and they're in for a couple million bucks. They reportedly remain on track to begin producing the power units this year; CNN did a story on them in September.There was a piece about Zenn earlier tonight on the CBC National News. Unfortunately, there isn't a link up yet at the CBC web site for a video of the report or an online text version of it. Hopefully there'll be one later on.

[DRBUZZ0]

Okillo is opperated by Pohjolan Voima (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pohjolan_Voima) which is a private company.

Korea is a bit more complicated. It's owned by the Korea Power Generating Company, which is a government affiliated corporation. I think that the municipalities own a stake in it as well. That somewhat common in the utility area to have that sort of thing. I think that the operations are done by workers who are technically privately employed but by government contract.

[Belz...]

Well, it's pretty far along, Belz. A thin-film expert from the hard disk industry has a patent on the technology, and has acquired funding from Kleiner, Perkins, Caulfield and Byers; you might want to check them out, they've been involved in most of the high-tech IPOs of the last two decades; most of their clients are household names, like Sun, AOL, LSI Logic, Genentech, Netscape, Google, and so on. The guy is setting up a production line down in Texas; the name of the company is EEStor. They've got a contract to provide power storage units for Zenn Motor in Canada, to make electric cars. Zenn is owned by Feel Good Cars, and they're in for a couple million bucks. They reportedly remain on track to begin producing the power units this year; CNN did a story on them in September. As far as I know, the smart money don't go throwing several million bucks around on things that are too awfully speculative, especially in the current investment climate.

Thanks for the info. My comment was more-or-less generic, because I often hear arguments for certain things based on the expectation that some non-existent technology will exist in the unknown future. I didn't assume this was the case here, but I always find it safer to make plans with the stuff you already have.

[luddite]

Okillo is opperated by Pohjolan Voima (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pohjolan_Voima) which is a private company.

Korea is a bit more complicated. It's owned by the Korea Power Generating Company, which is a government affiliated corporation. I think that the municipalities own a stake in it as well. That somewhat common in the utility area to have that sort of thing. I think that the operations are done by workers who are technically privately employed but by government contract.
Thanks.

[luddite]

I'd like anyone who is interested to go over this article from Public Citizen. It's anti-nuclear and strident in tone, but if anyone can get over that, there's a lot of information also that highlights safety issues with nuclear power today. Also, ignore the parts about deregulation. They're interesting, but not relevant here.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/bigblackout.pdf

Here are some highlights:

The degradation and rupture of steam generator tubes at nuclear reactors has been a problem at U.S. reactors since at least 1975, when there was a spontaneous tube rupture at the 5-year old Point Beach reactor in Wisconsin. The NRC describes steam generator tubes as serving “an important safety role because they constitute one of the primary barriers between the radioactive and non-radioactive sides of the plant. For this reason, the integrity of the tubing is essential in minimizing the leakage of water between the two ‘sides’ of the plant.”i Steam generator tube rupture can “cascade,” wherein a break in one tube triggers ruptures in adjacent tubes. If severe, a cascade could precipitate a nuclear meltdown at a reactor. At a 1988 conference, former NRC Commissioner Kenneth Rogers, speaking about the effects of aging U.S. nuclear plants, said: “Degradation (of the steam generator tubes) would decrease the safety margins so that, in essence, we have a ‘loaded gun,’ an accident waiting to happen.”ii Nonetheless, neither the industry nor the NRC has been able to adequately address the problem, and the Indian Point 2 reactor—only 35 miles from Manhattan—experienced a serious steam generator tube failure in February 2000.iii Reactors shut down from the recent blackout that have had tube ruptures include Indian Point 2, Indian Point 3 and Ginna—all in New York. Such a rupture occurring prior to a blackout would place a heavy burden on emergency backup systems, increase the chance of meltdown and further tax plant emergency crews. At least 16 steam generator tube ruptures have occurred since the first in 1975.

The cracking, leaking and acid-caused degradation of reactor vessels and connected components have been a known issue at nuclear reactors for at least 15 years. In March 1987, workers at the Turkey Point 4 reactor in Florida discovered that a small amount of boric acid had corroded the reactor vessel head (the “lid” of the reactor that contains the enormous radioactivity and pressure inside). Since that time, similar cracking, leaking and acid corrosion of reactors have occurred at many plants in the U.S., including Salem, San Onofre, Arkansas Nuclear One, Fort Calhoun, Calvert Cliffs, Three Mile Island, Sequoyah and Comanche Peak, among others. With both the industry and the NRC failing to adequately address the problem, a much-delayed inspection in March 2002 at Ohio’s Davis-Besse plant uncovered a football-sized corrosion hole in the reactor’s head. (Davis-Besse is owned and operated by FirstEnergy, the company suspected by analysts and state officials to be responsible for an initial trigger of the recent blackout. On September 8, Davis-Besse will celebrate a plant record of 570 consecutive days without producing power, at a cost of over $500 million.) The acid had bored through over 6 inches of carbon steel; less than a quarter inch of stainless steel was all that prevented a serious loss-of-coolant accident at the reactor—an accident that can lead to meltdown. The seriousness of this brush with disaster shook the nuclear industry worldwide.

After years of cutting corners, ignoring problems and cutting deals with the NRC to delay necessary inspections and repairs, FirstEnergy had to bite the bullet and replace the entire reactor vessel head (the cost of which will possibly get passed on to ratepayers). Other additional problems have since been rediscovered—including the lack of a thorough “safety culture,” as documented by the NRC’s Inspector General in a December 2002 report —that have kept the plant shut down. On July 30, the NRC issued to the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) an “integrated inspection report” that included a preliminary “yellow” finding, representing a problem of “substantial safety significance” (second only to a “red” finding of “high” safety significance on the NRC’s color-coded scale) regarding the reactor’s emergency core cooling system. The NRC cited the company with a failure to “adequately implement design control measures” to correct known problems with its emergency cooling systems. The NRC noted that metal screens that filter recirculated cooling water in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident—the type of accident that nearly occurred at Davis-Besse—could be blocked by debris that is frequently found in the emergency core cooling system. Such a blockage could lead to a core meltdown. A similar problem had plagued another type of U.S. nuclear reactor, and its potential occurrence at pressurized water reactors (PWRs) has been known for over 10 years; a structural problem at one PWR concerns all 69 PWRs like Davis-Besse.

In the past 12 months—from September 2002 to August 2003—there have been 15 reported instances in which emergency diesel generators have been declared inoperable. In seven cases, when such a failure brought a plant below the required number of backups, a complete shutdown of the plant was required; on four of these occasions, all backup generators failed at once. In April 2003, the Cook nuclear power plant in western Michigan shut down when emergency water flow to all four diesel generators was blocked by “an influx of fish on the intake screens.”iv Cook also shut down in January when one of its two emergency generators was inoperable for
over 72 hours.v

Without emergency generators, steam and battery power provide a “last chance” means to cool a reactor and stave off a meltdown. The batteries can operate for between two and eight hours; but in the recent blackout, Detroit did not see full power returned until Saturday, August 16, over 36 hours after power first went out. Had the emergency generators failed during this timeframe—as they did in the aforementioned situations—a nuclear meltdown and widespread radioactive release is rendered not at all beyond possibility.

If the blackout had caused a meltdown or other severe accident, it appears that many of the emergency sirens in place to alert officials and the public would not have operated because of a lack of power. In “event reports” submitted to the NRC in the hours after power was lost, the Indian Point and Ginna nuclear stations (both in New York) noted that many of their emergency sirens would have been rendered impotent due to the blackout, and at least 25 percent of the sirens covering the area around the Ginna plant were inoperable. In the case of Indian Point, the sirens in four surrounding counties—including the densely populated Westchester County, with nearly 1 million people—would have failed, leaving the region in a tragic state of ignorance in the event of a meltdown.

It is a terrible irony that power outages, which have so much potential to cause accidents at nuclear power reactors, also disable the emergency alert sirens designed to notify the public of danger. On April 4, 2003, five nuclear power stations in New York and Wisconsin reported that more than half of their emergency sirens were not working due to power outages. (Interestingly, on that same day, the operators of the Monticello nuclear power station in Minnesota reported that some of their emergency alarms were inadvertently actuated.)vi

A lesser-known vulnerability at nuclear plants is the so-called “spent” fuel pools. The term “spent” fuel is itself a misnomer, since the fuel is only spent in the sense that it can no longer assist in boiling the water to turn the turbines. The fuel is exhausted for that purpose, yet it is still very hot and extremely radioactive—more so when taken out of the reactor than when it is put in. When removed from the reactor core, this irradiated fuel (a more accurate name) is submerged in large pools of water—“spent” fuel pools—in a building adjacent to the reactor for cooling and storage. These buildings are typically just standard industrial constructions, built of concrete blocks and corrugated metal (much less “robust” structures than the still-questionable reactor containment structures) and are thus even more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. In the event of an attack or an accident, these structures would do little or nothing to contain radioactive releases. Depending on the amount of fuel stored in the pools, most of which are fully stocked or overloaded, such a facility has the potential to unleash a disaster at least as great as one originating at the reactor itself.

Shockingly, these fuel pools DO NOT get backup power from emergency diesel generators. When the offsite power goes out, the pool water cannot be re-circulated to prevent boiling, evaporation, exposure of the fuel rods and, ultimately, a fire and meltdown. The risk of this occurring is greatest when a “fresh” load of fuel has recently been transferred from the reactor core to the fuel pool (most reactors refuel about every 18 months). Suffice it to say that the vulnerability of irradiated fuel pools presents a grave radiation risk to the public.

Ontario, the Canadian province affected by the blackout, has found itself regretting its reliance on nuclear for 36 percent of its power. Its cleverly named “Candu” reactors were designed to automatically unlink from the grid in the event of a blackout and then remain in standby mode at 60 percent power, but that isn’t what happened during the blackout. Instead, half of the province’s 12 operable reactors went into full automatic shutdown, with another four requiring full manual shutdown. Only two of the reactors responded to the grid breakdown as designed, by partially reducing power. With 10 of 12 reactors down, the difficulty of cold-restarting the Candu reactors quickly became evident, as full shutdowns involve a chemical “poisoning” of the reactor process which takes days to dissipate, allowing the reactor to power up.

For the Ontario info, there's independent confirmation from pro-nuclear sources:

http://www.electricityforum.com/news/oct03/canduprobe.html

[Schneibster]

Thanks for the info. My comment was more-or-less generic, because I often hear arguments for certain things based on the expectation that some non-existent technology will exist in the unknown future. I didn't assume this was the case here, but I always find it safer to make plans with the stuff you already have.Perfectly understandable, just wanted to make sure you were aware that this technology looks ready to hatch. The proverbial killer app seems to be waiting for anything that can beat batteries in electric cars.

[Hindmost]

Glenn, here's another question.

Do you know if the Korean power plants are publicly or privately owned? What about Finland's Okiluoto? Just wondering if the "skittish investors" idea fits in with this. Can't find it on the web.

It is a bit of both...here's a good link giving company history. Buzzo covered most of it...

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Korea-Electric-Power-Corporation-Kepco-Company-History.html

glenn

[Hindmost]

...snip


1. Power plants used to be built more by governments who took all the risks.

In the US, plants were built by public utilities..with the exception of TVA.

2. Energy markets are being liberalised.

power generation is being deregulated in the US. Transmission and distribution is still govt. regulated--individual states have the responsibility to implement deregulation.

3. Financiers are wary of taking risks on long and large projects of any kind.

true--especially with nuclear since the utilities got burned in the past.

4. This opens the door for efficiency to meet new demand (I think especially when efficiencies are encouraged with public money).

The door has always been open. However, solar and wind have been traditionally higher cost per kw-hr than any other types of generation. Wind power technology has greatly improved reducing maintenance and making it reasonably cheap. (maintenance was typically bad on wind power...the gear boxes were constantly failing) However, the capacity factor is low and is typically low when needed during the summer months. Solar power can take 20 years to recover capital costs for a person that wishes to power their home with solar cells. More research is needed to improve efficiency and should be subsidized.

5. Penetration by micro-generation is impeded by the existence of power plants built prior to market liberalization.

This is not true for the US. If one builds their own plant, utilities are required to buy any excess electricity. It is the initial capital cost of alternative generation that is the issue.

6. Micro-generation still comes out ahead for rapidly producing small incremental increases in generation. Large power plants are at a disadvantage.

Depends on the demand and what type of micro generation is considered. Gas turbines can be built quickly and are very good at peak load following...


7. Nuclear is particularly vulnerable because of its history of cost overruns and early closures - financiers see it as risky.

True. That's one of the reasons they haven't been built in the US. Cost overruns were typically 5-10 times the original cost.

8. Nuclear has additional concerns about the lack of coherent plans for permanent waste disposal.

True in the US. To me, this is an engineering problem and perception problem more than a real issue. Convincing the public of that is tough.


9. Nuclear has benefited from very high subsidies in the past.

All types of energy have benefited from subsidies in the past. And they are still getting them. During the Reagan years, energy conservation tax incentives were abolished. This effectively ended conservation in the US.

10. Subsidies for renewables are higher today.

This has jump started these industries and is the reason for the development in the US. Germany has high subsidies for solar and it is expected to provide 20-30 percent of their energy needs.

11. Subsidies for fossil fuels remain high.

True. There are still oil drilling subsidies for deep water drilling.

The bit about historic subsidies is the conclusion from a 2000 US Goldberg study that this paper quotes. It compares the development periods for nuclear and wind, and puts nuclear subsidies at US$15.3/kWh and wind at US$0.46/kWh during their respective development periods.

For the year 2001, excluding externalities, the highest subsidies were for solid fuel at 13 billion euros, followed by oil and gas at 8.7 billion euros. Renewables came in at 5.3 billion euros with nuclear now lowest at 2.2.

I approve of higher subsidies for renewables. I can't agree with higher subsidies for fossil fuels.

If you include externalities, add 25.6-46.2 billion euros annually for solid fuels, 12-21.4 for oil and gas, 2.7 for nuclear and 2.0-2.7 for renewables.

This has gotta change.



I have to do some research...the Golberg study is decidely anti-nuke. However, what is needed is to provide incentives to provide long term solutions.

glenn

[DRBUZZ0]

Ah yes Germany and solar energy... lets talk about a train wreck.

Germany produces more solar energy than any other country having committed to it big time and looking to make it a major source of power generation. They currently have 400 megawatts of solar capacity, which is actually about half of the solar electricity generated in western Europe.

Now as far as costs. I've had some trouble finding out the totals, but I know that they have invested about 2 billion euro in research and they have a few billion euro in low-interest loans, loan gaurentees, tax wirte-offs and other such things for the industry. I have heard the number ten billion euro float around as what has been spent, but I don't know that for sure.

As far as the price of solar: Even without taxes and such, in order to make solar energy a viable energy source the price of the electricity has to be subsidized. Germany talks a lot about how it's being done through private capital and such and that there has been about 10,000 jobs created by the industry for installing and such.

So for each solar kilowatt hour the price paid to the producer is 48.1 Euro Cent for industrial solar installations and more (something like 70 Euro Cent) for homes and for areas where they need more energy anyway.

The market price of electricity in europe is something like 8-16 Euro Cent per Kwh, so nobody would buy 70 Cent electricity. Thus the government makes up the difference.


Basically if you have a desktop computer, a crt monitor, a light and a television running at the same time, the government is paying about one US dollar per hour. For every hour that you run a refrigerator motor it's also about a dollar. If you have a well pump it could be a few dollars a day in electricity.

Oh and to put it in perspective: The 400 megawatt capacity is solar capacity. In other words: The maximum output of the panels. In reality you have to figure for weather and night. In a place like germany 20% average is generous. So you might figure 80 megawatts of equivelent electricity generation. (In other words, they generate as much as if they produced 80megawatts 24/7) That's somewhat generous but I think 80Mw would be a good liberal estimate. Certainly not much more.

80 megawatts. Lets think about how much that represents: That would be considered a "Microhydro" project if it were a dam. My power company consideres it's 200 megawatt plants to be the "Small" plants. So at the moment Germany gets about 3% of their energy from solar power.

Here's an article on it from IEEE:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/2706


Germany currently gets "Over 15 percent of their electricity from renewable" according to some pages. In otherwords, they get 3% from solar, 12% from hydroelectric and biomas burning and such"

The energy policy is driving them into a recession.

[luddite]

Buzzo, you're right about solar being expensive, but this is an odd case where two negatives make (sort of) a positive.

The MW produced by solar have a strong correlation with demand. It's just as well that they're not producing in the middle of the night, when wholesale electricity prices are just pennies a kWh (they've been known to dip into the negatives). On summer afternoons in Ontario, wholesale prices often go above the 40 cents they pay for solar here. In fact, they've been known to go up briefly into the hundreds of dollars. If you add in the fact that rooftop solar cuts transmission costs and energy losses to nothing, it's not so bad. And if in Germany, they are filling an urban need that's hard to fill with other kinds of generation, then there's a value there too. Finally, if we start to cut down on fossil fuels for peaking power, peak power, when solar produces, may get mighty expensive. Then the countries that have invested heavily in it may be glad they did so.

I've never thought solar PV was particularly good for baseload power, but it has a place.

[luddite]

By the way. Thanks Glenn for your answers.

[luddite]

Just looked up Germany's solar facts. Mixed bag here. On the one hand, they agree with Buzzo that Germany has over 400 MW installed, but that's tied to a statement about 2003 installations. The statement that follows says:

968 Megawatts of PV were installed in Germany in 2006.

This was described as "slow growth" compared to previous years. So I don't know what the total is now, but it's got to be above 1,500 MW. I'll try to find exact numbers.

http://www.solarbuzz.com/FastFactsGermany.htm

[luddite]

Okay, here's what I found:

In recent years, the German photovoltaics market and industry have seen strong growth. According to data from the German Solar Industry Association (BSW), 750 MWp of solar electricity systems were newly installed in 2006, as a result of which the solar electricity output totalled 2,500 MWp by the end of that year.

http://www.renewables-made-in-germany.com/en/photovoltaics/

Pity the 2006 installed numbers don't fit with the numbers in the link above. I like it when things are neat and orderly. Still, if Buzzo calculated 400 MW as 3%, then 2,500 MW is more than 18%, all in just 3 short years. That's actually pretty impressive, and rather destroys the argument that renewables can't possibly grow to provide a significant proportion of the electricity needed.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Dr Buzzo, at the prices you quote for German solar panel electricity, how long will it take to pay off the panels?

[mhaze]

Buzzo, you're right about solar being expensive, but this is an odd case where two negatives make (sort of) a positive.

The MW produced by solar have a strong correlation with demand. It's just as well that they're not producing in the middle of the night, when wholesale electricity prices are just pennies a kWh (they've been known to dip into the negatives). On summer afternoons in Ontario, wholesale prices often go above the 40 cents they pay for solar here. In fact, they've been known to go up briefly into the hundreds of dollars. If you add in the fact that rooftop solar cuts transmission costs and energy losses to nothing, it's not so bad. And if in Germany, they are filling an urban need that's hard to fill with other kinds of generation, then there's a value there too. Finally, if we start to cut down on fossil fuels for peaking power, peak power, when solar produces, may get mighty expensive. Then the countries that have invested heavily in it may be glad they did so.

I've never thought solar PV was particularly good for baseload power, but it has a place.
When ever someone would like to come to my home, install solar panels, maintain them, and just provide me with electric power (just like I get now) for 2/3 the cost that I am charged (that will be about 0.06 USD per kwh) I will give them a try out.

Until then, all the promoters who would like me to pay them $5-40,000 for the wonderful world of solar are of zero - zero interest to me.

This is a very simple business matter.

[luddite]

Dr Buzzo, at the prices you quote for German solar panel electricity, how long will it take to pay off the panels?
In Ontario, the Standard Offer Contracts for renewables, which give 40 cents per kWh for solar came up just as the Riverdale Initiative for Solar Energy (RISE) was negotiating a bulk purchase agreement with a solar PV company for community solar. This was then expanded to other communities under the name Our Power, and I know a lot about this. With a 10% price reduction for bulk purchases, panels were expected to be paid off in 10 years. This is with Toronto sun, which, if properly sited, delivers just over 2000 kWh annually from a 1 kW panel. The panels cost $9000, fully installed.

http://www.ourpower.ca/portals/default/ourpower.aspx

I can only imagine that the rate of return would be much higher in a place like Arizona. Alternately, you could offer rates lower than 40 cents and still have people climbing on board.

I don't know about Germany. On the one hand, they're paying slightly more. On the other hand they may have worse sun.

[luddite]

When ever someone would like to come to my home, install solar panels, maintain them, and just provide me with electric power (just like I get now) for 2/3 the cost that I am charged (that will be about 0.06 USD per kwh) I will give them a try out.

Until then, all the promoters who would like me to pay them $5-40,000 for the wonderful world of solar are of zero - zero interest to me.

This is a very simple business matter.
That may be possible. There are companies like Mondial Energy that do just that kind of thing:

http://www.mondial-energy.com/main.htm

Though they are so busy installing larger systems that they don't muck around much with homes, unless your house is very large.

The German and Ontario programmes pay on the kWh. They are grid-tied so you get your energy just as you would otherwise. The maintenance contract you would have to negotiate with the solar supplier, but most people don't bother. It's not high-maintenance.

It doesn't reduce your rates to 2/3, but instead you get paid a lot more than the 6 cents you pay for electricity when your panels are producing. So if you buy up enough solar panels to satisfy your energy needs, you should be seeing a serious profit on your electricity bill, which goes to cover the capital cost. If you pay off the panel in 10 years, you have another decade in the life expectancy of the panel to make some income for yourself. Large investors have no problem buying into the program in Ontario. For homeowners who are offsetting their own energy use, there is additional economic reason to invest in this sort of solar program. North American natural gas prices are expected to rise substantially, which will raise the price of peak power. In Ontario, where smart meters are being installed, we will pay through the nose for that peak as Ontario switches from coal to natural gas for peaking. So the price differential may be enormous (Gee, would I like to pay an average of 40 cents at peak or get paid the same amount?). Note that if that kind of price differential arises (which it well may if either natural gas prices quadruple like they already have in recent memory or if we start applying a carbon tax to fossil fuels), the feed-in tariff at that point ceases to be a subsidy, since it is the wholesale price of electricity at that point.

A lot of this depends on what programs are in place in your jurisdiction. My understanding is that Ontario's program is the most generous renewables program in North America, though Europe has better. Other jurisdictions might have incentives to purchase solar panels, though, or other sweeteners.

[mhaze]

I do not doubt your comments about it all depending on the government programs available.

As a matter of principle I would not engage in such a program, but someone who did could sell me kwh.

[DRBUZZ0]

Okay, here's what I found:



http://www.renewables-made-in-germany.com/en/photovoltaics/

Pity the 2006 installed numbers don't fit with the numbers in the link above. I like it when things are neat and orderly. Still, if Buzzo calculated 400 MW as 3%, then 2,500 MW is more than 18%, all in just 3 short years. That's actually pretty impressive, and rather destroys the argument that renewables can't possibly grow to provide a significant proportion of the electricity needed.

Well I looked that up, but one needs to bare in mind that solar capacity is not the same as solar energy production. You only get 400 MW on clear days and generally in the summer. In northern europe in the winter you get a few hours of semi-decent power production.

So fair enough: Solar energy could be a source of energy for peak power needs. It might be useful as a way of providing extra electricity for days when there will be heavy usage, because it tends to coincide....at a huge expense, of course.

But if you really want to reduce greenhouse gases then the "every little bit helps" approach is not going to cut it. We're producing way too much as is and the more it can be cut the better. If your ship is leaking and you want to keep it afloat, you best not concentrate your efforts on the bucket brigade. The bucket brigade may help, but only very marginally. I'd suggest you focus on getting the giant turbine pumps running and having the ships engineer evaluate the possibilities for sealing off the leaking areas of the hull or patching them.

Oh you can do the bucket brigade too and go with the "every little bit helps" mentality but I'd suggest it's not your best bet.

The question comes down to being realistic and considering that you need to go with a plan which actually has the potential of making a difference. And considering that energy demand is universally rising, you're not just in a position to replace carbon-based sources. You have to surpass them, even with conservation measures.

Hypothetically:

If you cut you send your nation into near bankruptcy, with regular energy rationing and dramatic cutbacks in quality of life, due to limitations on technologies that consume energy - and in the process reduce your emissions by 5%. This means than in 100 years the temperature has risen 6.99975 degrees. And if you manage to get all the major industrial nations in the world to do it you end up with the temperature rising only 6.99720 degrees.

If you had done nothing it would have risen 7.0000 degrees. And sea level would have risen about 6 millimeters more.

As far as I am concerned you may have well done nothing at all. At least then the economy, monetary solvency and general welfare of your citizens would not have been sacrificed. That seems like a lot to sacrifice for such a marginal change.

Right now, if all human CO2 production suddenly ceased, the world would continue to get warmer for decades. It's too late to stop it. If CO2 production were to stay at what it is, it would get much warmer. Even if industrial nations cut their CO2 by a few percent, CO2 production will continue to increase. There's really only one way to keep global warming at reasonable and managable levels: Dramatic and significant cuts in CO2 production.

[DRBUZZ0]

There's something that I ought to point out about the subsidies for the nuclear industry. As mentioned they're not that high compared to numerous other energy forms. "Renewables" get massive subsidies. Oil and gas get subsidies because they were supposed to encourage drilling and better refining to give more domestic cheap fuel (seems like they have not exactly worked too well).

The nuclear industry is just like any other made of big companies. Try taking away a subsidy and they'll throw a hissy fit and send in the lobbists and run ads and their workers will say they'll loose their jobs and so on and so on. It's no different than anything else. Companies like money. If GE, a company which makes reactors has the opertunity to use government programs to increase sales and profit will they take it? If they got similar benifits for selling a combined cycle gas turbine power system would they take it just the same? Or for that matter wind turbines?

It's easy to pork up bills with extra funding for a local industry of some congressman and it may be with the best intentions of stimulating a needed or benificial industry. But try getting rid of it once it's there. That's going to be different.

The US passed legislation to subsidize synthetic fuels from non-oil sources in the 1970's. They're still there. Are there any major synthetic refineries? No. But there are a lot of companies.. some having nothing to do with that industry, who invest in pilot projects for synthetic fuels because it's a tax shelter. There are numerous other programs like this. Railraods get subsidies for keeping "stratigic" runs of track which have not been used in decades and lie rusting on runs to factories long ago torn down. It's the nature of the beast

[luddite]

If you cut you send your nation into near bankruptcy, with regular energy rationing and dramatic cutbacks in quality of life, due to limitations on technologies that consume energy - and in the process reduce your emissions by 5%. This means than in 100 years the temperature has risen 6.99975 degrees. And if you manage to get all the major industrial nations in the world to do it you end up with the temperature rising only 6.99720 degrees.

Obviously, if I believed that, I wouldn't propose it. Countries that take emissions cuts seriously have already achieved 5% cuts or more -- Germany at 18.5% in 2006 and the UK by over 12.5%, for example.

http://www.climateactionnetwork.ca/e/cop-12/kyoto-targets-dsf-2006.pdf

And their economies are not tanking. The German economy is the 3rd strongest in the world, and the UK 5th. Their quality of life is not dramatically compromised and neither has rationing been resorted to. Germany has offered to achieve 40% reductions by 2020 if the EU commits to combined reductions of 30%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Germany is a nuclear phase-out nation. The UK hasn't added any reactors throughout the time period. They've achieved these cuts without nuclear.

And the reason is clear to me. While replacing a coal plant with a nuclear plant may seem like the more significant move, that's only because people think of it as one action. It's the same reason why I suggested utilities might prefer big power plants to a lot of dickery wind turbines scattered over the countryside. You think of it as a logistical nightmare to get all these things up, get all the permits in place, etc.

But the reality is that getting a nuclear plant up is also a logistical nightmare. The environmental assessments, the permits, the very long construction period... If you were to put in an equal amount of investment into nuclear and wind, by the time the nuclear power plant started producing electricity, wind turbines would have probably paid themselves off. More importantly, the coal plant the nuclear reactor would replace would be running full on until the reactor came online, whereas the wind turbines would have replaced the coal plant they meant to replace almost a decade earlier.

That's critical. Because it means the nuclear plant had better displace not only as much carbon as the coal plant produces, but it has to somehow make up for all the carbon that was produced during its construction period as well. It means greater and more sudden emissions reductions would be required, because it's the total carbon in the atmosphere that matters in the end, not the rate of emissions.

For this reason, all the economic projections I see for carbon emissions strategies warn that the longer we wait the worse the economic impacts will be. The Stern Report pointed out that if meaningful reductions are delayed by a decade, achieving the necessary reductions later would be far more devastating to the economy. And relying on nuclear power means effectively not putting a dent in our emissions for at least a decade.

From the Stern Report:

Paths requiring very rapid emissions cuts are unlikely to be economically viable.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/9/1/Chapter_8_The_Challenge_of_Stabilisation.pdf

Because of the short lead times for wind turbines, production can be ramped up more quickly. Think of the difference between growing rabbits and growing cows. If you buy a cow, you can only double the number of cows you own in a single year. If you buy a pregnant bunny, by the end of the year you can have hundreds. So while both nuclear and wind currently are hampered by available experts to build the things fast enough, wind can be ramped up more quickly.

And while we're on the bunny analogy, think about how fast a few small bunnies spread across Australia, whereas the lumbering cows are still in their barns. Yes, bunnies are small and individually insignificant. But they have enormous potential together.

With the projections of the IPCC getting progressively more dire, with the UN reporting that climate and other environmental stresses are now putting humanity's continued existence at stake, and with reports such as the one below suggesting that we passed the point of catastrophic climate change 4 decades ago and that our only hope now is to set upon the far more onerous task of extracting carbon from the atmosphere, the responsibility is on us to put our money on the things that will deliver cuts quickly. And that's conservation and low-impact micro-generation.

http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/Environment/article/270383
http://www.carbonequity.info/PDFs/Arctic.pdf

[DRBUZZ0]

I think you might want to look more closely at what is going on in germany. Much of the emissions cuts have come from two sources: 1. Importing electricity from france 2. The high prices have forced conservation, even where not necessarily a good thing.

The economy of Germany is okay for the moment, but the rate of energy prices rising and the amount of money which the government is funding this is very alarming. Also, there remains no actual feisable plan to phasing out nuclear power.

Phasing out nuclear energy to prevent global warming makes about as much sense as cutting down all your trees to allow more grass to grow so it can soak up CO2.

[mhaze]

Hypothetically:

If you cut you send your nation into near bankruptcy, with regular energy rationing and dramatic cutbacks in quality of life, due to limitations on technologies that consume energy - and in the process reduce your emissions by 5%. This means than in 100 years the temperature has risen 6.99975 degrees. And if you manage to get all the major industrial nations in the world to do it you end up with the temperature rising only 6.99720 degrees.

If you had done nothing it would have risen 7.0000 degrees. And sea level would have risen about 6 millimeters more.

As far as I am concerned you may have well done nothing at all. At least then the economy, monetary solvency and general welfare of your citizens would not have been sacrificed. That seems like a lot to sacrifice for such a marginal change.

Right now, if all human CO2 production suddenly ceased, the world would continue to get warmer for decades. It's too late to stop it. If CO2 production were to stay at what it is, it would get much warmer. Even if industrial nations cut their CO2 by a few percent, CO2 production will continue to increase. There's really only one way to keep global warming at reasonable and managable levels: Dramatic and significant cuts in CO2 production.

I disagree with your stated facts and conclusion on CO2 (but have no interest in derailing the thread and will not discuss the matter here) and want to make a very important associated point.

If in pursuing the goal of lowering CO2 emissions the US economy and/or that of major European nations saw gross national product nosedive, that will likely starve 10% of the world population. In the third world, and China/India, the movement of the population to the cities (50% in China in the cities now and growing) is based on industrial exports, right?

There is an exponential relationship between a 1-10% lowering of GNP in the first world and it's negative effects on the 3rd world.

Serious side effects.

[luddite]

There's something that I ought to point out about the subsidies for the nuclear industry. As mentioned they're not that high compared to numerous other energy forms. "Renewables" get massive subsidies. Oil and gas get subsidies because they were supposed to encourage drilling and better refining to give more domestic cheap fuel (seems like they have not exactly worked too well).

The nuclear industry is just like any other made of big companies. Try taking away a subsidy and they'll throw a hissy fit and send in the lobbists and run ads and their workers will say they'll loose their jobs and so on and so on. It's no different than anything else. Companies like money. If GE, a company which makes reactors has the opertunity to use government programs to increase sales and profit will they take it? If they got similar benifits for selling a combined cycle gas turbine power system would they take it just the same? Or for that matter wind turbines?

It's easy to pork up bills with extra funding for a local industry of some congressman and it may be with the best intentions of stimulating a needed or benificial industry. But try getting rid of it once it's there. That's going to be different.

The US passed legislation to subsidize synthetic fuels from non-oil sources in the 1970's. They're still there. Are there any major synthetic refineries? No. But there are a lot of companies.. some having nothing to do with that industry, who invest in pilot projects for synthetic fuels because it's a tax shelter. There are numerous other programs like this. Railraods get subsidies for keeping "stratigic" runs of track which have not been used in decades and lie rusting on runs to factories long ago torn down. It's the nature of the beast
Agreed. That's why in all countries there is a schizophrenic policy mix where policy objectives collide. I'm in no way "blaming" the nuclear industry any more than any other industry.

Addressing climate change will be very challenging and will require focused policy attention. I do not think we will succeed while maintaining subsidies to activities that contribute to emissions. So we're going to have to take the bull by the horns and insist that some subsidies just have to go. The absolutely first things to eliminate are all the subsidies to coal and tar sands oil, followed by those to conventional oil, natural gas and lumber. As to subsidies for renewables, the biggest recipient by far (at least in North America) is ethanol, which is also a waste of money, if not actively harmful. A lot of renewables subsidies actually have planned gradual phase-outs built in. I know that's the case both for Ontario SOCs and for the corresponding German renewables programme.

I'm agnostic about maintaining subsidies for nuclear and renewables. I'd like to see gradually increasing carbon taxes, and I think as carbon becomes more expensive, the low-carbon solutions will benefit without subsidies anyway.

The only reason nuclear subsidies come up is as an explanation for the current energy mix. Sources that are or have historically been heavily subsidized will be over-represented. It is also suggestive that a more level field in the future might produce a different mix.

[luddite]

I disagree with your stated facts and conclusion on CO2 (but have no interest in derailing the thread and will not discuss the matter here) and want to make a very important associated point.

If in pursuing the goal of lowering CO2 emissions the US economy and/or that of major European nations saw gross national product nosedive, that will likely starve 10% of the world population. In the third world, and China/India, the movement of the population to the cities (50% in China in the cities now and growing) is based on industrial exports, right?

There is an exponential relationship between a 1-10% lowering of GNP in the first world and it's negative effects on the 3rd world.

Serious side effects.

I know you disagree with this, but the absolutely first objective is to reduce emissions and fast. Global warming will have far more devastating effects in China/India than any economic downturn. We are anticipating the flooding of coastal cities where much of the Asian population lives. We are already seeing droughts and associated reductions in agricultural productivity attributable to global warming in China. The rivers that originate in the Tibetan plateau and feed most of Asia have been running well as Tibet melts. Eventually, they are expected to slow down substantially. China and India recognize this threat.

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/North_China_drought_highlights_need_06172007.html

[DRBUZZ0]

I suppose this comes down to a question of one's philosophy on energy use. Most plans for reducing CO2 emissions rely heavily on reducing energy usage through improved effeciency and using smaller cars, less air conditioning, less industrial.

I favor a policy where instead of using as little energy as you can scrape by with and then trying to fill that need one as the goal of having huge amounts of energy. To attempt to produce such plentiful amounts of energy without CO2 that you can use it in ways not feisable before or generally not considered "conservative."

These would include such things as nearly universal recycling of all solid waste. Anything organic, even sewage sludge can be turned into plastic or other products by thermal repolymerization. One could reduce strain on fresh water resources by desalination. Catch and recirculate fertilizer runoff. Synthasize super clean burning hydrogen rich fuels. Switch to an electricity driven transportation system with plug in hybrids that use batteries for short trips and something like methanol for longer ones. Pumping large volumes of fresh water, recycling water to 100% pure, heated sidewalks and roads that don't ice, high speed fright trains, reprocessing chemical waste and thermal treatment of contaminated soil. These are all entirely possible but just too energy intensive.

The only problem with nuclear energy is the waste, but I've seen a lot of alternative proposals. These include a gamma-neutron transmutation process tested in the 1980's, thorium-based reactors which produce less long-lived waste, spallation-based neutron sub-critical reactors for waste destruction and energy production. Photofission and neutron activation/energy amplification.

These are all universally opposed by anti-nuclear lobbies. Even fusion is totally opposed by greenpeace. Their rational: It would leave the reactor walls radioactive from neutrons. The waste produced would be tiny and not long-lived. Only when the reactor is retired would it be an issue. That doesn't matter. If a method of producing 100% effecient self-sustaining were developed tomorrow it would be opposed.

[luddite]

Good post. I understand.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on strategy for now, though I encourage you to try to convince me if you like.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I suppose this comes down to a question of one's philosophy on energy use. Most plans for reducing CO2 emissions rely heavily on reducing energy usage through improved effeciency and using smaller cars, less air conditioning, less industrial.

I favor a policy where instead of using as little energy as you can scrape by with and then trying to fill that need one as the goal of having huge amounts of energy. To attempt to produce such plentiful amounts of energy without CO2 that you can use it in ways not feisable before or generally not considered "conservative."

What a great idea! If only someone had thought of it before! All we have to do is find a way of making energy so cheap we can do whatever we want!

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. There's a finite amount of fission fuel available, it takes CO2 emitting activities to mine it, refine it and transport it, and breeder reactors would present an unacceptable risk of nuclear weapons proliferation if we built thousands more of them. Nuclear enthusiasts tried to sell this fantasy at the beginning of the nuclear age and it's still just a fantasy.


The only problem with nuclear energy is the waste, but I've seen a lot of alternative proposals. These include a gamma-neutron transmutation process tested in the 1980's, thorium-based reactors which produce less long-lived waste, spallation-based neutron sub-critical reactors for waste destruction and energy production. Photofission and neutron activation/energy amplification.

Heck, we can just get Luke Skywalker to fire it into the sun for us.

If the "only" problem with a process is that it creates dangerous waste that will outlive any existing nation/state by tens of milennia that's a pretty serious moral problem.


These are all universally opposed by anti-nuclear lobbies. Even fusion is totally opposed by greenpeace. Their rational: It would leave the reactor walls radioactive from neutrons. The waste produced would be tiny and not long-lived. Only when the reactor is retired would it be an issue. That doesn't matter. If a method of producing 100% effecient self-sustaining were developed tomorrow it would be opposed.
[/quote]

Greenpeace is irrational, hold the front page.

The main problem with fusion is that it's still decades away from a sustained break-even reaction in the lab, and even if someone got a sustained break-even reaction going tomorrow nobody has any coherent idea about how to get electricity out of it. Yay, a fusing plasma in a containment field, now what? Pour water on it and make steam to spin a turbine? That's not going to work.

I'd be thrilled if we found a free energy machine, or a functional subsitute for one (as you seem to think nuclear reactors are), but fission power plants are not it, and fusion shows no signs of being it any time soon either.

[luddite]

Kevin is right. I'm a lot more optimistic about conservation/renewables than fission for solving the current crisis, and what we think about fusion is irrelevant for now.

[Hindmost]

What a great idea! If only someone had thought of it before! All we have to do is find a way of making energy so cheap we can do whatever we want!

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. There's a finite amount of fission fuel available, it takes CO2 emitting activities to mine it, refine it and transport it, and breeder reactors would present an unacceptable risk of nuclear weapons proliferation if we built thousands more of them. Nuclear enthusiasts tried to sell this fantasy at the beginning of the nuclear age and it's still just a fantasy.



Heck, we can just get Luke Skywalker to fire it into the sun for us.

If the "only" problem with a process is that it creates dangerous waste that will outlive any existing nation/state by tens of milennia that's a pretty serious moral problem.



Greenpeace is irrational, hold the front page.

The main problem with fusion is that it's still decades away from a sustained break-even reaction in the lab, and even if someone got a sustained break-even reaction going tomorrow nobody has any coherent idea about how to get electricity out of it. Yay, a fusing plasma in a containment field, now what? Pour water on it and make steam to spin a turbine? That's not going to work.

I'd be thrilled if we found a free energy machine, or a functional subsitute for one (as you seem to think nuclear reactors are), but fission power plants are not it, and fusion shows no signs of being it any time soon either.

Every single power source on the planet releases CO2 at some point...see this link

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf100.html (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf100.html)

If you look at the graph near the bottom, nuclear power releases less CO2 over its life than all other types of power shown. Your arguement is a non-starter in this case.

There is no evidence of Nuclear Enthusiasts selling this as some sort of golden age. As stated many times by me and others, the worlds doesn't have the industrial capacity or the educated people to even come close to providing the worlds needs. It would take over 100 years to building enough plants to even think about a nuclear based society.

The idea that building breeder reactors is going to cause nuclear weapon proliferation is also a bit of a stretch. If anyone thinks it is easy to quickly steal spent fuel...transport it to some remote place, quickly design a build a weapon and then deploy it, I really don't think they are hitting on all cylinders.:rolleyes: An advantage of breeders is that they can be used to burn all the long lived transuranics that would be part of the waste problem. That would reduce the storage requirements to about 300 years. The biggest issue would be building reprocessing plants to handle the spent fuel--that is truely a nasty business.

Even back in my college days, nuclear fission was billed as a bridge to fusion power...although it looks like it won't be possible for a longtime. There is no accident issues and the waste problem is greatly reduced. And this is how you build one.

http://www.pppl.gov/fusion_basics/pages/fusion_power_plant.html

Finally, the world and it billions use over 400 quads of energy every year. The projections are for this to go up to about 600 quads in the next 30 years...renewables and conservation are not going to cut it...neither is hydrogen.

If you can pick up a copy of the sept 2006 issue of scientific american, it give a lot of info about the alternatives and issues discussed here.

glenn

[Lonewulf]

Heck, we can just get Luke Skywalker to fire it into the sun for us.
Hey, why not? And while we're at it, we can sit around being sarcastic and not contributing at all to any sort of discussion. AKA, trolling.

If the "only" problem with a process is that it creates dangerous waste that will outlive any existing nation/state by tens of milennia that's a pretty serious moral problem.

Actually, coal does that. Nuclear "waste" doesn't last that long, and if used with breeder reactors, the total amount of high priority waste would fit in a Boeing 747 (Or a similar vehicle). Radiation burns out, and the more high energy energy burns out much faster than the low yield radiation. And, I'll point out, some of this stuff from nuclear reactors considered "low yield" radiation is about as radioactive as my coffee. I can't stress this enough. Drinking coffee is drinking "low yield" waste. ;)

Everything is radioactive. The sun is radioactive. Rocks are radioactive. You are radioactive. "Radioactive" is just a term that's thrown around like it's the boogeyman. Most of it is unjustified fear.

Yes, high energy radiation is very dangerous, and even long-time exposure of higher levels of low-yield radiation can be very harmful.

However, "tens of millenia after any existing nation dies out"? C'mon, be serious. Either that, or offer some reliable data. No reliable source of radioactive half-lifes has ever put dangerous radiation levels at "tens of millenia" for lifespan.

[DRBUZZ0]

The whole "secondary greenhouse gases" thing is a complete diversion. Everyone realizes that any form of energy is going to have secondary incidentals, such as the energy needed to make the donuts for the guys who work there and the methane from the farts of the protesters in front.

The mining/transportation of uranium will produce some some CO2, as will transporting anything. Enrichment does not really produce very much by comparison to the energy derived. If you go with nuclear powered enrichment, as in france where they have made it to a completely nuclear powered system the secondary co2 costs are nill.

Of course, if you had enough nuclear energy you could then also power the mining and transportation equipment by nuclear electricity or by some ultra clean fuel like methanol.

I always thought the waste/safety issue was blown way out of proportion.

[Lonewulf]

I always thought the waste/safety issue was blown way out of proportion.
But, DUDE! It will outlive ANY NATION by TENS OF MILLENIA! I know because someone said so online!

It's the radiation monster! It's gonna eat you alive!

[DRBUZZ0]

Kevin is right. I'm a lot more optimistic about conservation/renewables than fission for solving the current crisis, and what we think about fusion is irrelevant for now.

The is no "Current crisis" the fact that right now we're in a situation where we can just barely meet our energy needs with what we have and the fact that there are more and more problems caused by that is the status quo since the start of the industrial revolution.

The constant struggle for energy and it's role as the limiting factor in human endeavor is at least part of the reason for nearly every war in the 20th century.

[DRBUZZ0]

But, DUDE! It will outlive ANY NATION by TENS OF MILLENIA! I know because someone said so online!

It's the radiation monster! It's gonna eat you alive!

Well I suppose it... kinda will... I mean, even if you reprocess it and concentrate the long-lived fission products in glass or syntherock, then in 300 years it will only be as radioactive as high concentration natural ore... which is way too much.

One thing I should also mention: NEVER eat a banana, because they contain a lot of potassium, including K-40 which has a very long half life and will be radioactive for millions of years. Since not all potassium will be absorbed with 100% effeciency some will pass through you. And thus, if you what a banana your poop will destroy the hopes and dreams of the children of a distant tomorrow.

[robinson]

Everything is radioactive. The sun is radioactive. Rocks are radioactive. You are radioactive. "Radioactive" is just a term that's thrown around like it's the boogeyman. Most of it is unjustified fear.


Nobody I know does that. We understand the difference between things like radon and sunlight and the background radiation levels. And the difference between those and dangerous radioactive waste.


Yes, high energy radiation is very dangerous, and even long-time exposure of higher levels of low-yield radiation can be very harmful.


It isn't just the problem of storing long term dangerous radioactive waste and equipment, there is also the cost of storage and monitoring, as well as cleanup from leaks, and the threat of theft.

[Schneibster]

I disagree with your stated facts and conclusion on CO2 (but have no interest in derailing the thread and will not discuss the matter here) and want to make a very important associated point. While we may disagree on global warming, I think we nearly agree on the points you raise here.

If in pursuing the goal of lowering CO2 emissions the US economy and/or that of major European nations saw gross national product nosedive, that will likely starve 10% of the world population. I suspect you are an optimist. It could be considerably more, perhaps as much as 20%.

Serious side effects.Yep, we sure agree on that.

[Lonewulf]

Nobody I know does that.
TENS OF MILLENIA AFTER TEH COLLAPSE OF NATIONS! THE HORROR! THE HORROR!

[robinson]

The wildlife around Chernobyl seems to be adapting to the radiation. I wonder how much evolution is occurring due to radioactive waste?

[Lonewulf]

The wildlife around Chernobyl seems to be adapting to the radiation.
Actually, contrary to popular opinion, the background radiation level at the majority of the Chernobyl site is next to negligable. The last figure I saw that caused people to be concerned was the "triple background radiation level"... which is equivalent to a hot summer's day.

The problem with "irradiated" soil isn't the radiation that "sticks around", but instead the nutrients that are leached and contaminated. Eating products from such a site would be harmful, but not because the radiation is sticking around -- instead, it's because of how the material has been altered itself.

As for "adapting to the radiation"... I would like to remind you that some people have stuck around the site, and Nagasaki and Hiroshima have been repopulated. ;)

I really would like to see more education as far as radiation and it's effects are concerned. As well as how nuclear plants are handled today, and how they can be handled in the future. So far, I've been seeing very little education on the subject here.

[robinson]

As far as I know, nobody is living anywhere near the contamination site. You have to get permission to even enter the area.

Meanwhile, inside the reactor ...

There has been an exciting new biological discovery inside the tomb of the Chernobyl reactor. Like out of some B-grade sci fi movie, a robot sent into the reactor discovered a thick coat of black slime growing on the walls. Since it is highly radioactive in there, scientists didn’t expect to find anything living, let alone thriving. The robot was instructed to obtain samples of the slime, which it did, and upon examination…the slime was even more amazing than was thought at first glance.

This slime, a collection of several fungi actually, was more than just surviving in a radioactive environment, it was actually using gamma radiation as a food source. Samples of these fungi grew significantly faster when exposed to gamma radiation at 500 times the normal background radiation level. The fungi appear to use melanin, a chemical found in human skin as well, in the same fashion as plants use chlorophyll. That is to say, the melanin molecule gets struck by a gamma ray and its chemistry is altered. This is an amazing discovery, no one had even suspected that something like this was possible
http://unitedcats.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/major-biological-discoveryinside-the-chernobyl-reactor/

[Lonewulf]

As far as I know, nobody is living anywhere near the contamination site. You have to get permission to even enter the area.
This took me three seconds to find on google:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,412954,00.html

Intriguing what the most basic of research can dig up.

Meanwhile, inside the reactor ...


http://unitedcats.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/major-biological-discoveryinside-the-chernobyl-reactor/

That's actually pretty interesting.

[robinson]

So are the mutant wild pigs in the area!

[Lonewulf]

So are the mutant wild pigs in the area!
Out of curiosity, I went ahead and did a search on mutant wildlife in Chernobyl.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4923342.stm

Mutation

In all his research, Sergey has only found one mouse with cancer-like symptoms.

He has found ample evidence of DNA mutations, but nothing that affected the animals' physiology or reproductive ability.

"Nothing with two heads," he says.

Mary Mycio, author of Wormwood Forest, a natural history of the Chernobyl zone, points out that a mutant animal in the wild will usually die and be eaten before scientists can observe it.

And in general, she notes, scientists study populations as a whole, and are not that interested in what happens to particular individuals.

Nuclear guardian

But she too argues that the benefits to wildlife of removing people from the zone, have far outweighed any harm from radiation.

Mouse DNA has changed, but with few visible effects
In her book she quotes the British scientist and environmentalist James Lovelock, who wrote approvingly in the Daily Telegraph in 2001 of the "unscheduled appearance" of wildlife at Chernobyl.

He went on: "I have wondered if the small volumes of nuclear waste from power production should be stored in tropical forests and other habitats in need of a reliable guardian against their destruction by greedy developers".

A large part of the Chernobyl zone within Belarus has already officially been turned into a nature reserve.

Sergey Gaschak wants Ukraine to follow suit and to turn its 2,500 sq km of evacuated land into a reserve or national park.

Unlike the Ukrainian Green Party, he is not bothered if the government goes ahead with plans to build a deep deposit in the zone for nuclear waste from all over the country.

He says the eagle owl will not care two hoots.

[luddite]

Let's not polarize this debate. The wildlife is thriving without human interference, but it's not healthy and there are mutations.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0426_060426_chernobyl.html

Moller and Mousseau have shown that certain species in the area have a higher rate of genetic abnormalities than normal.

The scientists are also concerned that the mutated birds will pass on their abnormal genes to the global population.

Mutation isn't the only adverse effect of the radiation. Working in the Red Forest area, James Morris, a USC biologist, has observed some trees with very strange twisted shapes.

The radiation, he says, is confusing the hormone signal that the trees use to determine which direction to grow.

"These trees are having a terrible time knowing which way is up," Morris said.

http://www.metafilter.com/64203/Chernobyl-wildlife-garden-of-eden

The Chernobyl exclusion zone has been mythologized as a sort of wildlife garden of eden with storks, bears, birds, wolfs, pigs etc.. taking over in the absence of man. However it turns out the reports are anecdotal, there have been no formal scientific studies - until now. According to this study of birds, both the number of species and abundance of individuals declined with increasing radiation levels. For example, the most contaminated sites had about two-thirds fewer birds than those with normal levels of radiation. Chernobyl is far from a wildlife paradise, “This was a big surprise to us,” biologist Dr. Mousseau of the University of South Carolina said. “We had no idea of the impact.”

There is a paucity of studies from the area, a comment made repeatedly in my web searches. People may observe that wildlife returns when humans leave, but unsurprisingly, the biologists are not lining up to study just what this wildlife is like. The names Gaschak, Mousseau and Morris come up repeatedly in Chernobyl studies. And the article Lonewulf sent is a mixed bag, pointing out that badly mutated animals wouldn't tend to survive, and would get eaten quickly. It also points to stunted trees and recognized high rates of measured mutation.

I think the implication for humans suggests it's not an area you want to be in. They are anticipating the onset of leukemias. We may not care if large numbers of newborn mice are mutated or sickly, and the mouse population as a whole may be unaffected, but you wouldn't want to see that kind of illness in your own child. It would not be reassuring that other children seem to do okay.

[Lonewulf]

Except that the people living in that area have no known problems. The problem isn't living in the area, it's eating the local fauna or flora. That's the way the Bad Things (tm) in Chernobyl reach you.

And yes, let's not polarize the debate. The whole Chernobyl thing is a red herring anyways. Chernobyl just ain't gonna happen again. And yes, I'm confident in saying that. You can say that "hypothetically", it may, "someday", with "evil future companies" happen again, but... sorry. I just don't see it happening.

The facts are pretty simple:

1) Nuclear waste is overrated in it's harm (IT'LL MUTATE YOU INTO THREE EYED MUTANTS FOR TENS OF MILLENIA! THE HORROR!)

2) Low yield radiation is overrated (MY COFFEE IS A RADIATION HAZARD! THE HORROR!)

3) The waste from coal is far worse than nuclear waste.

4) The amount of high yield waste, when combined with use of breeder reactors, is also overrated. (The total amount of waste in a meaningful amount of time can fit in an airplane).

So yeah. I'm not as concerned as the people that throw their arms up and shout out, "THE HORROR! THE HORROR!"

[Kevin_Lowe]

Hey, why not? And while we're at it, we can sit around being sarcastic and not contributing at all to any sort of discussion. AKA, trolling.


I think you missed my point. Dr Buzzo's talk of fission-related science fiction technologies might as well have been talk of Luke Skywalker. Unless it actually works here and now it's no good to us. If we get to invoke science fiction technologies then renewable scifi technologies get a guernsey too, and where is that discussion going to get us?


Actually, coal does that. Nuclear "waste" doesn't last that long, and if used with breeder reactors, the total amount of high priority waste would fit in a Boeing 747 (Or a similar vehicle). Radiation burns out, and the more high energy energy burns out much faster than the low yield radiation. And, I'll point out, some of this stuff from nuclear reactors considered "low yield" radiation is about as radioactive as my coffee. I can't stress this enough. Drinking coffee is drinking "low yield" waste. ;)

Everything is radioactive. The sun is radioactive. Rocks are radioactive. You are radioactive. "Radioactive" is just a term that's thrown around like it's the boogeyman. Most of it is unjustified fear.

Yes, high energy radiation is very dangerous, and even long-time exposure of higher levels of low-yield radiation can be very harmful.

However, "tens of millenia after any existing nation dies out"? C'mon, be serious. Either that, or offer some reliable data. No reliable source of radioactive half-lifes has ever put dangerous radiation levels at "tens of millenia" for lifespan.

I'm quite familiar with the physics and chemistry of radioactivity. Not enough to pass a university exam on it with what I know right now, but enough to know flannel when I hear it.

Spent fission reactor fuel contains U-234 (half-life 246000 years), Pu-238 (half-life 88 years then it turns into the aforementioned U-234) and Am-241 (half-life 432 years). Make a big pile of that stuff and it will be a serious health hazard for longer than any human political system has ever endured, by at least a couple of orders of magnitude. Just to get the americium to safe levels will take a containment system built to outlast the probable lifespan of the USA as we know it. Getting the U-234 to safe levels will take a containment system that will far outlast the pyramids.

I have no idea where you get the idea that "No reliable source of radioactive half-lifes has ever put dangerous radiation levels at "tens of millenia" for lifespan". Probably you got it from the same source that told you coffee was radioactive waste. Put it this way: if your pile of spent fuel rods is dangerous today, it will be dangerous in 100 000 years quite comfortably.

[luddite]

Nuclear waste is overrated in it's harm (IT'LL MUTATE YOU INTO THREE EYED MUTANTS FOR TENS OF MILLENIA! THE HORROR!)

The rhetoric here is getting out of hand. I know dozens of people who lived in the area and still can't talk about Chernobyl without weeping. I have friends in Kiev whose daughters have unusual ovarian abnormalities. One pointed out that in her daughter's class at least 6 girls have reproductive dysfunctions that she's aware of. There may be more. Of course this isn't statistically significant, but it is suggestive.

I know a lot of the radiation descended on Belarus. Here's an article that says they've got a 40% increase in cancer rates. No, they're not horrible three-eyed mutants. Just people like you and me who are dying of cancer. Or watching their families suffer.

http://www.llrc.org/belarusokeanov.htm

3) The waste from coal is far worse than nuclear waste.

No it's not. Coal waste does not have to spend months or years in spent fuel pools because it would kill anyone who got near it. Coal plants are not entombed. Coal is dangerous because it is routinely released onto the public. But if it were as dangerous as nuclear waste, we wouldn't just be dumping it.

Lonewulf, your assessment of the dangers from nuclear power is disconcerting. One moment you're saying that Chernobyl will never happen again, the next you're saying it's not so bad. It's a lot like the lawyer who argues "My client did not commit this murder and besides he did it in self-defense".

Unfortunately, if people think it's not so bad, they're not likely to take the proper precautions. And I'm no expert but the reports I've heard do not leave room for a lot of confidence - cracked vessels, leaky steam tubes, vessels corroded to within a millimetre of rupture, faulty alarm systems, insufficient backup power, lack of proper safety procedures.

Either we treat past accidents with the respect they deserve, solemnly swear it will never happen again and act accordingly or we acknowledge that the risk of human stupidity and carelessness continues to be high.

[Lonewulf]

Lonewulf, your assessment of the dangers from nuclear power is disconcerting. One moment you're saying that Chernobyl will never happen again, the next you're saying it's not so bad. It's a lot like the lawyer who argues "My client did not commit this murder and besides he did it in self-defense".
So I'm supposed to say that Chernobyl was worse than I really think it is? Isn't that being dishonest?

You aren't making a logical argument here.

I'm quite familiar with the physics and chemistry of radioactivity. Not enough to pass a university exam on it with what I know right now, but enough to know flannel when I hear it.

Spent fission reactor fuel contains U-234 (half-life 246000 years), Pu-238 (half-life 88 years then it turns into the aforementioned U-234) and Am-241 (half-life 432 years). Make a big pile of that stuff and it will be a serious health hazard for longer than any human political system has ever endured, by at least a couple of orders of magnitude. Just to get the americium to safe levels will take a containment system built to outlast the probable lifespan of the USA as we know it. Getting the U-234 to safe levels will take a containment system that will far outlast the pyramids.

I have no idea where you get the idea that "No reliable source of radioactive half-lifes has ever put dangerous radiation levels at "tens of millenia" for lifespan". Probably you got it from the same source that told you coffee was radioactive waste. Put it this way: if your pile of spent fuel rods is dangerous today, it will be dangerous in 100 000 years quite comfortably.

If you say so. ;)

[Kevin_Lowe]

Every single power source on the planet releases CO2 at some point...see this link

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf100.html (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf100.html)

If you look at the graph near the bottom, nuclear power releases less CO2 over its life than all other types of power shown. Your arguement is a non-starter in this case.

My understanding is that nuclear fission results in the least CO2 emissions per kW-hr, assuming its fuel comes from uranium deposits just like the ones we are mining now, which will be good for several more decades at current rates of use. After that we will have to start using less rich sites to get uranium, and the rate of CO2 emission starts going way up.

If we indulged Dr Buzzo's fantasy of nuclear reactors dotting the landscape, we'd be getting into the poorer deposits in a matter of one or two decades and at that point the major appeal of nuclear fission just vanishes.

The idea that building breeder reactors is going to cause nuclear weapon proliferation is also a bit of a stretch. If anyone thinks it is easy to quickly steal spent fuel...transport it to some remote place, quickly design a build a weapon and then deploy it, I really don't think they are hitting on all cylinders.:rolleyes:

Nuke that straw man until it glows. :rolleyes:

The proliferation risk comes from many nations who do not currently have nuclear weapons having a nice fat breeder reactor, and having to worry about what everybody else is doing with their breeder reactors. Every nation that has gone nuclear since the nuclear non-proliferation treaties were signed did so by running a civilian nuclear program and building nukes under the table, and if you give every second country breeder reactors it's just going to happen some more.

Yes, it's also conceivable that as a result of many more nations having a nuclear stockpile that one or more nukes could go astray and end up in the hands of terrorist groups, which is the scenario you seem to be worried about. I think it's a remote risk, but it's not going to make the world any safer to have more countries with nuclear weapons.

The nuclear choices are simple fission reactors, which the world does not have enough uranium to supply in the long term if we build too many more, or breeder reactors which are a recipe for further nuclear proliferation. Those are pretty unappealing choices to my mind. Whereas renewables might cost more, but they'll work for as long as the world keeps turning and you can't start a nuclear war with them.

[Lonewulf]

If we indulged Dr Buzzo's fantasy of nuclear reactors dotting the landscape, we'd be getting into the poorer deposits in a matter of one or two decades and at that point the major appeal of nuclear fission just vanishes
Right, and poorer deposits of coal is a MUCH better option.

[luddite]

Right, and poorer deposits of coal is a MUCH better option.
Nobody said that.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Give Lonewulf a break. At least he's not sitting around being sarcastic and not contributing at all to any sort of discussion. AKA, trolling.

[Lonewulf]

Give Lonewulf a break. At least he's not sitting around being sarcastic and not contributing at all to any sort of discussion. AKA, trolling.
Indeed. ;)

So, Kevin, since you know so much...

Let's say that we don't follow through with Dr. Buzz0's fantasy of dotting the landscape with fission reactors. What is your solution?

Do we stick with coal as our main source of energy? Would that be better? Or do we start setting up renewables, enough to take up the slack?

If the latter, then what's the cost? What's the subsidies? Everything I've seen has put it as much higher in cost than nuclear power. Everything I've seen has shown that nuclear waste is overstated in danger (but if you really want to prove me wrong, then go ahead. I'm not going to believe you just because you say it is). You want to keep talking about "secondary" CO2 emissions, then fine. Demonstrate how nuclear emissions are so much higher than solar or wind mill production.

Convince me.

[luddite]

So I'm supposed to say that Chernobyl was worse than I really think it is? Isn't that being dishonest?

the people living in that area have no known problems

If people don't perceive a problem, I have low confidence that we'll be successful in preventing a similar accident in the future.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Indeed. ;)

So, Kevin, since you know so much...

Let's say that we don't follow through with Dr. Buzz0's fantasy of dotting the landscape with fission reactors. What is your solution?

Do we stick with coal as our main source of energy? Would that be better? Or do we start setting up renewables, enough to take up the slack?

I think that has to be the way we go, barring a convenient technological development that changes the energy landscape significantly. We ought to cut down on our CO2 emissions significantly even if it slows global economic growth somewhat, and I don't think nukes are an acceptable solution, so that leaves renewables.


If the latter, then what's the cost? What's the subsidies? Everything I've seen has put it as much higher in cost than nuclear power.


Sure, but even if we are generous and allow nuclear fission another hundred years of good times at the current rate of use, that's not a long-term solution to our greenhouse gas problem. There just isn't enough high-grade ore to solve the problem, and breeder reactors are a bad idea for proliferation reasons.

The only way out is to tighten our belts a bit and go with renewables.


Everything I've seen has shown that nuclear waste is overstated in danger (but if you really want to prove me wrong, then go ahead. I'm not going to believe you just because you say it is). You want to keep talking about "secondary" CO2 emissions, then fine. Demonstrate how nuclear emissions are so much higher than solar or wind mill production.

Convince me.

We did this before. You made wild claims, when you were challenged on them you got difficult, and then a post or three later you tried to dump the burden of proof on me.

I have no idea what you mean by "overstated" in concrete terms. Who overstated it, and what did they overstate it to be? I've given you the physics already - nuclear fission waste contains radioactive contents with half-lives in the hundreds of years and hundreds of thousands of years. If it's not safe now it's not going to be safe in a thousand years. It's not going to leak out and destroy the world or spawn Godzilla, but if you are advocating making more of that stuff you should be advocating a plan to store that waste in such a way that it's not going to hurt anybody in the next few hundred thousand years. Yes, even if you could fit all of it on a plane or whatever other factoid is supposed to be reassuring. Figure out a way of making that plane stay up for a few hundred thousand years and I'll feel reassured.

[Lonewulf]

If people don't perceive a problem, I have low confidence that we'll be successful in preventing a similar accident in the future.
Sorry, but considering that modern building techniques don't allow for it, I don't agree.

I don't believe in being dishonest just to prevent some hypothetical future accident.

As for the people currently living there, I point you once more to here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,412954,00.html

That has more to do with the long-term affects of living in the general area (assumedly without eating the vegetation or animals that were irradiated).

As for the number of people actually affected by Chernobyl shortly after the accident, that's a bit more concrete. As for people affected by longer-term effects of radiation, figures tend to fluctuate depending on who you speak to.

[Lonewulf]

I think that has to be the way we go, barring a convenient technological development that changes the energy landscape significantly. We ought to cut down on our CO2 emissions significantly even if it slows global economic growth somewhat, and I don't think nukes are an acceptable solution, so that leaves renewables.
Hm, and I don't think that renewables are an acceptable solution on that wide a scale thanks to economic costs, so for me, that leaves nukes.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Sure, but even if we are generous and allow nuclear fission another hundred years of good times at the current rate of use, that's not a long-term solution to our greenhouse gas problem. There just isn't enough high-grade ore to solve the problem, and breeder reactors are a bad idea for proliferation reasons.
I'm not quite as scared over proliferation.

The only way out is to tighten our belts a bit and go with renewables.
In your perception, yes.

We did this before. You made wild claims, when you were challenged on them you got difficult, and then a post or three later you tried to dump the burden of proof on me.
"Wild claims" usually being anything that you happen to disagree with, right?

I have no idea what you mean by "overstated" in concrete terms. Who overstated it, and what did they overstate it to be? I've given you the physics already - nuclear fission waste contains radioactive contents with half-lives in the hundreds of years and hundreds of thousands of years.
Except that one half life does not equal another. Radiation levels tend to differentiate, and the higher a level there is, the less long it tends to actually last.

http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/sci/decay.html

This has important implications for handling radioactive material. If the isotope is very radioactive, it will of course be dangerous if not shielded properly. However, it will also more quickly disappear. For example, in the case of oxygen-15, the high radioactivity makes it a short term hazard, but after just half an hour, there is less than 2.5% of the original sample left. By contrast, an isotope with a long half-life such as uranium-238, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years, will hang around for ages of the universe, but it will also spend that time being only very weakly radioactive and so not much of a hazard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_Decay#Radioactive_decay_rates

It's true of many things in physics; the higher the energy in something, the faster it tends to bleed itself out. The hotter the sun, the faster it ends up using it's fuel. ;)

If it's not safe now it's not going to be safe in a thousand years. It's not going to leak out and destroy the world or spawn Godzilla, but if you are advocating making more of that stuff you should be advocating a plan to store that waste in such a way that it's not going to hurt anybody in the next few hundred thousand years.
Sure, and I advocate that. I don't think that, with the proper facilities in place, that there will be much waste to handle. As I said before, a lot of a low-level waste (I'm talking about secondary irradiated material, such as gloves, suits, etc.) are overstated in their danger, but not necessarily all of it.

We build a bunker and seal the stuff. Considering that from what I've seen, it's not much to seal, I think that's a-ok.

Yes, even if you could fit all of it on a plane or whatever other factoid is supposed to be reassuring.
If you disagree with what I said involving nuclear waste fitting inside of a plane, do you have anything to contradict that?

I'd also note that that's a very small plot of land to be worried about, even if it was unshielded. If you had to shield it... big deal. Seal it in concrete, and re-fill it every once in a while. I don't see how it's quite impossible.

Figure out a way of making that plane stay up for a few hundred thousand years and I'll feel reassured.
With or without any maintenance?

With or without high energy radiation sources?

[DRBUZZ0]

TENS OF MILLENIA AFTER TEH COLLAPSE OF NATIONS! THE HORROR! THE HORROR!

Well if you want to be technical about it... you can look at the components of waste. You have stuff like plutonium and other heavy elements. Those are relatively easy to deal with because you can use those as MOX fuel in a standard reactor or simply put them around a fast neutron core and there ya go, because they'll fission no problem.

Then you have fission products. Of these most are short lived. Wait a few years and they're just about all gone. What you are left with is less than 10% of the fission products produced. Of these you have some with are radioactive enough to be of concern as a real danger. These would be things like Sr-90 or Cs-137. They're radioactive enough to cause a lot of harm because they're short lived enough to be highly radioactive but long lived enough to be beyond the time you would just hang on to the stuff in a spent fuel pool.

Those have a half life of about 30 years (IIRC it's 30 for Cs-137 and 28 for Sr-90... I may have those mixed up though). Anyways... you use the 10/1000 rule of thumb (which is really 1024) and you find that in 300 years you have less then .1 percent of them remaining. Working out the concentrations you'll end up finding out that the amount which remains in the glassified waste is enough to make it about as radiotoxic as numerous naturally occuring minerals with uranium and/or thorium.

The other things are the really long-lived fission products like I-129. These end up being about as radioactive as natural stuff so if they're well contained in synthetic rock or something similar you end up being not really more dangerous than natural stuff.

In other words, if you put the remaining fission biporducts in a stable form, you have to account for it not coming out of suspension, making its way to the surface and being eaten in the time span of a 300 years or so. After that it's no more harmful than many rocks. And even before that it's not that much more harmful than many rocks. 300 years is not really a long period of time in the geological sense.

The are other ways of dealing with it as well. The Russians demonstrated that long-lived byproducts have a high enough high energy neutron cross section that if the fuel is burned in a fast neutron reactor then they will be signifficantly reduced, possibly to almost zero.

Sr-90, Cs-137 and a few others (Pm-145, Cs-135) are considered generally to not be worth the effort to try to use neutron bombardment on them. They have a low absorbtion cross section. You *could* destroy them if you were willing to accept low effeciency and a need for lots of high energy neutrons. But generally the fact that these are significantly reduced in less than a century is considered reason enough not to go to all the unnecessary effort of trying to transmutate them.

Then again, in the 1990's there was a process that could treat the fuel entirely and without processing using a high energy accelerator. It would induce neutron release by gamma bombardment of the material. It also could produce surplus energy by prompt decay and effectively no waste. The only problem is that because the energy has to be so high it has a low chance of striking an atom unless you have a lot of them. By concequence, such a plant would need to be large and process a lot of spent fuel at a time to get energy back and do it effeciently. As such you'd need to build one that would burn several tons of the stuff at once and you need to rotate it though. Thus, you'd be looking at a couple billion dollars for a plant that could destroy 1/3 of the US spent fuel in a period of ten years while producing a theoretical surplus of about 750 megawatts in electricity. Apparently it's just too much money for something never demonstrated full scale and also the permiting would be a nightmate... so intrest died a long time ago.

[Schneibster]

I think that has to be the way we go, barring a convenient technological development that changes the energy landscape significantly. We ought to cut down on our CO2 emissions significantly even if it slows global economic growth somewhat, and I don't think nukes are an acceptable solution, so that leaves renewables.You don't think nuclear energy is an acceptable solution because of
1. the waste problem
2. the supposed difficulty of obtaining fuel
Do you have any other reasons?

The only way out is to tighten our belts a bit and go with renewables."A bit?" Have you been reading the same thread I have? There isn't any "a bit" if all we do is renewables. It's "a lot," and about a billion people starve to death. This has been repeated, and not refuted. Either you read and respond to what other people write, or you're just spewing some ideological position that has nothing to do with reality. What do you think all those people in the middle of India and China are going to eat, and what do you think the people running those countries, which have nuclear weapons at their disposal, are going to do with they start to starve?

We did this before. You made wild claims, when you were challenged on them you got difficult, and then a post or three later you tried to dump the burden of proof on me.That wasn't what I saw. What I saw was, you didn't have any answers to his claims, and you started logic chopping and reasserting the same thing you already had, despite the fact it had been refuted.

I have no idea what you mean by "overstated" in concrete terms. Who overstated it, and what did they overstate it to be? I've given you the physics already - nuclear fission waste contains radioactive contents with half-lives in the hundreds of years and hundreds of thousands of years. If it's not safe now it's not going to be safe in a thousand years. Something that lasts twice as long is half as "hot." Something that lasts ten times as long is only a tenth as "hot." What physics were you talking about, again? I guess I'm not clear on where you got physics that claims that something that has a ten thousand year half-life is as dangerous as something with a hundred year half-life, or even a thousandth as dangerous.

[Lonewulf]

You don't think nuclear energy is an acceptable solution because of
1. the waste problem
2. the supposed difficulty of obtaining fuel
Do you have any other reasons?
Don't forget nuclear weapon proliferation.

"A bit?" Have you been reading the same thread I have? There isn't any "a bit" if all we do is renewables. It's "a lot," and about a billion people starve to death. This has been repeated, and not refuted. Either you read and respond to what other people write, or you're just spewing some ideological position that has nothing to do with reality. What do you think all those people in the middle of India and China are going to eat, and what do you think the people running those countries, which have nuclear weapons at their disposal, are going to do with they start to starve?

That wasn't what I saw. What I saw was, you didn't have any answers to his claims, and you started logic chopping and reasserting the same thing you already had, despite the fact it had been refuted.

Something that lasts twice as long is half as "hot." Something that lasts ten times as long is only a tenth as "hot." What physics were you talking about, again? I guess I'm not clear on where you got physics that claims that something that has a ten thousand year half-life is as dangerous as something with a hundred year half-life, or even a thousandth as dangerous.
Thank you, Schneibster. As always, very articulate. You said pretty much what I was trying to say. :)

[Kevin_Lowe]

You don't think nuclear energy is an acceptable solution because of
1. the waste problem
2. the supposed difficulty of obtaining fuel
Do you have any other reasons?

A third is that for nations who do not already have an established nuclear industry, creating one from scratch requires an enormous investment. For nations with an established nuclear industry it's "just" those two.


"A bit?" Have you been reading the same thread I have? There isn't any "a bit" if all we do is renewables. It's "a lot," and about a billion people starve to death. This has been repeated, and not refuted.


Possibly that is because it's too silly a claim to address seriously, no matter how often it is repeated?


Either you read and respond to what other people write, or you're just spewing some ideological position that has nothing to do with reality. What do you think all those people in the middle of India and China are going to eat, and what do you think the people running those countries, which have nuclear weapons at their disposal, are going to do with they start to starve?

We could feed them Chicken Little. I think that would solve two problems at once.


That wasn't what I saw. What I saw was, you didn't have any answers to his claims, and you started logic chopping and reasserting the same thing you already had, despite the fact it had been refuted.

You are welcome to your own opinion. I see no basis in reality for it, but I can't stop you holding it.


Something that lasts twice as long is half as "hot." Something that lasts ten times as long is only a tenth as "hot." What physics were you talking about, again? I guess I'm not clear on where you got physics that claims that something that has a ten thousand year half-life is as dangerous as something with a hundred year half-life, or even a thousandth as dangerous.

I guess I'm not clear on who said that it was. Perchance it is a straw man?

Schneibster, exactly what do you think is dangerous about a stockpile of used fuel rods containing U-234? I'm getting the impression that you and Lonewulf don't actually have any clear idea about the matter beyond the vague and cosy impression that the danger is mostly imaginary.

[Lonewulf]

"A bit?" Have you been reading the same thread I have? There isn't any "a bit" if all we do is renewables. It's "a lot," and about a billion people starve to death. This has been repeated, and not refuted.
Possibly that is because it's too silly a claim to address seriously, no matter how often it is repeated?

I'm not quite sure why it's such a "silly" claim. Even the most conservative estimates per kw/h of electric energy for solar puts it at a much higher price than nuclear estimates.

Perhaps you could explain for us dunces that haven't had a chance for you to grace us with your eminent wisdom?

[DRBUZZ0]

You don't think nuclear energy is an acceptable solution because of
1. the waste problem


There is indeed a problem with the waste because the plant operators are required to store it and then it has to be reprocessed, sealed and buried or otherwise delt with.

It's significantly easier when dealing with coal. Then you don't need to have waste storage. You simply belch the filth into the atmosphere and then it gets disposed of into the ocean and the lungs of the population...

Also theres that toxic fly ash. But you can just throw that wherever...


2. the supposed difficulty of obtaining fuel


Do we honestly need to start the fuel thing again? If the mines currently in operation stayed in operation then we have at least 30 years of uranium. Throw in reprocessing and you double that. Throw in opening new mines in known deposits and you increase that ten fold. Throw in thorium breeding and you increase it about 300 fold.

Yes, at the rate we are going we do not have enough uranium in KNOWN deposits to last more than a few million years.... we will need to think of something by then...


Something that lasts twice as long is half as "hot." Something that lasts ten times as long is only a tenth as "hot." What physics were you talking about, again? I guess I'm not clear on where you got physics that claims that something that has a ten thousand year half-life is as dangerous as something with a hundred year half-life, or even a thousandth as dangerous.

Correct. For example I-129 which has a half life of 16.7 million years and a fission yeild of 0.6% is so low in radioactivity it's not always even accounted for in terms of radioactive waste products. It is considerably less dangerous than potassium-40 which occurs in nature at about the same concentration in potassium mineral deposits as i-129 does in nuclear waste.


As far as renewables... Texas has built more windmills in the last ten years than any other state in the US and it's wind program is the second largest of any government entity behind denmark. They are also building coal plants. Simply put, they cannot build windmills fast enough to keep up with demand, let alone begin to replace other power sources.

Denmark is only country that has had any success with wind power as a baseload source. That's partially because they import power from a larger grid and also because they have unusually good conditions for it (large coast line and strong sustained offshore winds)...

In germany they are trying to shut down all the reactors in the next 20 years due to the dogma of the parties in power. They have not made such a commitment to coal plants.

This is one thing I don't get: It's almost unfathomable how truely filthy and absolutely destructive coal is in every stage of the process of mining and burning. It's nearly pure carbon with a sulphur and heavy metals thrown in. It's difficult to imaging anything more filthy. Even "clean coal" is only scrubbed of some of the substances. No reduction in co2 at all. You get three tons of co2 for roughly one ton of coal burned.

If they want to shut down reactors they should still make coal a priority. ONLY after every coal plant has been replaced with a renewable source should doing the same with nuclear plants even become an option. Making the priority "We will shut down the nuclear plants by conservation and renewable sources. Then down the road we'll try to reduce coal too" that's idiotic. The damage from coal is indisputable.

It's not surprising. Germany has a history of electing dogmatic parties which blame all the problems on some scape goat. Yes yes "The nukes have come to the fatherland and are polluting the purity of our beloved country. We must expel the nukes. We will isolate and concentrate the nukes and then we will be able to move forward for a future of purity of Germany. HAIL SOLAR!"

If I were France, a country with ample electricity, I would be terrified right now.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'm not quite sure why it's such a "silly" claim. Even the most conservative estimates per kw/h of electric energy for solar puts it at a much higher price than nuclear estimates.

Perhaps you could explain for us dunces that haven't had a chance for you to grace us with your eminent wisdom?

Suppose for the sake of argument I agreed that even the most conservative estimates per kw/h of electric energy for solar puts it at a much higher price than nuclear estimates.

How do you get from there to reasonable certainty that any attempted transition to mostly renewable energy sources will lead inevitably to a billion deaths and nuclear war? It's not my job to disprove this ridiculous bit of divination, it's your job or Schneibster's to prove it.

I'm really getting the feeling I'm dealing with a religious movement here, with nuclear power as the shining light of global salvation, and famine and nuclear war awaiting as the hell for sinners who do not build the appropriate number of fast breeder temples. If you can't see that this apocalyptic mythology is silly at first glance, and you honestly have to ask someone to explain to you why it's silly, then I don't think I'm dealing with a position you were reasoned in to. As they say, you can't reason someone out of a position they were not reasoned in to in the first place.

[Lonewulf]

I'm really getting the feeling I'm dealing with a religious movement here, with nuclear power as the shining light of global salvation, and famine and nuclear war awaiting as the hell for sinners who do not build the appropriate number of fast breeder temples.
Ditto the "solar power" converters with nuclear waste and war being the hell for those that don't accept the salvation of newables.

If you can't see that this apocalyptic mythology is silly at first glance, and you honestly have to ask someone to explain to you why it's silly, then I don't think I'm dealing with a position you were reasoned in to. As they say, you can't reason someone out of a position they were not reasoned in to in the first place

Just out of curiosity:

Do you believe that money comes out of thin air? Real question.

Who would fund all of this renewable energy in all of these countries?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Ditto the "solar power" converters with nuclear waste and war being the hell for those that don't accept the salvation of newables.


The difference, I think, being that we know nuclear waste will actually be the result of nuclear power, and we know what nuclear waste does (or I do anyway, I'm waiting for you and Schneibster to step up on that point). Similarly nuclear proliferation has been a slow-burning problem for some time now and the assumption that it would accelerate if more nations had breeder reactors is based on historical experience.

Whereas the claim that the sky would fall if we tried to move to renewables appears to have come from a crystal ball resembling someone's backside.


Just out of curiosity:

Do you believe that money comes out of thin air? Real question.

Who would fund all of this renewable energy in all of these countries?

The same people who fund vast armies, wars, space shuttles, bridges, roads, the Olympic games, dams, and all the other expensive things we can and do get up to nowadays.

A transition to renewable energy supplies would be something we spend money on, certainly. It would not, in your amusing turn of phrase, come out of thin air.

Now I have been nice and I have answered your questions. Will you now stop avoidng mine?

What is the basis for fixing the belief that a transition to renewables will cause a billion or so deaths? What do you think is dangerous about a stockpile of used fuel rods containing U-234?

[Lonewulf]

The billion or so deaths really wasn't my claim, so I'll let Schneibster handle that. However, as to the stockpile of used fuel rods containing U-234, I'm not really sure what you're looking for here.

U-234 is an Alpha emitter, which means that it emits mainly alpha waves. I could go into technical specifics here, but that's really not my MO. The main danger with alpha waves is if it's ingested; they aren't powerful enough even to penetrate the surface of your skin. If left in the open around where you're growing some crops, that's a bad thing. But I don't quite see any evidence that they are particularly hard to seal.

Because they are heavy and charged, alpha particles tend to have a very short mean free path, and therefore lose their kinetic energy within a short distance of their source. This can result in several MeV being deposited in a relatively small area. If they penetrate live tissue, this can cause significant cellular damage. Generally, external alpha radiation is not harmful because alpha particles are completely absorbed by a few centimeters of air. Even touching an alpha source is usually not harmful; the thin layer of dead skin cells in the outermost layer of the skin will absorb them. However, if a substance radiating alpha particles is ingested, inhaled by, injected into, or introduced through the skin (shrapnel, corrosive chemicals) into an organism it may result in a high dose to that area.

Radon is a naturally occurring, radioactive gas found in soil, rock, and sometimes groundwater. When radon gas is inhaled, some of the radon particles stick to the inner lining of the lung. The particles that remain continue to decay over time, emitting alpha particles which may damage cells in the lung tissue.[2]. The death of Marie Curie at age 66 from leukemia was likely caused by prolonged exposure to high doses of ionizing radiation. Curie worked extensively with Radium, which decays into Radon[3], along with other radioactive materials that emit beta and gamma rays. Shrapnel deposited in the body from depleted uranium poses another such internal risk of alpha particle radiation dose.

The 2006 assassination of Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko is thought to have been caused by poisoning with Polonium-210, an alpha emitter.

Yeah, it's not perfectly safe, but not insurmountably difficult to store. I don't see how it's much more dangerous than heavy metals or mercury.

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

Americium-241 is used in smoke detectors. The alpha particles ionize air between a small gap, leading to a small current that can be easily interrupted by smoke particles.

Careful, you got radiation in your smoke detectors! :o

[DRBUZZ0]

I still have not gotten a satisfactory answer to the problem of poop from banana eaters destroying the hopes and dreams of the children of tomorrow. Bananas and substitute salt are both absolutely intolerable and only marginally better than Brazil nuts. If you eat these your poo needs to be put in lead canisters and shot into space. Even if you do not, these items need to be put into lead canisters and shot into space off of the orbital plane.

The fact that we will be poluting outer space with out bananas is regreatable but what else can we do? We'll just have to hope that they don't ruin the hopes and dreams of any alien species.

The problem is those damn cosmic rays keep creating more potassium-40 along with other evil poisons like carbon 14. What we need to do is build a shield around the world. We should build it out of lead... and asbestos too... and maybe some dioxin ontop of that... to block out these cosmic rays to help eliminate the evil isotopes from the world.

[Hindmost]

My understanding is that nuclear fission results in the least CO2 emissions per kW-hr, assuming its fuel comes from uranium deposits just like the ones we are mining now, which will be good for several more decades at current rates of use. After that we will have to start using less rich sites to get uranium, and the rate of CO2 emission starts going way up.

If we indulged Dr Buzzo's fantasy of nuclear reactors dotting the landscape, we'd be getting into the poorer deposits in a matter of one or two decades and at that point the major appeal of nuclear fission just vanishes.

The rate of CO2 emission will increase, but not go way up. The amount of uranium ore that is needed to fuel plants is just not that big--especially when compared to other sources of energy.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/ This is an MIT study that is very comprehensive on the overall subject.



Nuke that straw man until it glows. :rolleyes:

The proliferation risk comes from many nations who do not currently have nuclear weapons having a nice fat breeder reactor, and having to worry about what everybody else is doing with their breeder reactors. Every nation that has gone nuclear since the nuclear non-proliferation treaties were signed did so by running a civilian nuclear program and building nukes under the table, and if you give every second country breeder reactors it's just going to happen some more.

Yes, it's also conceivable that as a result of many more nations having a nuclear stockpile that one or more nukes could go astray and end up in the hands of terrorist groups, which is the scenario you seem to be worried about. I think it's a remote risk, but it's not going to make the world any safer to have more countries with nuclear weapons.

The nuclear choices are simple fission reactors, which the world does not have enough uranium to supply in the long term if we build too many more, or breeder reactors which are a recipe for further nuclear proliferation. Those are pretty unappealing choices to my mind. Whereas renewables might cost more, but they'll work for as long as the world keeps turning and you can't start a nuclear war with them.

You indicated you were worried about nuclear proliferation if we built 1000 breeders...this is significantly different from what you posted here. Since we already have nuclear weapons and a fair amount of Pu, the point is moot unless you expect terrorists to be stealing our fuel after it comes out of a reactor. If breeders are built in the US and other nations with nuclear weapons, it won't have any effect on other nations starting up their own program with the possible exception of using up the uranium before other nations get their hands on it...so, my arguement is not a strawman.

The MIT study indicates there is sufficient uranium to fuel reactors and increase capacity for the next 40-50 years. That should be enough to get fusion going.

glenn

[RecoveringYuppy]

Spent fission reactor fuel contains U-234 (half-life 246000 years), Pu-238 (half-life 88 years then it turns into the aforementioned U-234) and Am-241 (half-life 432 years). Make a big pile of that stuff and it will be a serious health hazard for longer than any human political system has ever endured, by at least a couple of orders of magnitude.
But none of those isotopes needs to be considered waste do they? They may not be the focus of current breeder technology but they are viable candidates for breeder cylces aren't they? I would think you could even build a reactor based on Am-241 as it's fuel source.

[Kevin_Lowe]

The billion or so deaths really wasn't my claim, so I'll let Schneibster handle that. However, as to the stockpile of used fuel rods containing U-234, I'm not really sure what you're looking for here.

U-234 is an Alpha emitter, which means that it emits mainly alpha waves. I could go into technical specifics here, but that's really not my MO. The main danger with alpha waves is if it's ingested; they aren't powerful enough even to penetrate the surface of your skin. If left in the open around where you're growing some crops, that's a bad thing. But I don't quite see any evidence that they are particularly hard to seal.

Yeah, it's not perfectly safe, but not insurmountably difficult to store. I don't see how it's much more dangerous than heavy metals or mercury.

Okay, I think it's pretty clear where you're coming from. I doubt Schneibster will do any better so I'll stop that line of questioning and just explain what's going on.

First things first. Atom for atom long-lived isotopes like U-234 are not as dangerous as short-lived ones in and of themselves, you and Schneibster were right that far. The fault in your analyis is that you conclude from this that since atom-for-atom U-234 is less dangerous than something else, then it follows that the amount of U-234 in spent fuel rods is safe. You are missing the other side of the coin, which is that if you have enough U-234 atoms in one place to be a danger it will continue to be a danger for an extraordinarily long time.

The other assumption you seem to be making is that once an atom of U-234 or another dangerous isotope decays, poof, it's gone. That is not how it works. If the result of radioactive decay is another radioactive element then you can get a second decay event, and a third, and so on down the line until the decay chain reaches a stable isotope. U-234 becomes thorium 230 becomes radium 226 becomes radon 222 by a chain of alpha emissions, each product having a shorter half-life than its parent. So it's not just a matter of keeping U-234 in a box until it goes poof, because its decay chain leads to radioactive radon gas. Plus the other unstable isotopes in the fuel rods are also doing their own individual slide down the periodic table.

Lastly, you seem to be assuming that we can just stick something in a vault and it will be held harmless for hundreds of thousands of years without ever getting in the atmosphere or the water supply, and that strikes me as a failry crazy assumption. We've never developed the technology to build something to last like that, because we have never needed it. Handwaving this issue away is in my mind an immoral way of foisting the bill for today's air conditioning onto our descendants in the form of radioactive waste.


Careful, you got radiation in your smoke detectors! :o

Yes, yes, all caution regarding radiation is ill-informed gibbering. We get it.

[luddite]

Kevin, thank you for your measured and thoughtful responses. All hell is breaking loose here. I don't even know where to begin.

[Kevin_Lowe]

You indicated you were worried about nuclear proliferation if we built 1000 breeders...this is significantly different from what you posted here. Since we already have nuclear weapons and a fair amount of Pu, the point is moot unless you expect terrorists to be stealing our fuel after it comes out of a reactor. If breeders are built in the US and other nations with nuclear weapons, it won't have any effect on other nations starting up their own program with the possible exception of using up the uranium before other nations get their hands on it...so, my arguement is not a strawman.

I thought I was very clear.

If nations outside the nuclear weapons club have breeder reactors, they can develop their own covert nuclear weapons programme comparatively easily, and this is how nuclear proliferation has always happened in the real world.


The MIT study indicates there is sufficient uranium to fuel reactors and increase capacity for the next 40-50 years. That should be enough to get fusion going.


It's an old joke that nuclear fusion is fifty years away, and it always will be. As I said earlier, I've never heard a credible proposal for getting electricity out of a fusion reaction, and we don't even have the reaction going yet.

Banking on fusion to ride in and save us in fifty years time just as the uranium is running out once and for all is not an idea I am comfortable with. Unless something genuinely new and exiting comes along in the way of fusion power, we'll have to go to renewables or breeders when your forty to fifty years are up anyway.

But none of those isotopes needs to be considered waste do they? They may not be the focus of current breeder technology but they are viable candidates for breeder cylces aren't they? I would think you could even build a reactor based on Am-241 as it's fuel source.

My concern with breeder reactors is that they are a road to nuclear proliferation and no sane person wants that.

It's worth paying a lot, and I mean a lot, for renewable energy sources if the alternative is every unstable third-world nation needing a breeder reactor to keep the lights on.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3096387#post3096387)
I disagree with your stated facts and conclusion on CO2 (but have no interest in derailing the thread and will not discuss the matter here) and want to make a very important associated point. While we may disagree on global warming, I think we nearly agree on the points you raise here.
Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3096387#post3096387)
If in pursuing the goal of lowering CO2 emissions the US economy and/or that of major European nations saw gross national product nosedive, that will likely starve 10% of the world population.

I suspect you are an optimist. It could be considerably more, perhaps as much as 20%.

Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3096387#post3096387)
Serious side effects. Yep, we sure agree on that.I'm pulling 10% out of the air and trying for a conservative number, but one could definitely be alarmist on this issue and not get it wrong. It's important to not look at the present, but the way things are moving internationally - we are headed toward "the world is flat". In a sense, what nuclear power does is isolate the power backbone of a city (or nation) from that interconnected, single world economy.

The stabilizing aspects of baseload nuclear in a large variety of bad international situations has perhaps not been discussed.

Whether it might be
a serious flu pandemic
bioterrorism or unintential biological agent relese
blocking of essential waterways through which supertankers must run
an asteroid strike
various forms of war
terrorism causing economic nosedive for major nations,
(previously mentioned) economic nosedive caused by misguided (or possibly, correctly guided) attempts at CO2 emission reductionNuclear baseload power has a stabilizing and calming influence. A city might continue to operate, hospitals and emergency services would exist, etc. Trade, transport, shipping lanes and working currency exchange rates are not a prerequisite for the switch to be turned on and kept on to the powerplant.

Add to that the possibility of plug in hybrids, and advanced battery vehicles such as using the A123 cells, powered off of nuclear backbone.

Beneficial social aspects of nuclear baseload are highly significant.

[luddite]

Lonewulf, let's for starters begin with your assertion that alpha emitters are no problem because all you have to do is avoid eating from contaminated soils.

My mind is reeling. That's all you have to do?

Some of these are persistent isotopes. They leach into water and spread the contamination. They are difficult to contain. And they are very damaging once in the body. Which is why a lot of the objections to nuclear power from the medical professions actually focus on the alpha radiation.

U234 has a half-life of 245,000 years. So over a period more than 100 times longer than the time since the Romans, we will only have to worry about half of it. And then, as Kevin says, it breaks down into other unstable isotopes.

All we have to do is build a containment vessel? That lasts millenia? Is that all?

And then there's the assertion about how little waste there is, how it can all fit into a shoebox. (Sorry, I know I'm exaggerating your statement). But these assertions always refer to spent fuel. From what I understand, the volume of "low level waste" coming out of a nuclear plant is much higher. It tends not to get careful treatment even now, so it's hard to imagine we would be able to track it for centuries, never mind millenia.

My knowledge about radiation is limited, but what little I know is concerning. It's an important goal to figure out how to deal with the waste we have, which we've done a very shoddy job of. We've left tailings behind, we've misplaced radioactive waste, we've improperly accounted for the potential damage. So before we embark on any nuclear expansion, I'd like to see a cleanup of the current situation. The cavalier attitude about how radiation is nothing to worry about does not inspire confidence.

[luddite]

I'm pulling 10% out of the air and trying for a conservative number, but one could definitely be alarmist on this issue and not get it wrong. It's important to not look at the present, but the way things are moving internationally - we are headed toward "the world is flat". In a sense, what nuclear power does is isolate the power backbone of a city (or nation) from that interconnected, single world economy.

The stabilizing aspects of baseload nuclear in a large variety of bad international situations has perhaps not been discussed.

Whether it might be
a serious flu pandemic
bioterrorism or unintential biological agent relese
blocking of essential waterways through which supertankers must run
an asteroid strike
various forms of war
terrorism causing economic nosedive for major nations,
(previously mentioned) economic nosedive caused by misguided (or possibly, correctly guided) attempts at CO2 emission reductionNuclear baseload power has a stabilizing and calming influence. A city might continue to operate, hospitals and emergency services would exist, etc. Trade, transport, shipping lanes and working currency exchange rates are not a prerequisite for the switch to be turned on and kept on to the powerplant.

Add to that the possibility of plug in hybrids, and advanced battery vehicles such as using the A123 cells, powered off of nuclear backbone.

Beneficial social aspects of nuclear baseload are highly significant.
In my experience in Ontario during the blackout, our dependence on nuclear power rather contributed to than lessened the problems. I find your confidence especially peculiar as regards terrorism. It's a lot more difficult for terrorists to strike 10,000 windmills than a few choice power plants. And if the power plants are nuclear fueled, the potential results are far more deadly.

[RecoveringYuppy]

U234 has a half-life of 245,000 years. So over a period more than 100 times longer than the time since the Romans, we will only have to worry about half of it. And then, as Kevin says, it breaks down into other unstable isotopes.

All we have to do is build a containment vessel? That lasts millenia? Is that all?

No, use it as fuel. I just pointed out that this stuff can bred in to usable fuel. And it doesn't even require what you currently might think of as a breeder reactor to do it. U-234 can be bred in to U-235 in a thermal reactor.

[luddite]

The MIT study indicates there is sufficient uranium to fuel reactors and increase capacity for the next 40-50 years. That should be enough to get fusion going.

Yes, I quoted the Energy Watch Group, which suggested that even with very steep uranium prices, we are likely to peak no later than 2035. National Resources Canada is, if anything, more pessimistic.

I'm not going to make any conclusions here about just how long the uranium will last, but I wouldn't want to base an energy strategy on optimistic assumptions of fuel availability. Nor would I want to base it on optimistic assumptions about when fusion will come to save us.

[luddite]

No, use it as fuel. I just pointed out that this stuff can bred in to usable fuel. And it doesn't even require what you currently might think of as a breeder reactor to do it. U-234 can be bred in to U-235 in a thermal reactor.
Okay, I'm getting beyond the scope of my knowledge here. It's my understanding that France already has a great deal of reprocessed fuel that is rather more of a problem than a solution, given that there's no commercially viable place to use it.

[Ziggurat]

And then there's the assertion about how little waste there is, how it can all fit into a shoebox. (Sorry, I know I'm exaggerating your statement). But these assertions always refer to spent fuel. From what I understand, the volume of "low level waste" coming out of a nuclear plant is much higher. It tends not to get careful treatment even now, so it's hard to imagine we would be able to track it for centuries, never mind millenia.

We don't need to.

Consider copper, for example. That's something I've worked with myself a bit. The natural stable isotopes are Cu63 and Cu65. The primary radioisotopes are therefore Cu64 and Cu66. Those have half-lives of around 13 hours and 5 minutes, respectively. Take the longer-lived of the two: with that short a half-life, activity decays by about a factor of roughly 8,000 in one week. Wait one year, and you're down by a factor of 4*10207. Which means that even if you activated all the copper in the world to Cu64 (and I'm including every copper atom on earth, not just what mankind has access to), there wouldn't be a single radioactive copper atom left after one year. And its decay products (Ni64 or Zn64) are stable.

If you expose copper to a neutron flux, you can make it radioactive. But it's a short term problem. The idea that we're in trouble because we don't know how to store low-level waste for millenia comes from a misunderstanding of what low-level waste is.

[luddite]

Hm, and I don't think that renewables are an acceptable solution on that wide a scale thanks to economic costs, so for me, that leaves nukes.

Interesting. We've been up and down with the economic costs. There are plenty of sources that put nuclear electricity as very high. When it compares favorably to renewables it's almost always because they're comparing it to solar baseload, which I've never heard anyone advocate. Nuclear power seemed to have no takers in the US until the recent legislation trying to make it more attractive, and it's not clear how many takers there are even with this legislation.

What is clear is that wind turbines are being erected in the US, even though wind power gets much lower subsidies than nuclear:

http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/Subsidy.pdf

You get even more bang for the buck with conservation/efficiency.

So if economics is your main concern, I look forward to seeing you promoting renewables soon :-)

[robinson]

I was watching the News today. From the reporting on alternative fuels and energy sources being covered, it is clear that there is now money to made in alternatives.

Nuclear power plants are not profitable, which is the real reason they are not being constructed as we speak.

[Hindmost]

I thought I was very clear.

If nations outside the nuclear weapons club have breeder reactors, they can develop their own covert nuclear weapons programme comparatively easily, and this is how nuclear proliferation has always happened in the real world.

It still doesn't make sense. How does not building breeder plants in the US and other nuclear powers stop countries like Iran from building a weapons production reactor? Iran and any other country is not going to change their plans based on what the US builds. If the US were to build breeders, it would take uranium away from the rest of the world. Unless you believe, terrorists are going to be stealing high level waste, non-proliferation is not based on what we build.


It's an old joke that nuclear fusion is fifty years away, and it always will be. As I said earlier, I've never heard a credible proposal for getting electricity out of a fusion reaction, and we don't even have the reaction going yet.

Banking on fusion to ride in and save us in fifty years time just as the uranium is running out once and for all is not an idea I am comfortable with. Unless something genuinely new and exiting comes along in the way of fusion power, we'll have to go to renewables or breeders when your forty to fifty years are up anyway.



My concern with breeder reactors is that they are a road to nuclear proliferation and no sane person wants that.

It's worth paying a lot, and I mean a lot, for renewable energy sources if the alternative is every unstable third-world nation needing a breeder reactor to keep the lights on.

the 40-50 years is the minimum based on a once through cycle. With reprocessing, the time is greatly extended.

I agree that fusion is a pipe-dream right now...however, that doesn't mean it won't work in the future. If we achieve a breakthrough, then it will be power for a long time.

glenn

[DRBUZZ0]

I was watching the News today. From the reporting on alternative fuels and energy sources being covered, it is clear that there is now money to made in alternatives.

Nuclear power plants are not profitable, which is the real reason they are not being constructed as we speak.

Nuclear plants are not profitable but you can make a profit selling solar energy? well.. no you can't do that... wind? I suppose if you happen to have a LOT of land on a plateau on a wind-swept area.

Although there tends to be profit in most anything the government pumps money into.

The nuclear plant not far from me was bought for a rather substansial amount of money not long ago (I think more than a billion) because once the plant is built and up and running it pretty much rakes it in. Also the new owner will pay for decommissioning of the older reactor on site.

But then again if you want to take profit some good filthy coal is always a good way to go.

But there are guys in ohio making a profit selling oil coming from a single well on the property which only pulls up a few hundred gallons per week, as that's all that reserve can support. Profit? Sure. Amounts to a hill of beans in terms of national energy sources? Not so much.

[DRBUZZ0]

Okay, I'm getting beyond the scope of my knowledge here. It's my understanding that France already has a great deal of reprocessed fuel that is rather more of a problem than a solution, given that there's no commercially viable place to use it.

U-234 can just be left in. You don't really need to seperate it. It has a very large thermal neutron cross section. That means that in reactor fuel for just a standard normal light water reactor it will quickly convert into U-235. Reprocessed uranium from a normal uranium reactor actually has LESS than is found in natural uranium because it converts into U-235 that easily.

[luddite]

Iran and any other country is not going to change their plans based on what the US builds.

Whereas I suspect that what the US builds will profoundly influence other countries. If the west sets the example for renewable power and develops the technologies to make it cheap and effective, that's what will be in demand. If we manage to make our appliances more efficient and streamline our industrial processes to reduce energy demand, then those ideas will be adopted around the world. If instead, we focus on a massive nuclear energy fix...

[Hindmost]

I was watching the News today. From the reporting on alternative fuels and energy sources being covered, it is clear that there is now money to made in alternatives.

Nuclear power plants are not profitable, which is the real reason they are not being constructed as we speak.

Nuclear plants are being built in Korea, Taiwan, China, France, etc.. They are profitable or they wouldn't be built.

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-2/p19.html

glenn

[luddite]

Nuclear plants are being built in Korea, Taiwan, China, France, etc.. They are profitable or they wouldn't be built.

Are any of these built by private investors? Do they take on all risks and costs? I don't know, just asking.

[Hindmost]

Are any of these built by private investors? Do they take on all risks and costs? I don't know, just asking.

I don't know either as I don't know the structure of utilities in most other countries. IN the US, the utilities will ahve to privately finance the plants, however the recent energy bill guarantees subsidies for the first 6000 MW of capacity--which I felt is needed to restart the industry.

In Korea, since the utility is partially owned by the government and the risk is by the goverment. However, since many of the components are made outside korea, the government has to finance much of the plant external...it has raised the foreign debt of korea in recent years. The natural resources in Korea are very limited. The feel nuclear power is needed for national security. And I agree with them. I am sure Japan feels the same way.

glenn

[luddite]

I've just read a Greenpeace claim that no reactor has ever been commissioned in a competitive market. Wind has. I don't know why people think renewables are so expensive.

[Hindmost]

I've just read a Greenpeace claim that no reactor has ever been commissioned in a competitive market. Wind has. I don't know why people think renewables are so expensive.

Typical greenpeace mis-direction. As far as I know, there are no competitive markets in electric power. In the US, they were regulated monopolies and competition has only started with the production side--and it is not working out in most places.

I don't know what greenpeace means by wind being commisioned in a competitive market, but in the US, wind power has only been constructed with subsidies and tax breaks as it still expensive power.

glenn

[luddite]

Glenn, what is your assessment of the link that showed 2006 subsidies for wind dwarfed by nuclear subsidies?

[mhaze]

I was watching the News today. From the reporting on alternative fuels and energy sources being covered, it is clear that there is now money to made in alternatives.

Nuclear power plants are not profitable, which is the real reason they are not being constructed as we speak.

Clearly that explains why we are breaking ground now in Texas for 2 new reactors and have 2 more under permit request process.:D

[robinson]

The price tag to develop NRG's reactors will be US$6 billion to US$7 billion -- costs that the company said it could afford only with the incentives provided by the federal government in 2005.
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/44498/story.htm

As of 2005, there were more than 53,000 tons of nuclear waste in the country from nuclear power plants and another 22,000 canisters of waste from military activities, according to the U.S. Energy Department. By 2035, this amount is expected to more than double — and that does not account for new reactors.

Currently, there is no long-term solution to the problem. Some countries reprocess the waste to use again, but that makes the material highly radioactive, which is a security concern that has hampered reprocessing in this country.

As it is, the waste is stored at nuclear plant sites in either large pools or 20-foot-tall steel and lead containers. The South Texas and Comanche projects alone have more than 1,500 tons of spent nuclear fuel stored on site.
http://www.nukeworker.com/news/facility_template.php?facility_news=South+Texas+Pr oject+Nuclear+Power+Plant+location:TX

NRG Energy and South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Co. plan to build the reactors at their facility near Bay City, Texas, which already houses two similarly sized reactors.

"We have chosen an NRC-certified and an operationally proven technology," noted NRG President and CEO David W. Crane. "We expect to build these facilities on time and on budget."

The application is the first to use a new NRC process to speed up issuance of a construction and operating license. NRC has already approved the design and the site; the company expects to receive a license within 42 months, begin construction in 2010, and be operating by 2014. It expects the facilities to cost $6 billion.
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i40/8540notw3.html

I have to agree with the person who claimed it is cheaper to conserve than to build more power plants. Wind power would be far cheaper, and faster to develop than Nuclear. And it doesn't leave any nasty waste problems for the future.

Hmm... I wonder ... let me check.

[Lonewulf]

Actually, Schneibster has consistently shown more research and knowledge in these topics than I currently have.

The fault in your analyis is that you conclude from this that since atom-for-atom U-234 is less dangerous than something else, then it follows that the amount of U-234 in spent fuel rods is safe.
Strawman.

The other assumption you seem to be making is that once an atom of U-234 or another dangerous isotope decays, poof, it's gone.
Strawman.

Yes, yes, all caution regarding radiation is ill-informed gibbering. We get it.
Apparently, you don't, because you just made another strawman. I never said that all caution is ill-informed gibbering.

I am hereby convinced that you are not interested in honest debate, Kevin_Lowe. As such, I will not waste my time further.

As of 2005, there were more than 53,000 tons of nuclear waste in the country from nuclear power plants and another 22,000 canisters of waste from military activities, according to the U.S. Energy Department. By 2035, this amount is expected to more than double — and that does not account for new reactors.

Currently, there is no long-term solution to the problem. Some countries reprocess the waste to use again, but that makes the material highly radioactive, which is a security concern that has hampered reprocessing in this country.

As it is, the waste is stored at nuclear plant sites in either large pools or 20-foot-tall steel and lead containers. The South Texas and Comanche projects alone have more than 1,500 tons of spent nuclear fuel stored on site.
http://www.nukeworker.com/news/facility_template.php?facility_news=South+Texas+Pr oject+Nuclear+Power+Plant+location:TX

The "waste" here can be re-used, though. ;)

So "this does not account for new reactors" is definitely true (there are reactor designs that can reprocess spent fuel).

[Kevin_Lowe]

It still doesn't make sense. How does not building breeder plants in the US and other nuclear powers stop countries like Iran from building a weapons production reactor? Iran and any other country is not going to change their plans based on what the US builds. If the US were to build breeders, it would take uranium away from the rest of the world. Unless you believe, terrorists are going to be stealing high level waste, non-proliferation is not based on what we build.


I'm not sure how many times I can rephrase this without just repeating myself.

We have non-proliferation treaties in place to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. The problem with these treaties is that given a civilian nuclear program it is possible to covertly run a weapons programme, as India, Pakistan and Israel demonstrated. Breeder reactors make the process much easier.

If as a planet we end up using breeder reactors to supply our power needs, we are going to inevitably end up with breeeder reactors in countries that we do not want developing nuclear weapons. What else do you expect them to do, put up solar panels?


the 40-50 years is the minimum based on a once through cycle. With reprocessing, the time is greatly extended.

I agree that fusion is a pipe-dream right now...however, that doesn't mean it won't work in the future. If we achieve a breakthrough, then it will be power for a long time.


As I said earlier, if you get to have an amazing breakthrough in fusion just when you need it to rescue the world as the uranium runs out, then I get to have an amazing breakthrough in solar panels or something, and Dr Buzzo gets Luke Skywalker to shoot nuclear waste into the sun.

[Schneibster]

A third is that for nations who do not already have an established nuclear industry, creating one from scratch requires an enormous investment. For nations with an established nuclear industry it's "just" those two.If we build nuclear power plants, we will learn to build better and cheaper (and safer) nuclear power plants. Nations that do not already have the industry will be able to purchase them. Nations that make them will make that easier if they can to help with the global warming problem; it's in their own interest to do so.

And another point: China is not going to stop building coal-fired power plants any time soon unless presented with an alternative, and there are well over a billion Chinese.

Finally, if it's "just" those two, you've had answers to them both. And you have not responded to those answers.

Possibly that is because it's too silly a claim to address seriously, no matter how often it is repeated?And possibly because it's not refutable and you can't think of anything to do but try to ridicule it and see if anyone believes you. Which is basically what you've done. If it's so silly, surely you can easily refute it. That you haven't speaks volumes.

We could feed them Chicken Little. I think that would solve two problems at once.Again, ridicule- but no response. See, it's easy to tell when someone's arguments are weak- they pull rhetorical crap like this. I say again, if it's so easily refutable, why don't you do so?

You are welcome to your own opinion. I see no basis in reality for it, but I can't stop you holding it.And a third time.

You have no evidence to present, so you try rhetoric to draw attention away from that obvious fact. If you have it, bring it. Otherwise, my conclusion is, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I guess I'm not clear on who said that it was. Perchance it is a straw man?And perhaps it's not. It appears that it was you who said:I've given you the physics already - nuclear fission waste contains radioactive contents with half-lives in the hundreds of years and hundreds of thousands of years. If it's not safe now it's not going to be safe in a thousand years. So now it becomes eminently clear; you've denied your own words, and called someone's response to them a "straw man." Which means all you have is rhetoric.

Schneibster, exactly what do you think is dangerous about a stockpile of used fuel rods containing U-234? They're radioactive. Did you have some point or other?

I'm getting the impression that you and Lonewulf don't actually have any clear idea about the matter beyond the vague and cosy impression that the danger is mostly imaginary.I'm getting the impression that you easily acquire impressions, and that they have little to do with reality.

What we have here is rhetoric, zero information content. You don't appear to know any economics, you don't appear to know any physics, and you don't appear to have a clue how much energy a solar panel or a windmill can make, and how much they cost to build, much less a nuclear power plant. You have an opinion based on hysterical fear of that which you do not understand, and cannot be bothered to actually find out the facts. When presented with them, you engage in an emotional attack based on rhetoric and misunderstanding. As a result of your unreasoning fear, you advocate a course of action that is not only unconscionable, but far more dangerous, both to people and to the environment, than building nuclear power plants.

Now, if you'd like to actually have a rational discussion, then my suggestion is that you begin by reading the points that have been made in this thread and responding to them, rather than engaging in emotional rhetoric. Try doing a little research on half-life, specific activity and its relation to half-life, and then find out where the rice grown in California goes, and where the water that grows that rice comes from and how it gets to where the rice grows. Then have a look at wheat. Then take a look at projected population increases. Then consider the likely climatic effects of global warming on various agricultural regions. You might want to consider geology as well. It would probably also be wisest to find out where fertilizer comes from and how it's made. That would be a good start.

[Schneibster]

Okay, I think it's pretty clear where you're coming from. I doubt Schneibster will do any better so I'll stop that line of questioning and just explain what's going on.Well, before you begin, perhaps we should explore precisely what we're talking about when we talk about nuclear fuel, when it's put in the reactor, when the reactor is running, and when it's taken out.

Nuclear fuel rods for a civilian reactor are enriched to about 5% U-235; the remainder of 95% is U-238, not U-234 (except in vanishingly small amounts). Natural uranium is about 99.3% U-238, 0.7% U-235, and an even smaller amount of U-234 (the enrichment processes, both gaseous diffusion and centrifugal enrichment, favor light isotopes, so both U-234 and U-235 are enriched).

The U-235 (5%) does all the fissioning (except for the very occasional U-234 or U-238 fission; this has a very much longer half-life than radioactive decay of either, however, so only a truly astronomically small fraction of the U-234 and U-238 undergoes fission). As the fuel is used, the U-235 undergoes fission; this results in likely radioactive fission products. The U-238 can absorb neutrons and the newly-formed U-239 will quickly decay to neptunium-239, and then to plutonium-239.

Since plutonium-239 is fissile, like U-235, some of it will undergo fission in the storm of neutrons inside the reactor, forming more fission products; however, this is not a majority process. The majority process is the fission of U-235. That's because the neutrons that are best at being absorbed by U-238 to form Pu-239 aren't the same energy as the neutrons that are best at being absorbed by U-235 and causing it to fission. The structure of the reactor is designed to maximize power, and therefore to moderate the neutrons so that they are the kind that cause the most U-235 fissioning, not the kind that convert U-238 to Pu-239; it's possible to make a reactor that makes neutrons that are the right energy to make Pu-239, of course, and this is called a "breeder" because it makes Pu-239. And, of course, the reason you do is because those neutrons are also not the right energy to cause Pu-239 fission; sure, it happens, but again, that's not the majority process, and that's controlled by the moderation.

So what we've got when we start is mostly U-238, with one atom in 20 being U-235, and one in a few thousand being U-234. As it's bombarded with neutrons, the U-235 fissions a lot, the U-238 is occasionally converted to Pu-239, the Pu-239 fissions sometimes, the U-234 is very occasionally converted to U-235, and occasionally a fission product (which was likely already radioactive) is converted to another isotope by the neutrons. As time goes on, the amount of U-235 decreases. As it does so, the amount of fission going on drops; this means that the moderation must be adjusted to keep the reaction going on. There's another problem, too; these products are also very often neutron absorbers and as their concentration increases, they damp the reaction by eating neutrons. Eventually, no amount of moderation decrease can keep the reaction going; there are too few neutrons being made, and too many things absorbing them. By this time, the amount of U-235 has decreased to perhaps 1-2% (Hindmost could probably come up with that figure; I'm too lazy to hunt further for a reference, but it's not all that important). A few percent of the U-238 has converted to Pu-239, and some of the Pu-239 has fissioned. This has taken a decade or more.

What you've got is still well over 90% U-238. Of the remainder, a couple percent is U-235, and a couple percent is Pu-239. The remaining six or eight percent is fission products, of varying levels of activity; a couple percent of this is high activity nuclear waste. But the higher level activity it has, the faster it decays. The bulk of the material is U-238, which has a half-life of 4.5 billion years; in terms of radiation hazard, not much because it has such a long half-life. There are high-activity isotopes in it, but storage for a few decades reduces this to the point where it is very little more active than the U-238 already is anyway. That's because the concentration of highly active isotopes was already in the single digits, and they decay very quickly; that's what "high activity" means.

Now, I won't misrepresent this; it's still radioactive after it's done its decades cooling off. But handling it for a limited period would be unlikely to harm the average person. You wouldn't want to handle it with your bare hands for a period of weeks on end, but more because you'd be likely to ingest some than because of anything it might do to your hands. You wouldn't want to eat it much of it; uranium is a low energy alpha emitter, so your skin (as has already been pointed out) is sufficient to stop the radiation, but if you were to ingest it, it could be a problem later on; however, it's important to point out here that the hazard would be far more a chemical poisoning risk than anything to do with radiation. In amounts small enough not to cause heavy metal poisoning and kidney failure, it would not pose much of a radiation hazard. No increase in human cancer has ever been reported in the scientific and medical literature as a result of exposure to natural uranium, and after the high-level isotopes have decayed, the spent fuel rods are not a great deal different.

Now, those are the facts. Let's see how many of them you already knew.

First things first. Atom for atom long-lived isotopes like U-234 are not as dangerous as short-lived ones in and of themselves, you and Schneibster were right that far. Well, gee, I'm sure glad you validated that from your infinite wisdom. I have a question: where is all this U-234 coming from? It's only five thousandths of a percent in the first place, even after enrichment, and U-234 doesn't get made by likely interactions inside a reactor.

The fault in your analyis is that you conclude from this that since atom-for-atom U-234 is less dangerous than something else, then it follows that the amount of U-234 in spent fuel rods is safe. You are missing the other side of the coin, which is that if you have enough U-234 atoms in one place to be a danger it will continue to be a danger for an extraordinarily long time.So? It still only decays at a rate so low that only one half of it has done so in the lifetime of the Earth. And I repeat, why do you keep talking about U-234?

The other assumption you seem to be making is that once an atom of U-234 or another dangerous isotope decays, poof, it's gone. That is not how it works. If the result of radioactive decay is another radioactive element then you can get a second decay event, and a third, and so on down the line until the decay chain reaches a stable isotope. U-234 becomes thorium 230 becomes radium 226 becomes radon 222 by a chain of alpha emissions, each product having a shorter half-life than its parent. So it's not just a matter of keeping U-234 in a box until it goes poof, because its decay chain leads to radioactive radon gas. Plus the other unstable isotopes in the fuel rods are also doing their own individual slide down the periodic table.But it STILL only happens to half the atoms in a sample in four and a half billion years. I repeat, so? The incidence of it is still low. Furthermore, you're still talking about U-234. Which you have not demonstrated is relevant to the conversation since it only represents five one-thousandths of a percent of enriched uranium, and five ten-thousandths of a percent of natural uranium. Where is all this U-234 coming from?

Lastly, you seem to be assuming that we can just stick something in a vault and it will be held harmless for hundreds of thousands of years without ever getting in the atmosphere or the water supply, and that strikes me as a failry crazy assumption. Why does it have to be held in a vault for hundreds of thousands of years? In a hundred years, it's no more radioactive than natural uranium. And in thirty, it's only barely so.

We've never developed the technology to build something to last like that, because we have never needed it. Handwaving this issue away is in my mind an immoral way of foisting the bill for today's air conditioning onto our descendants in the form of radioactive waste.And ignoring the facts is hysteria.

Let's talk about reality. The problem here isn't with civilian waste. The problem is with military waste. Military reactors use highly enriched uranium, and can "burn" a great deal more U-235 because they have a great deal more in the first place. This results in a very high concentration of fission products, and those products are very "hot;" furthermore, they remain so for a much longer time. Thousands or tens of thousands of years is not an unreasonable time to discuss spent military fuel remaining very dangerous in radiological terms. But if civilian use becomes widespread, the waste that it makes remains much lower level, and is therefore much less of a disposal problem than military waste. So basically, what opponents of civilian nuclear power are doing is equating military waste with civilian waste and claiming they're the same thing; add a dose of hysteria over teh invisuble nucular cancer rays, and there you have it.

And why do military reactors use HEU? That would be because most military reactors are on ships and submarines and they have to carry the fuel; that means that the more enriched the fuel, the less weight they have to carry per unit power, and the faster they can go. Simple, easy, obvious.

All of this is information you could easily have found out for yourself; much of it is already available in Wikipedia. Try "nuclear fuel cycle" and "uranium" for highly relevant articles.

Yes, yes, all caution regarding radiation is ill-informed gibbering. We get it.Speaking of straw men...

So again, what we have here is hysteria driven emotional rhetoric. You don't know the difference between U-234, U-235, and U-238; you don't know that military and civilian fuel are different; you don't know the relation between specific activity and half-life; you don't know the difference between a breeder and a power reactor; you don't know the civilian "use once" cycle; you don't know what an integral fast reactor is; you don't know that there is thousands of times more uranium in seawater than in all the deposits of natural uranium we have ever discovered; you don't know that natural uranium is insufficiently radioactive to cause a single known case of cancer documented in the scientific or medical literature; and you don't know enough math to understand why if one in four and a half billion uranium atoms decays in a year, it means that one atom in 142,009,200,000,000,000 decays every second.

Overall, I'd have to say you know little of physics, and less of nuclear engineering. Which means that your opinions are based, not on facts, but on emotion. Which is basically what I said before. I'm pretty certain that there's no point in moving on to economics until you demonstrate a much firmer grasp of physics. So I think I'll stop here and wait to see if you have learned anything before I waste any more time.

[luddite]

Schneibster, I know you're not talking to me, but I actually want to thank you for that description.

I will interject that I don't think you're being fair to Kevin, though. You're addressing issues he never stated and misunderstanding what he said. The U234 for example, was brought up by Lonewulf, and Kevin only continued with that example.

I'm going to try to rephrase Kevin's concern. What Kevin said was that if you have a given amount of material, a long half life will be safer to a short half life. However, if you have enough material to be dangerous, the long half-life means it will continue to be dangerous for a very long time (10 half-lives, I believe is the usual measure). You ridiculed his understanding of half-life. I probably understand less than Kevin, but it makes sense to me.

I hope you'll correct any inaccuracies with what I'm about to say and address any concerns. You've said that natural uranium is not dangerous. First of all, I'm not even sure that's correct, but I have to ask what you mean. It was my understanding that even people who live near natural uranium deposits have a statistically higher incidence of certain cancers and other disorders. But it is a minor problem.

Spent fuel rods have a lot more uranium than natural uranium deposits. So even before fissioning in a reactor, they would be more dangerous than living near naturally occurring uranium deposits. In other words, even just the U238 would be more concentrated and more dangerous in spent fuel than in a similar amount of naturally occurring uranium ore. Correct? I assume this is what you meant by natural uranium?

Next, because fuel rods are enriched (not in Canada, which contributes to my lack of understanding), there is a much higher proportion of the U235 and U234 in them, both of which are more dangerous because they have a faster decay rate. U235, for example, has a very long half-life at 70,400,000,000, but that's still 63 times more active than U238. And U234 is almost 20 million times more active than U238. Concentrating U235 from 0.7% to 5% (and in the process increasing the U234 as well) again elevates the danger above both naturally occurring uranium, and even above concentrated uranium in naturally-occurring proportions. Even after half or more of the U235 fissions, there is still more than in naturally occurring concentrations.

More importantly, after undergoing fission in a reactor, there are fission products that are much more active. Just looking at the decay chain (which I certainly don't know off the top of my head), I see U235 decaying to Th231, with a half-life just over a day, and then to Pa231 with a half-life of 32760 years. So I assume that after some weeks or months of "cooling", the majority of activated decay pauses for a while at this stage. Yes, 32760 years is long, but it is a lot shorter than U238, with a half-life of 4,468,000,000,000 or its grandparent U235, with a half-life of 70,400,000,000. So fissioning makes that 3% of the fuel rod 2 million times more active than enriched uranium, which is already more dangerous than concentrated uranium, which is already more dangerous than naturally occurring uranium, which you'd rather not live around if you can avoid it.

So having tons of this stuff can't be good in your backyard. And at this point the long half-life doesn't really help. It just means that you have to take care of it for a very long time. You have to keep track of it and you have to make sure it isn't getting in the water and food.

Then you get the daughters of this decay. You ridiculed Kevin for talking about decay products, but I'm not sure why. In a National Geographic article, there was this interesting tidbit:

The Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that DOE must demonstrate that Yucca Mountain can meet EPA standards for public and environmental health for 10,000 years. Does that mean radioactivity won't be a threat after 10,000 years? Nope. The peak radiation dose to the environment will occur after 400,000 years, according to DOE.

Nevertheless, and despite objections from many scientists, EPA decided on 10,000 years because of "tremendous uncertainties" beyond that period.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0207/feature1/fulltext.html

So you've got stuff that will peak in its radiation after 400,000 years and you need to babysit it until the radiation subsides. 400,000 years ago was before the Neanderthals, and that's when it will peak in terms of harm. You need to babysit it a lot longer than that.

Why does it have to be held in a vault for hundreds of thousands of years? In a hundred years, it's no more radioactive than natural uranium. And in thirty, it's only barely so.

I may be missing something, but in my cursory understanding, I think you're wrong. It's a lot more radioactive than natural uranium, and for a lot longer than thirty years.

[Lonewulf]

The U234 for example, was brought up by Lonewulf...
It was?

I don't know why people are ignoring this bit, though.

U-234 can just be left in. You don't really need to seperate it. It has a very large thermal neutron cross section. That means that in reactor fuel for just a standard normal light water reactor it will quickly convert into U-235. Reprocessed uranium from a normal uranium reactor actually has LESS than is found in natural uranium because it converts into U-235 that easily.

No, use it as fuel. I just pointed out that this stuff can bred in to usable fuel. And it doesn't even require what you currently might think of as a breeder reactor to do it. U-234 can be bred in to U-235 in a thermal reactor.

[luddite]

Sorry, I just looked back, and I was mistaken. The first mention of U-234 was, in fact, Kevin's.

The question of breeder reactors is a whole nuther question, which is not what I was talking about. I could talk about it. But I think there are more knowledgeable people than me making any of my points better than I could.

The question I was addressing was just the one about waste from currently running reactors.

Dr. Buzzo's comments I believe. But they are similarly not related to what we do with spent fuel. I have no idea what the final proportions are of the elements in spent fuel, which is why I didn't focus on U-234.

[luddite]

Question out of curiosity.

What exactly is in spent nuclear fuel? I suppose it depends somewhat on the reactor. Is there a list or a series of lists somewhere?

Thanks.

[Ziggurat]

I hope you'll correct any inaccuracies with what I'm about to say and address any concerns. You've said that natural uranium is not dangerous. First of all, I'm not even sure that's correct, but I have to ask what you mean. It was my understanding that even people who live near natural uranium deposits have a statistically higher incidence of certain cancers and other disorders. But it is a minor problem.

Uranium is chemically toxic, just like lead is. But its chemical toxicity is really the only significant health risk for naturally occuring uranium.

Spent fuel rods have a lot more uranium than natural uranium deposits.

No, they have a higher concentration of uranium than uranium ore, but concentration and amount aren't the same thing.

Next, because fuel rods are enriched (not in Canada, which contributes to my lack of understanding), there is a much higher proportion of the U235 and U234 in them, both of which are more dangerous because they have a faster decay rate. U235, for example, has a very long half-life at 70,400,000,000,

704,000,000 years. You're off by two orders of magnitude. Half-lives can be found here:
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/U/radio.html

And U234 is almost 20 million times more active than U238.

U234 isn't a problem. It's the product of U238 decay, not fission, and as such it gets generated very slowly even if you've got a chain reaction going. Furthermore, inside a nuclear reactor, it gets bumped up to U235 VERY quickly, so the abundance of U234 in spent fuel is not a concern.

More importantly, after undergoing fission in a reactor, there are fission products that are much more active.

Indeed some of the products are much more active.

Just looking at the decay chain (which I certainly don't know off the top of my head), I see U235 decaying to Th231, with a half-life just over a day, and then to Pa231 with a half-life of 32760 years.

If you're looking at a decay chain, you're looking at what happens with spontaneous decay. A fission chain reaction, however, is driven by processes which are not spontaneous - that's why it's a chain reaction. The uranium breaks apart into much lighter atoms, releasing multiple neutrons in the process. The decay chain you refer to is not really the relevant one for the fission byproducts of a nuclear chain reaction.

So you've got stuff that will peak in its radiation after 400,000 years and you need to babysit it until the radiation subsides. 400,000 years ago was before the Neanderthals, and that's when it will peak in terms of harm. You need to babysit it a lot longer than that.

This doesn't make any sense. I'm not sure what exactly this journalist is talking about, but the activity level of the waste is not going to peak in the future, it's going to decline monotonically over time. Either he misunderstood what the DOE said, or he's leaving out some critical fact needed to make sense of that claim.

[Schneibster]

Schneibster, I know you're not talking to me, but I actually want to thank you for that description.

I will interject that I don't think you're being fair to Kevin, though. You're addressing issues he never stated and misunderstanding what he said. The U234 for example, was brought up by Lonewulf, and Kevin only continued with that example.Not as far as I could tell, either. Kevin seems to have thought it up all by himself. Furthermore, U-234 is extremely rare, and its concentration is so small even in enriched uranium that unless its activity were so high that its half-life were weeks, it would make no difference to the radioactivity of enriched uranium. And we know its half-life cannot be that short, because it appears in measurable (though extremely small) quantities in natural uranium.

I'm going to try to rephrase Kevin's concern. What Kevin said was that if you have a given amount of material, a long half life will be safer to a short half life. However, if you have enough material to be dangerous, the long half-life means it will continue to be dangerous for a very long time (10 half-lives, I believe is the usual measure). You ridiculed his understanding of half-life. I probably understand less than Kevin, but it makes sense to me.First, Kevin never said anything about a longer half-life being safer. Second, the nature of the risk when dealing with radioactive materials varies greatly on a number of factors: what type of radiation the material emits, how energetic that radiation is, the specific activity and therefore the half-life, how easily the material is incorporated into biological systems, what it decays into and what the type and energy of it's radiation is, and it's biological activity, and most importantly, the concentration of the material. And it was concentration that I was addressing. Lonewulf has been making the same point with his coffee example, and Dr. Buzzo with his bananas example and others.

I hope you'll correct any inaccuracies with what I'm about to say and address any concerns. You've said that natural uranium is not dangerous. First of all, I'm not even sure that's correct, but I have to ask what you mean. It was my understanding that even people who live near natural uranium deposits have a statistically higher incidence of certain cancers and other disorders. But it is a minor problem.It's not been shown that cancer is increased by this factor in any peer-reviewed medical or scientific study to the best of my knowledge. Anecdotal evidence is worthless; it might be the uranium, or it might be a chemical associated with it, or used to mine it, and it might be a chemical problem not a radiation problem. As far as "other disorders," I'm not sure what "other disorders" you think you can get from radiation; there's radiation burns, and there's cancer, and as far as I know, that's about it. You'd have to do something incredibly stupid to get radiation burns from natural uranium.

Spent fuel rods have a lot more uranium than natural uranium deposits. Excuse me? Uranium has more uranium in it than uranium? You perhaps were unfamiliar with the terminology I was using. By "natural uranium," I didn't mean ore; I meant refined uranium, either as the dioxide or the metal, but unenriched from its primordial (natural) isotope proportions. Such uranium is unusable in all but the most primitive reactors, because it is 99.3% U-238, which will not fission (except with an extremely low probability- not within many orders of magnitude of enough to support a nuclear chain reaction). For civilian use, the U-235, which is only 0.7% of natural uranium, must be enriched to about 5%; for military use, it is generally enriched to over 90%. That is what is used in military reactors (which are almost exclusively for ships and submarines) and in nuclear weapons.

When I spoke of the relative inertness of "natural uranium," I meant the refined metal or the dioxide. It isn't even powerful enough for the radiation to penetrate your skin. And even military-grade uranium, enriched to over 90% U-235, isn't. U-235 has a half life of over 700 million years, so even it has a very low specific activity, about six times that of U-238; six times almost nothing is still almost nothing.

And as I showed, spent fuel rods from a civilian reactor contain over 90% U-238 in any case; they have to. They started out containing 95% U-238, and nothing happened in the reactor to change that by more than a few percent. They are, therefore, little different by composition from natural uranium; and natural uranium is fairly safe to handle. On the other hand, they do contain some pretty nasty radioisotopes, so they need to "cool off" for a while until those short-lived isotopes have decayed. As I stated, most of them are gone within a few decades, and once they are, there's little left but U-238, which is what we started with, and which remains relatively safe.

So even before fissioning in a reactor, they would be more dangerous than living near naturally occurring uranium deposits. In other words, even just the U238 would be more concentrated and more dangerous in spent fuel than in a similar amount of naturally occurring uranium ore. Correct? I assume this is what you meant by natural uranium?Not really; please read the above.

Next, because fuel rods are enriched (not in Canada, which contributes to my lack of understanding), there is a much higher proportion of the U235 and U234 in them, both of which are more dangerous because they have a faster decay rate. U235, for example, has a very long half-life at 70,400,000,000, but that's still 63 times more active than U238. That would be 704 million years in the real world, which would be six times almost nothing, remaining almost nothing.

And U234 is almost 20 million times more active than U238. That would be 18,000 times in the real world; the half-life of U-234 is 245,000 years. Furthermore, with a concentration in natural uranium of 0.0054%, there is so little of it, and the specific activity of U-238 is so low that even at 18,000 times the activity, it makes essentially no contribution to the radiation of natural uranium.

Concentrating U235 from 0.7% to 5% (and in the process increasing the U234 as well) again elevates the danger above both naturally occurring uranium, and even above concentrated uranium in naturally-occurring proportions. Even after half or more of the U235 fissions, there is still more than in naturally occurring concentrations."More" as in, enough to be dangerously radioactive? No, not really. Not to mention you seem to keep dropping and adding zeros; first it was 70 million instead of 700 million, and then it was 20 million instead of 20 thousand.

This is what I mean about hysteria; there's this urge to inflate all the numbers. Funny how both your errors inflated how dangerous it all is.

More importantly, after undergoing fission in a reactor, there are fission products that are much more active. And which therefore have much shorter half-lives.

Just looking at the decay chain (which I certainly don't know off the top of my head), I see U235 decaying to Th231, with a half-life just over a day, In the real world, U-235 decays to Th-231 with a half-life of 704 million years, as we discussed above. Th-231 does indeed have a half-life of just over a day, but it is a beta emitter. Beta particles are electrons. Just electrons. That means that in any sample of uranium, the amount of thorium-231 is the ratio of 704 million years to one day; an amount so small it's not chemically detectable. We only know it's there because of the specific energy of the beta particles it gives off, and because we deduce it from the fact that uranium gives off alpha particles.

and then to Pa231 with a half-life of 32760 years. So I assume that after some weeks or months of "cooling", the majority of activated decay pauses for a while at this stage. You assume incorrectly. The ratios of radioisotopes in a sample are, at maximum, the ratios of their half-lives, and that doesn't actually start to be true until the passage of one or more half-lives of the longest-lived isotope in the chain. And we haven't been refining uranium for 700 million years yet. With a ratio on the close order of 150,000 to one, the amount of protactinium in any uranium sample is on the close order of 0.004%, at maximum; in any sample younger than that, it will be smaller, and in a sample only decades old, there will be essentially no protactinium in any uranium sample, from either the standpoint of the radiation it produces, or the standpoint of chemical analysis.

Yes, 32760 years is long, but it is a lot shorter than U238, with a half-life of 4,468,000,000,000 or its grandparent U235, with a half-life of 70,400,000,000. So fissioning makes that 3% of the fuel rod 2 million times more active than enriched uranium, which is already more dangerous than concentrated uranium, which is already more dangerous than naturally occurring uranium, which you'd rather not live around if you can avoid it.You have so completely misunderstood what's going on that I can only wait until you correct your errors and tell you to try again. The production of daughter isotopes in radioactivity has nothing to do with the production of fission products. The production of daughter isotopes in a uranium sample happens so slowly that even after many human lifetimes, a sample of purified uranium is still purified uranium, only a few hundreds of thousandths of a percent less pure.

The danger in a spent fuel rod is from fission products, and as the name implies, fission products aren't a few atomic numbers from their parent, they are instead halfway down the periodic table, fifty atomic numbers different or thereabouts. Fissioning uranium-235 generally splits about 60/40, so on average, you see two sets of products, one around atomic number 53 and one around atomic number 39. Most radioisotopes of elements in these ranges are extremely active, with half-lives ranging from microseconds to a few years. It is these isotopes that make spent nuclear fuel dangerous; but the fact that the half-lives are so short for these isotopes means that almost all of them is gone in a few decades at most. A very few somewhat longer-lived isotopes (half lives in the decades or centuries) remain problematic, but their concentrations are already so low (at least in civilian grade fuel) that they don't pose much of a threat.

The above paragraph by you is filled with incorrect numbers, exaggerated in your favor by up to three orders of magnitude; complete misunderstanding of the difference between fission and radioactive decay; and finally with a figure that plain ignores concentration as a measure of activity. You are also, however, incorrect about one point that is in your favor; you do at least understand more than Kevin does, and although your calculations are incorrect, they're at least an attempt at the right way to go about this; three orders of magnitude isn't bad for a first attempt, and at least you got the mantissas approximately right.

So having tons of this stuff can't be good in your backyard. And at this point the long half-life doesn't really help. It just means that you have to take care of it for a very long time. You have to keep track of it and you have to make sure it isn't getting in the water and food.And here, you've drawn an incorrect final conclusion from your incorrect reasoning. Overall, the long half-life helps a great deal, and the fact that the initial concentration of materials with short half-lives (and therefore high activities) is already small helps even more.

Then you get the daughters of this decay. You ridiculed Kevin for talking about decay products, but I'm not sure why. Because he made the same mistake you're about to.

In a National Geographic article, there was this interesting tidbit:Which completely ignores the fact that what they're talking about is military nuclear waste, not civilian nuclear waste, with the difference in concentration of several orders of magnitude that implies. Furthermore, it also contains no reference to the DOE calculations so that they can be checked; I have no idea what the author is talking about when he claims that the DOE says that "the peak radiation dose to the environment will occur after 400,000 years." First, it's not clear whether they are talking about waste from plutonium manufacturing or from reactors; second, it's not clear what isotopes are involved; and third, no matter all of the above, it IS clear that they're talking about military waste, not civilian waste.

So you've got stuff that will peak in its radiation after 400,000 years and you need to babysit it until the radiation subsides. 400,000 years ago was before the Neanderthals, and that's when it will peak in terms of harm. You need to babysit it a lot longer than that.And again, that's military waste, and it's not even clear it's from a reactor and not plutonium production for the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

I may be missing something, I will restrain myself; I would say you've missed a LOT.

but in my cursory understanding, I think you're wrong. It's a lot more radioactive than natural uranium, and for a lot longer than thirty years.I think you've got a lot more research to do before you're prepared to say anything of the kind, and if you do that research, I'm pretty certain that what you'll find is what I've already told you.

[Lonewulf]

First, Kevin never said anything about a longer half-life being safer.
Well, that might make him look weak in the eyes of the enemy. ;)

[Schneibster]

Question out of curiosity.

What exactly is in spent nuclear fuel? I suppose it depends somewhat on the reactor. Is there a list or a series of lists somewhere?

Thanks.The list is huge. When U-235 splits, it can do so in many, many ways. Each way creates a different pair of isotopes, far down the periodic table. U-235 contains 92 protons and 235 - 92, or 143, neutrons. Both prompt (that is, ejected during fission) and delayed (that is, ejected by the fission products) neutrons are produced; an average of 3.2 neutrons is produced in each fission, with less than one of them delayed (and this is pretty obvious, because if the multiplication factor were less than one, there could be no chain reaction). Fission mostly if not exclusively involves the nucleus splitting in two; I am not aware of any three-nuclide fissions, but I haven't checked thoroughly. Most fission products have too many neutrons to be stable; the ratio of neutrons to protons needed to keep a nucleus stable increases with the number of protons. The half-lives of isotopes of lighter elements are generally quite short, though there are a few longer-lived light isotopes. This is because the energy "hill" that light isotopes can "roll down" to achieve stability is much "higher" due to their lightness. By the time you get to the actinides, atomic numbers in the 80s, stable isotopes are few and far between; above uranium, stabilities are so low that we don't find any of these elements naturally, they've all decayed away in the lifetime of the Earth. Only one element below the actinides has no stable isotopes; technetium is this element. It was first identified in the fallout from nuclear weapons explosions, and being man-made, was given its name from that fact.

[luddite]

Thanks Schneibster, that's helpful.

Obviously, I've got some work to do.

[luddite]

And thanks Ziggurat. I missed your answer earlier, but I find it even easier to read.

[Schneibster]

Let me emphasize this point once again: the waste from military uses of nuclear power is of a very different character than that from civilian nuclear power, and the waste from a breeder yet another thing, and from making nuclear weapons again yet another thing. Plutonium is a much more dangerously radioactive substance than uranium; the half-life of Pu-239 is 24,000 years, and it is therefore highly active. It is also chemically poisonous in almost exactly the same way as uranium is. However, use of plutonium in the civilian fuel cycle would not concentrate it any more in the fuel than U-235 is concentrated there; at least not if the people doing it are sane.

The use of highly purified Pu-239 or highly enriched U-235 in a reactor is a very tricky and ticklish business. The Soviet Union lost more than one nuclear submarine to nuclear accidents involving reactors using them. The US has never lost a nuclear submarine to a nuclear accident, although they have lost two nuclear submarines to other things.

[DRBUZZ0]

Question out of curiosity.

What exactly is in spent nuclear fuel? I suppose it depends somewhat on the reactor. Is there a list or a series of lists somewhere?

Thanks.


Well if it's a standard uranium-based reactor:

Mostly U-238: which is the "Non fissionable" uranium, which is what most of it is when you put it in. (this is generally more than 80-90%)

"Unburned" U-235: This is the fissionable uranium. You start off with about 3% U-235 in most reactors. Depending on the reactor and the enrichment of the fuel anywhere from 25% to 50% or more remains and never actually fissioned.

Heavy Elements: Mostly plutonium but also a small amount of Amercium and neptunium. These can be used as fuel because they are generally fissionable or at least "fertile" meaning they will become fissionable after absorbing a neutron. They may account for up to 10% but usually are only a few percent. Also, they are crappy for weapons. You get "reactor grade" plutonium with is too much Pu-240. Works fine for reactor fuel but not bombs.

U-236: Occasionally a U-235 atom will absorbe a neutron and not fission but enter a ground state and become U-236. Uranium-236 has a low neutron cross section but can be useful in creating specialty isotopes. It's not especially toxic or dangerous, so it's not usually a big deal. At worst it is a nusence.

Fission bi-products: These are the "spint" atoms which are left from the U-235. Of all the material generated these are the only ones that don't generally have any use in making new fuel. Most (95%+) are short lived enough that there is no disposal problem. Just hang onto the fuel for a few years and they're gone.

A few last millions of years, but the yeild of these is low and their long half life leads to them being not all that dangerous.

Finally the problematic ones are the ones that last decades. These last too long to just hang onto. But they're short enough to be dangerous. These are like Sr-90 and Cs-137.


I recall reading that the actual material in a bundle of spent fuel (about 24 rods 16 feet long) that is radioactive and not usable for more fuel is about the size of a tablet of asprin.

Of course, these do have uses. Cs-137 is used for cancer treatment and for sterilizing food and Sr-90 is used for power sources for oceanographic equipment and for keeping the components warm on satellites.

[Octavo]

This has been an excellent and very informative thread. It's taken me a few days to trawl through the whole thing, but I'm really glad I did.

To all the regular participants - Schneibster, DRBUZZ0, Lonewulf, luddite and others, thank you for this - I really appreciate all the research and fact-finding and explanation that was done. It has certainly increased my understanding a great deal!

I don't have anything technical to add - just some trivia about the nuclear industry in South Africa

Here in SA we have 1 nuclear plant (Koeberg) that has faithfully and quietly been producing power for the last 20 years and helping to keep Cape Town beautiful. Owing to our lack of energy sources, the only alternative for generating power in the Cape would have been to build a coal-fired plant and then use railways to transport the coal down from the northern reaches of the country. It would have been exceptionally expensive and absolutely filthy. The apartheid government already had enriched uranium and a fair amount of nuclear expertise from our secret nuclear weapons program, so we built Koeberg instead.

On the back of the incredibly cheap power supplied by Koeberg (and our abundance of naturally occurring coal in the north), for a while SA had the cheapest electricity in the world - of course Eskom (the para-statal power utility that owns all these plants) didn't bother investing in new capacity, so about 2 years ago we started feeling the pinch.

Koeberg shut down in mid-winter that year - 1 reactor was shut down for planned maintenance and refuelling, the other tripped for some reason and then off-site power failed or something and basically they had to shut the second reactor down until the nuclear regulator was satisfied that everything had been sorted out and gave the all-clear to bring it back online. With 1600Mw suddenly missing, Cape Town was plunged into darkness and rolling blackouts for about a month.

It's a long story, with government crapping on Eskom and Eskom blaming government etc. but essentially Eskom have now accelerated plans to have the French build us another "Koeberg" along the coast and have also decided to build the first full-scale PBMR demo reactor at Koeberg as well.

Eskom hopes that PBMR's will prove succesful and hopefully catch on in the rest of the world. Some linkage for the interested:

http://www.pbmr.com/

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

[luddite]

Thank you Buzzo.

[Hindmost]

Let me emphasize this point once again: the waste from military uses of nuclear power is of a very different character than that from civilian nuclear power, and the waste from a breeder yet another thing, and from making nuclear weapons again yet another thing. Plutonium is a much more dangerously radioactive substance than uranium; the half-life of Pu-239 is 24,000 years, and it is therefore highly active. It is also chemically poisonous in almost exactly the same way as uranium is. However, use of plutonium in the civilian fuel cycle would not concentrate it any more in the fuel than U-235 is concentrated there; at least not if the people doing it are sane.

The use of highly purified Pu-239 or highly enriched U-235 in a reactor is a very tricky and ticklish business. The Soviet Union lost more than one nuclear submarine to nuclear accidents involving reactors using them. The US has never lost a nuclear submarine to a nuclear accident, although they have lost two nuclear submarines to other things.


I am pressed for time of late, but I wanted to add about plutonium. If swallowed, it will just run through your body and end up in the toilet. Not as much of a problem actually. It has heavy metal toxicity--but no more than other heavy metals and it is not as toxic chemically as uranium, but the biggest problem is if it is inhaled. It stays in the lungs causing problems and is a bone seeker. When it gets into your bones, it will kill the marrow fairly quickly--and you don't have to inhale very much. Sr-90 is also a bone seeker and has the same type of issue.

glenn

[Hindmost]

I'm not sure how many times I can rephrase this without just repeating myself.

We have non-proliferation treaties in place to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. The problem with these treaties is that given a civilian nuclear program it is possible to covertly run a weapons programme, as India, Pakistan and Israel demonstrated. Breeder reactors make the process much easier.

If as a planet we end up using breeder reactors to supply our power needs, we are going to inevitably end up with breeeder reactors in countries that we do not want developing nuclear weapons. What else do you expect them to do, put up solar panels?


....snip

I suppose we can disagree on this, however, I don't see any causality with the US building breeder reactors and proliferation in other countries. The US has no plan to sell breeder technology to anyone. Iran has signed the non-proliferation treaty.

Civilian light water technology is essentially useless for building weapons grade materials. India constructed weapons production reactors. Pakistan originally enriched uranium but now has some production reactors under construction...both have not signed the NPT.

glenn

[Schneibster]

Dr. Buzzo, nice. Well done.

Hindmost, I didn't know that about plutonium.

Octavo, I'm very pleased to hear that someone is finally doing something with PBR technology. It's the safest way to build a nuclear plant that anyone's come up with. And it has an added bonus I don't think anyone's realized yet. It USES carbon- what I mean is, you can make use of all that carbon that has to be sequestered from cement and steel manufacturing to make pebbles.

[Hindmost]

Dr. Buzzo, nice. Well done.

Hindmost, I didn't know that about plutonium.

Octavo, I'm very pleased to hear that someone is finally doing something with PBR technology. It's the safest way to build a nuclear plant that anyone's come up with. And it has an added bonus I don't think anyone's realized yet. It USES carbon- what I mean is, you can make use of all that carbon that has to be sequestered from cement and steel manufacturing to make pebbles.

Of course pu has a reputation as the most toxic substance even though many things are much worse....now, this guy is crazy...and I don't know if I would consider this stuff reasonable.

http://russp.org/BLC-3.html

Adding to what you and DRBUZZO have done so well.

On the miliary reactor thing. Typically, the cores are highly enriched as previously stated. This give two advantages. One--with a very robust core design...reactor power on demand and also length of service. Refueling is truly a pain on subs and carriers and extending core life has been an ongoing goal. The cores are loaded with burnable poisons to keep the reactor's reactivity relatively constant over time--however, neutron absorbing poisons eventually get them too. When the core is removed, there is still a fair amount of usable U235 that was reprocessed in the past. The plant were not built for efficiency since they weren't design to make electricity. The two US subs at that bottom of the oceans have not leached anything thing from the cores...however...I am dated on that note. The wiki article indicates it is still true...but obviously it is wiki.

glenn

by the way...at the end of cycle in a comercial plant, 1-2% u235 remaining is accurate. What got me a long time ago was the fact that 30% of reactor power comes from burning Pu at end of cycle. With increased burnup designs, I am sure this has changed a bit.

[sparks]

Greetings:
Nice thread all the way around, very engaging and informative. I'm not a physicist nor a nuclear engineer, but I would like to make a few points if I may.

1. No question about it, we need an alternate energy source for many reasons not the least of which includes politics and environmental considerations.

2. Nuclear fission proponents sight the following points in thier arguments in favor of pursueing a 'nuclear energy future':

a) New reactor designs are safer--no doubt here, as we gain more and more experience designs will get better and better.

b) Waste disposal isn't the problem it once was.

c) Making comparisons with military or Soviet reactors is pointless because those are so different from commercial US reactors.



Now then:

New reactor designs are (most likely) safer due to our increased experience with nuclear (fission) power. However, designers are human beings. Contractors and construction personnel are human beings. Reactor operators are human beings. And human beings make mistakes.

Waste recycling and containment is also a human endeavor and as such, mistakes will be made. Further, are any of the recycling and containment schemes mentioned in this thread really active today? If they are that means that spent fuel rods are being transported from reactor sites to the recycling and storage facilities. This is being done by human beings. And human beings make mistakes.

No one wants to see one of thier reactors suffer a problem, let alone a major catastophe. Not the military, not the commercial sector. Yes, the goals are different and so any given reactor solution is different, but let's ignore the absurdity of re-inventing the wheel every time some one needs a wheel. These people, including the Soviets, are smart. They are not evil. They are of good moral fiber. They have sons and daughters just like everybody else. They are human beings. And human beings make mistakes.

And mistakes have been made be they military or commercial concerns by almost everyone who delves into nuclear energy. We don't hear about the military mistakes here in the US for obvious reasons of national security, but they happen nonetheless.

We are all human beings. And human beings make mistakes.



Should we be willing accept the risk that must accompany those mistakes?



If a nuclear plant suffers catastrophic failure, land areas the size of US states can be made unlivable for decades, perhaps longer. The number of people killed outright or by radiation induced disease can be conservatively estimated at tens of thousands.



Should we be willing to accept this kind of risk, knowing that, sooner or later, it will in fact happen because we are all human beings and human beings make mistakes?





I just can't see it right now, in spite of the excellent thread.

[Ziggurat]

If a nuclear plant suffers catastrophic failure, land areas the size of US states can be made unlivable for decades, perhaps longer. The number of people killed outright or by radiation induced disease can be conservatively estimated at tens of thousands.

Conservatively estimated at tens of thousands? Where on earth did you get that from? Even Chernobyl didn't kill tens of thousands.

And frankly, Chernobyl wasn't the result of simple mistakes. It was the result of a design that was almost perfectly tailored to make sure that any serious mistake ended in catastrophy. You couldn't do what happened at Chernobyl with a western reactor even if you wanted to. Yes, we can't be sure western designs won't have mistakes, but the Chernobyl design was not the result of mere mistakes. It was the result of designers who clearly didn't even try to design for safety. Who else but the Soviets would design a power reactor with a positive thermal coefficient?

Should we be willing to accept this kind of risk, knowing that, sooner or later, it will in fact happen because we are all human beings and human beings make mistakes?

Except the scenario you depict really isn't what's at risk. And if you think it is, you need to find out why Chernobyl was the monumental disaster it was. It wasn't merely mistakes, it was deliberate design decisions which could only be accepted (and they were accepted) in a system as disfunctional as the USSR.

[Schneibster]

Pebble bed reactors are as close as anyone has come to mistake-proof; if everything goes wrong all at once, they just sit there. They don't burn, they don't melt down, they don't explode, and they don't leak.

The people who designed and built Chernobyl made design decisions that, as Zig points out, led to an unsafe reactor. Their priority was not safety. It was almost inevitable that Chernobyl would fail, and when it did so, that that failure would be catastrophic. No reactor ever designed in the West has ever been permitted to have the kinds of design problems Chernobyl had; simply having a culture in which liability is an issue was and is the best guarantee of that.

As far as transportation of the materials, first, civilian reactor fuel, spent or new, is far safer than many chemicals routinely transported on railroads and in trucks in most industrialized countries today. Second, pebble bed fuel is safer still.

As Zig says, the scenario you depict is not connected to reality. Read what is written in this thread. The risks of not moving forward outweigh those of moving forward. By a lot.

[sparks]

You really believe the Soviets wanted several billion dollars of Soviet State Property to go up in radioactive smoke?

********. Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but it kinda seems like that's what you're saying.

As for tens of thousands-- If a reactor goes up and the wind is blowing over a major population center.....well there you are. They don't need to die right away to die nonetheless.

I don't recall "depicting a scenario". I merely assert that humans make mistakes and given enough time with nuclear reactors catastrophic mistakes get made. It's a matter of statistics.

[sparks]

BTW




http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobyl-deaths-180406

You did ask where I got it. Doesn't make it accurate, true.


But again: Should we be willing to accept this kind of risk?

As for PBRs--I must confess ignorance as to how they are so much safer than other designs. My bad for not looking deeply enough into the details of them and how they operate. Perhaps you could provide a link with comprehensive info? Thanks. On the other hand,

"Pebble bed reactors are as close as anyone has come to mistake-proof; if everything goes wrong all at once, they just sit there. They don't burn, they don't melt down, they don't explode, and they don't leak. "

sounds all to familiar and one helluva lot like famous last words.

Back to Chernobyl for just one last observation: Both of you (Schneibster and Ziggurat--and one or the other or both) suggest that the designers and operators and indeed the Soviet State itself by it's "dysfunctionality" are responsible for the meltdown.

Glad you agree with me. But it was a mistake no matter how you choose to dissect it, and we are all capable of the same, yes even here in the West. The citation here would obviously be TMI, occurred as a result of human error on several levels--just like Chernobyl did. We are all humans, and humans make mistakes. Doesn't matter a wit WHY we err. The reasons are legion. But there's no getting around the fact that we do err. Simple mistake--complex mistake--irrellevant. A mistake by any other name is just as deadly when it happens with something as powerful as nuclear fission.

[Schneibster]

You really believe the Soviets wanted several billion dollars of Soviet State Property to go up in radioactive smoke?

********. Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but it kinda seems like that's what you're saying.Nope. What I said was, they didn't care if several billion dollars of Soviet State Property went up in radioactive smoke, and because of their ideology, they didn't believe it would despite being told so by their scientists and engineers.

As for tens of thousands-- If a reactor goes up and the wind is blowing over a major population center.....well there you are. They don't need to die right away to die nonetheless.Chernobyl did, and tens of thousands didn't. Furthermore, not one single person died at or because of the Three Mile Island accident, despite a great deal of publicity. It was estimated that a single person might have died of cancer who might otherwise not have, but that person cannot be identified; it is merely a statistical estimate given the number of people exposed and the level of exposure. TMI was so named because it was three miles from Harrisburg, PA, USA.

Reactors are designed in the West so that they cannot "go up." Criticality is limited to well below the threshold of nuclear detonation, by the composition of the fuel alone; there is only 5% fissionable material available, and the inert remainder increases its absorption of neutrons with increasing temperature. This is called a "negative temperature coefficient," and it guarantees that even in the event of maximal catastrophic failure, total meltdown of the entire contents of the core, the nuclear reaction will die out because the multiplication ratio will fall below one. No civilian reactor ever built violates this principle; Chernobyl and one other reactor, in Bulgaria, were designed with positive temperature coefficients, and the one in Bulgaria was deactivated and disassembled after Chernobyl. No one but an insane person would ever build another such reactor.

I don't recall "depicting a scenario". I merely assert that humans make mistakes and given enough time with nuclear reactors catastrophic mistakes get made. It's a matter of statistics.Whether you recall it or not, the fact remains that you have postulated an impossibility. Reactors are specifically designed not to do what you postulate; they cannot detonate, and if they melt down, they do so within a containment that prevents general release of radioactive material to the environment. No one in their right mind would design or build one any other way; of the only two ever designed or built any other way, one failed catastrophically and the other was decommissioned as soon as possible thereafter.

You have been affected by hysterical arguments made by individuals who do not understand how nuclear reactors work, and fear what they do not understand. I recommend a strong dose of reality. It is the only cure.

[Schneibster]

You did ask where I got it. Doesn't make it accurate, true.

But again: Should we be willing to accept this kind of risk?If it is not accurate, why would you expect that there is "this kind of risk?"

[sparks]

Schneib:
I merely admit the possibility of Greenpeaces figures being wrong. I don't think the figures are wrong, but as a reasonable person, I must accept the fact that they may be since I didn't count the corpses myself.

This makes your question moot: I do think the figures are accurate, therefore, there is a risk--and a damned big one.

And while I admit that competent and responsible reactor design precludes nuclear detonation as such (and this is never ever what I was talking about anyway) once fuel melting begins, the geometry that all else depends on is lost and at that point, it's a craps shoot as to what will happen next. I hear your point about the fuel not being able to go 'critical' and explode in a nuclear fashion. I simply don't believe you know what your talking about. If the reactor can chain react in a self sustained manor, then it already has gone "critical"...according to classic definitions of the term. Did you mean something else? Let's ignore the fuel melting through the containment vessel, hitting ground water and exploding into the atmosphere that way.

You have pointed out that reactor design precludes a meltdown into groundwater, and as far as I know, even Chernobyl didn't go that far. On the other hand, once the reactor lid blew off and the graphite fire started, it really didn't matter if the molten fuel reached groundwater or not, now did it?

And as far as me being hysterical: Better safe than dead my friend.





But, I could be wrong!

[Lonewulf]

You have pointed out that reactor design precludes a meltdown into groundwater, and as far as I know, even Chernobyl didn't go that far. On the other hand, once the reactor lid blew off and the graphite fire started, it really didn't matter if the molten fuel reached groundwater or not, now did it?
LOL, people still think that Chernobyl can be reproduced simply? This is hilarious. Do you even know how the Chernobyl plant was built, and why it's majorly different than present designs?

And as far as me being hysterical: Better safe than dead my friend.
Better good risk assessment than fear produced by ignorance, hysteria, and sometimes even lies.

Greenpeace has a track record of being heavily dishonest to pursue it's own agenda.

But, I could be wrong!
If you think that Chernobyl is comparable to modern plants, then believe me, you are.

[Ziggurat]

You have pointed out that reactor design precludes a meltdown into groundwater, and as far as I know, even Chernobyl didn't go that far. On the other hand, once the reactor lid blew off and the graphite fire started, it really didn't matter if the molten fuel reached groundwater or not, now did it?

No, it didn't. But the process you describe is precisely the result of the inherently unsafe design - both in terms of the likelihood of an accident and in terms of the severity of the accident after it happened.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Light_water_graphite_reactor_%28RBMK%29

The US uses pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors. Both types use water as the moderator. In the event of a cointainment vessel explosion, there's no graphite moderator there to catch fire, and if the water boils, this loss of moderation will also stop the reaction.

[DRBUZZ0]

I found out some more information about waste disposal which might be interesting. France, which has about 90% nuclear power generation (and actually more than 100% of consumption because it exports electricity). They have implimented a reprocessing program which is quite good - they are quite experienced.

They "age" spent fuel for about three years and then reprcoss the uranium and plutonium for refueling. They generate about 1600 cubic meters per year of low and intermediate level waste. (This is the sort that is not considered in need of special monitoring and includes nuclear medicine waste, contaminated items and such). These are basically put into steel "55 Gallon" drums and filled with concrete and burried in a designated landfill.

The "High level waste" which is the stuff you have to worry about is vitrified into a molten glass and then encased in stainless steel casks. They generate about 160 cubic meters of the vertified waste per year. (NOTE: This is not the amount of waste alone. The containers are about 90%+ non-radioactive material that encases them).

This is about enough to fit in two-car garage easily. Currently the material is being held at a monitored site. It is expected to have a decay to the equivalent of natural material time of 200 to 400 years. The plan as of now it to hang onto it for the next few decades, not only to assure that the material keeps as well as they expect it to, but by that time the danger will be considered very minimal.

Pretty impressive for running your whole damn country on nuclear energy and producing that little waste.

[DRBUZZ0]

If it is not accurate, why would you expect that there is "this kind of risk?"

The "risk" associated with a nuclear reactor is hard to quantify. What is known is that there has not been a plusable senerio which would lead to wide dispersal and contamination of an area from a contained light-water pressurized reactor, and certainly not with a containment structure of the sort used in all US and European reactors of the last few decades.

All I can say is that the risk is small enough that I would very gladly bet my life on it and not feel at all nervous. I would bet the lives of everyone I know and never feel like I was taking a "liberty" with other's well fair any more than I would by not advocating that everyone go into a bunker to avoid being hit by a meteor, because... quite frankly... it won't happen. I'm not going to say it's impossible, but I will say it simply *won't* happen. And if I have to eat those words... well that's a hypothetical question... because I'm pretty damn sure I won't.

What I can't do in good faith would be to put anyone downwind from a coal fired power plant. Honestly, I don't think I could operate one if I was given one because I could not live with myself knowing all the harm I was doing to so many.

But a nuclear plant.. no I'd loose no sleep over that.

Unless it were an RBMK sort of design. That would scare the BEJESUS out of me and I'd probably never leave the control room where I'd sweat bullets looking at the dials all day and night...

[sparks]

Thanks for your input Ziggy, Lone, and Schnieb.

Only after looking at the last few post do I realize that we're talking at odds, to wit: Ziggy is answering a reply I made to Schnieb and visa versa. I could have prevented that and didn't. Sorry. If you go back and read the posting carefully, you see what's what and meant for whom. Changes very little in the end.

You may be right Lone on Greenpeaces record: But then again, who doesn't distort facts to bolster their own position? As for reproducing Chernobyl--Let's all hope that one never happens again. I really don't understand the reference to reproducing it--the statements I made are based on after-the-fact forensic analysis done several years ago, once it was safe to send robots into what's left of the reactor vessel--I'm sure you've seen clips of this on the tv. Pictures of the reactor lid, some 2000 tons, sitting sideways in the opening, and the entire bottom of the vessel blown downward about 2 feet below where it should have been to 'contain' even a popcorn fart. And yet they got lucky and the molten fuel was not hot enough to melt/burn down into groundwater. But still, that was one hell of an explosion, nuclear or not.

As for comparing the Chernobyl design to modern designs, yes I do know the difference. But my point still stands: Back in the 50's all this **** was said about nuclear power. And now here we are at the dawn of the new century and the **** starts all over again with the same rhetoric. Phuck the rhetoric, show me something substantial that I can buy.

You speak of risk assesement: This is exactly to my point all along. I don't think there is a "safe-enough" reactor design that makes the risk, no matter how small, worthwhile when so many lives are at stake in case of a catastrophe. All any of us can do is to reduce those decimal points closer and closer to zero risk. We can never reach zero risk. Almost zero, but never absolutely zero. And anything other than zero is just too much based on what could happen. Nuclear power is just that: Really powerfull, and not something to be dealt with lightly, and certainly not in a commercial (profit driven) environment. The temptation to cut costs by reducing man-power, routine maintenance, etc. is just too great and it must eventually lead to disaster.

PBRs--I love the notion. Last time I heard this **** was 50 years ago when breeder reactor were suppossed to make energy so cheap we wouldn't need meters on our houses anymore. Then, Detroit almost got nuked by the Enrico Fermi Breeder. One load of fuel, it was a disaster from start to finish, and never re qualified to operate again after they shut it down--after they got it back under control--after some intitial testing. It never made any substantial electrical power at all.

Hysterical? No. It's just that I've heard this particular **** before, and I'm still not buying it...at least until you guys change your tune and sing me something new.

[Lonewulf]

You may be right Lone on Greenpeaces record
I am.

But then again, who doesn't distort facts to bolster their own position?
Anyone that actually cares about the truth, and doesn't want to scare people with lies.

Sorry, but I'm not in the habit of trusting known liars. I guess you are, which is why you're here today.

I'm sorry, but as soon as you use lies as a weapon in your arsenal, then your "ends justify the means" tactics has just pretty much spit in the face of the ends.

I really don't understand the reference to reproducing it
We do not make reactors anything like Chernobyl was designed. Sorry, but keep trying to use scare tactics, but it won't work because I actually know the difference between a modern reactor and Chernobyl.

You speak of risk assesement: This is exactly to my point all along. I don't think there is a "safe-enough" reactor design that makes the risk, no matter how small, worthwhile
I disagree.

Hysterical? No. It's just that I've heard this particular **** before, and I'm still not buying it...at least until you guys change your tune and sing me something new.
Ditto on all accounts.

I've heard your particular brand of hysterical bullspit before, and I'm still not buying it.

[DRBUZZ0]

What a coinkydink. I was just bitching about how Greenpeace makes meaningless protests and then doesn't offer any solutions right here: http://depletedcranium.com/?p=157

[Schneibster]

Schneib:
I merely admit the possibility of Greenpeaces figures being wrong. I don't think the figures are wrong, but as a reasonable person, I must accept the fact that they may be since I didn't count the corpses myself.Actually, they are wrong- by a couple orders of magnitude, according to the UN. Here is the report (http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html). It states that about 30 people died, and a few hundred were injured, mostly among those working to contain the disaster. In the decades since, approximately 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer- note, cases, not deaths, thyroid cancer is eminently treatable in most cases- have occurred as a result of Chernobyl, and more can be expected in coming decades. As far as a hundred thousand people dying, here is the quote from that report:There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The risk of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to its short latency time, does not appear to be elevated. Although those most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident.The report is by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, established in 1955 to report on all such matters to the general assembly. This committee is associated with UNEP, the UN Environmental Program, not with the IAEA as has been erroneously (dishonestly?) asserted elsewhere. I'm sorry, but Greenpeace's agenda is notorious; given a thoroughgoing report from a reputable agency that gainsays Greenpeace, I have absolutely no hesitation in rejecting their assertions without further ado. And no hesitation labeling it as hysteria, either. It is unreasoning fear, incapable of being swayed by logic or fact. I have no use for such, and neither should anyone else.

This makes your question moot: I do think the figures are accurate, therefore, there is a risk--and a damned big one.It would appear that the facts say you are wrong. Sorry about that.

And while I admit that competent and responsible reactor design precludes nuclear detonation as such (and this is never ever what I was talking about anyway) once fuel melting begins, the geometry that all else depends on is lost and at that point, it's a craps shoot as to what will happen next. I hear your point about the fuel not being able to go 'critical' and explode in a nuclear fashion. I simply don't believe you know what your talking about. If the reactor can chain react in a self sustained manor, then it already has gone "critical"...according to classic definitions of the term. Did you mean something else? Let's ignore the fuel melting through the containment vessel, hitting ground water and exploding into the atmosphere that way. You are incorrect. Here is why: the criticality of a reactor is dependent not merely upon the amount of nuclear material present, and not merely upon the amount of fissionable nuclear material present, but also upon the presence of not merely neutrons, but neutrons of the appropriate energy level. The majority of neutrons released during fission are too fast to be absorbed by the U-235 nucleus; they must be slowed to increase the probability of absorption, which is required for fission. The materials that slow the neutrons are called "moderators." Without these materials, the neutrons are too fast, and the mass of fissionable material becomes subcritical. In a civilian reactor, only 5% of the uranium present is fissionable U-235, and that's only just after refueling; the other 95% is non-fissionable U-238. If the fuel melts, those proportions will be the same; there is no difference in melting point between the two isotopes. Without the moderator, the mass is subcritical and will not continue to react.

No matter what happens, if something goes wrong, the reaction stops. In the worst case, the entire bundle of fuel rods melts into a puddle of slag at the bottom of the containment, and the reaction stops. Nothing gets out of the containment.

As to whether I know what I'm talking about, if you were not aware of what I just said before I said it, and given what you said I have no hesitation in asserting you were not, I would have to then assert that the evidence shows that you are not competent to make that judgment, and that you would attempt to do so indicates flaws in your judgment beyond issues of competence or incompetence.

You have pointed out that reactor design precludes a meltdown into groundwater, and as far as I know, even Chernobyl didn't go that far. On the other hand, once the reactor lid blew off and the graphite fire started, it really didn't matter if the molten fuel reached groundwater or not, now did it?It has been repeatedly shown (not merely asserted) that Chernobyl was improperly designed, an accident looking for a time to happen. The mere fact that it had a positive temperature coefficient of reaction was sufficient to guarantee a problem, all other facts aside, and to ensure that when that problem occurred, it would be disastrous.

As a matter of fact, had things stopped with the reactor lid blowing off, it would still have been contained. It was not until the ceiling of the containment was breached and oxygen entered the containment and was available to the graphite that the fire started; and this fire was the major cause of the widespread dispersion of radioactive contaminants.

And as far as me being hysterical: Better safe than dead my friend.You need to work on your reading skills. I never said you were hysterical.

But, I could be wrong!I've presented evidence that leads strongly toward that conclusion.

[sparks]

Again gentlemen/ladies (as the case may be), I want to thank you for enlightening me. As self proclaimed critical thinkers, you've offered no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims to truth that I can see here. The problem must surely be with me then.

I can only say two things at this point with all sincerety and good will: Best wishes to you and I hope none of you ever have to live through a nuclear accident in your own back yard.

Cheers,
Sparks

[Lonewulf]

As self proclaimed critical thinkers, you've offered no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims to truth that I can see here.
Either that, or you're entirely blind and can't read posts.

Evidence has been provided that greatly surpasses any evidence you have provided. So, indeed, the problem must be with you.

I can only say two things at this point with all sincerety and good will: Best wishes to you and I hope none of you ever have to live through a nuclear accident in your own back yard.
I would willingly live near a modern nuclear power plant, no questions asked.

[DRBUZZ0]

Again gentlemen/ladies (as the case may be), I want to thank you for enlightening me. As self proclaimed critical thinkers, you've offered no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims to truth that I can see here. The problem must surely be with me then.

I can only say two things at this point with all sincerety and good will: Best wishes to you and I hope none of you ever have to live through a nuclear accident in your own back yard.

Cheers,
Sparks

Hey thanks for the best wishes. I sincerely hope wish that you never get hit by a large meteorite.

Or attacked by a liger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligar) after it escapes from the wreckage of a C-130 which had to make a hard landing after colliding in mid air with a beautifully restored B-17G on it's way to an airshow, while the C-130 carrying the liger was taking it to a celebration of cross-breeding as decreed by the Queen of England and to be held on Prince Edward Island with Nancy Reagan, Jim Carry and Ringo Star presiding over the festivities and cutting the official figure-eight shaped cake on board the royal yatch with boxer-briefs on their heads...

What? It could happen, right?

[Schneibster]

Again gentlemen/ladies (as the case may be), I want to thank you for enlightening me. As self proclaimed critical thinkers, you've offered no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims to truth that I can see here. The problem must surely be with me then. Considering you could read the bulk of what I've said on Wikipedia with little effort, verify that it's true from controlled sources (books) with very little more, and considering you've been provided with references linked for you to examine from impeccable sources associated with the UN, and specifically with the UNEP, which has an environmentalist agenda, I'd have to say that the problem is definitely with you.

As a critical thinker, I would say that anyone who appears as uninterested in evidence as you have shown yourself to be probably has an emotional agenda that they are not prepared to give up so that they can learn the truth and judge for themselves what the facts of a matter are, and what actions those facts imply. Generally, folks with emotional agendas have had those agendas set by other folks who are good at manipulating peoples' emotions, and who have agendas of their own that often have little to do with what they say they are doing. Personally I like to follow my own agenda.

I can only say two things at this point with all sincerety and good will: Best wishes to you and I hope none of you ever have to live through a nuclear accident in your own back yard.

Cheers,
SparksAnd the same to you.

[Octavo]

Again gentlemen/ladies (as the case may be), I want to thank you for enlightening me. As self proclaimed critical thinkers, you've offered no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims to truth that I can see here. The problem must surely be with me then.

I can only say two things at this point with all sincerety and good will: Best wishes to you and I hope none of you ever have to live through a nuclear accident in your own back yard.

Cheers,
Sparks

Posts like this annoy me no end. Sparks, you've clearly not bothered to honestly read and understand many of the posts in this 17 page thread. Your concerns have been answered ad nauseum and in great detail with evidence and facts at every stage. How you can now claim not to have seen any evidence is completely beyond me. Whether you agree with the evidence or not is immaterial, but to claim not to have seen any? Perhaps you skipped the last 16 pages of evidence then.

I've lived my entire life with a nuclear reactor on my doorstep (well, within 30kms anyway) and I've visited it a few times and the nature reserve that surrounds it. It is one of the most beautiful and unspoilt spots in all of Cape Town. The hard working people that keep the plant running have had to endure the usual media hype around nuclear any time Koeberg so much as hiccups and yet that plant has continued to provide us with clean, cheap power for over 20 years.

I think it's high-time we started appreciating the people that keep our lights on more and stopped demonising what is quite clearly a solution that we cannot do without at this point.

I like to think that I'm a skeptic and I have taken the time to read this thread in an honest manner. I've tried to put aside any preconceptions and biases* and I came inescapably to the following conclusions:

a) Renewables are perhaps more viable than many pro-nuke advocates are usually comfortable admitting
b) Despite this, it is clear that renewables simply cannot provide the capacity required fast enough, and cost effectively enough
c) We should be replacing our baseload coal plants with nuclear - as it is clearly the only source that can provide that sort of capacity quickly and cheaply enough.

* I am quite willing to admit that I started out with a pro-nuke attitude, based entirely on my own experience with nuclear power which has been nothing but positive, however I did my best to remain impartial while reading all of the posts.

[Lonewulf]

a) Renewables are perhaps more viable than many pro-nuke advocates are usually comfortable admitting

I'm perfectly comfortable admitting that I would like Renewables to be a very viable solution. I really would.

However, it's hard for me to do in good conscience, as I have yet to be suitably convinced that wind energy or solar energy will be good in all locations, all the time. I'm all down with using them as much as we can, but I do not see how they can effectively replace all modern forms of power.

If we went with Greenpeace, we would get rid of all coal plants, all nuclear plants, AND all hydroelectric plants, while going go pure geothermal, solar, and wind. And we'd do it overnight.

Sorry, but... there's optimism, there's wishful thinking, and then there's being bat**** insane.

[DRBUZZ0]

In regards to an earlier comment on nuclear disasters...

What is the power source with the greatest danger of a catastrophic failure resulting in great loss of life and extreme destruction of communities?


Hydroelectric

[Hindmost]

Sparks: A complete strawman. Your statements about chernobyl and Fermi are just incorrect.

try this link for an accurate account of what the consequences of chernobyl

http://www.iarc.fr/chernobyl/briefing.php

Comparing Chernobyl with its lack of a containment building and postive water coeficient with a commercial plant having a containment and a negative temperature coeficient is just a logical fallicy. (false analogy)

Fermi 1 was a prototype reactor. Two fuel assemblies partially melted when a piece of metal blocked flow. There was no radiation release.

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/enrico-fermi-atomic-power-plant-unit-1.html

BUZZO, Schneibster, Luddite, lonewulf, Ziggurat and others all supported data with links with logical statements providing lots of evidence. I suggest you read the whole thread.

glenn

[luddite]

I am pressed for time of late, but I wanted to add about plutonium. If swallowed, it will just run through your body and end up in the toilet. Not as much of a problem actually.

Wasn't Litvinenko poisoned with plutonium in his food?

[Dumbledore]

If we listen to Greenpeace on the matter of nuclear power, we would have to condemn the whole of nuclear power generation and any of its possible developments simply for two incidents, 3 mile island, and Chernobyl. Given the rest of nuclear power generation history it is clear to see that nuclear power can be used reliably and safely, France comes to mind! It is great to see that at least some people understand this despite all the bad hype about nuclear power.:)

[luddite]

Reactors are designed in the West so that they cannot "go up." Criticality is limited to well below the threshold of nuclear detonation, by the composition of the fuel alone; there is only 5% fissionable material available, and the inert remainder increases its absorption of neutrons with increasing temperature. This is called a "negative temperature coefficient," and it guarantees that even in the event of maximal catastrophic failure, total meltdown of the entire contents of the core, the nuclear reaction will die out because the multiplication ratio will fall below one. No civilian reactor ever built violates this principle; Chernobyl and one other reactor, in Bulgaria, were designed with positive temperature coefficients, and the one in Bulgaria was deactivated and disassembled after Chernobyl. No one but an insane person would ever build another such reactor.

The Canadian CANDUs have positive void coefficients. Like Chernobyl, they use unenriched uranium. This link is just from Wikipedia, but the reason I looked is because I thought I had heard this somewhere before:

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

[Ziggurat]

Wasn't Litvinenko poisoned with plutonium in his food?

No, it was radiactive polonium 210 (Po), not plutonium (Pu). Po210 has a short half-life, only 138 days, so it's much more active than plutonium.

[DRBUZZ0]

The Canadian CANDUs have positive void coefficients. Like Chernobyl, they use unenriched uranium. This link is just from Wikipedia, but the reason I looked is because I thought I had heard this somewhere before:

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

Yes but the CANDU is different in every other way. It's moderated by heavy water, not a solid moderator which cannot be removed, and obviously not flammable. It is surrounded by water, as opposed to being cooled by pipes interwoven with the fuel. It doesn't have the same sort of pressure vessel as a light water reactor, but it does have a containment vessel which is similar. It also always has a containment dome.

The problems with Chernobyl were numerous. The fundimental issue was the political system. Here's a reprint of something I wrote elsewhere:


It’s really not an issue of “abilities” of the engineers though, but rather has to do with the culture and the standards. In the Soviet Union the system was very bad and safety was very poor, even though they had some of the best scientists and engineers in the world.

Basically the beurocrats up top wanted the plant built as they said. If they said “we want this done by next year” and you were an engineer you couldn’t say “Sorry but thats not enough time to do this safely” because doing so would mean loosing your job. Nuclear engineers had very good jobs, good homes and such. Much of the country was in poverty so you did not want to loose that.

What would end up happening is that anyone who “caused trouble” was a problem. The leadership wanted things to happen and they didn’t ask how. Most engineers and supervisors just tried to cover their own ass. They would not report problems but try to make it not their issue. “Yes, I was aware that could be an issue but it was on the orders of the supervisor. I alerted Dimitry and told him that it needed to be taken care of. Dimitry is to blame”

The supervisors didn’t want anyone to know if there was trouble in their plant. If they reported “We have a safety issue and we need to fix it” the response would be “None of the other plant operators reported safety problems like this! Can’t you handle your own plant? Maybe you should be replaced”

It was a very very very bad system which Russia is just recovering from today. Things were unenforced. Work was shoty. Things were secerative so there was little oversite. If you walked into a plant and saw a safety violation you basically would want to walk out and say “I see nothing. I didn’t even notice that. It’s not my problem”

But it wasn’t the technical skills of the engineers. There were many human errors and Chernobyl reinforced how important it is to take things seriously and be very careful about safety.

[Octavo]

a) Renewables are perhaps more viable than many pro-nuke advocates are usually comfortable admitting

I'm perfectly comfortable admitting that I would like Renewables to be a very viable solution. I really would.

However, it's hard for me to do in good conscience, as I have yet to be suitably convinced that wind energy or solar energy will be good in all locations, all the time. I'm all down with using them as much as we can, but I do not see how they can effectively replace all modern forms of power.


That wasn't aimed at anyone in particular - I was just saying that I think many pro-nuke advocates downplay the viability of renewables. The reasons for doing this may include a lack of knowledge about advances in renewables or perhaps a perception that it will hurt their argument.

Note that I'm not saying that renewables are the answer, or that they can replace most of our energy needs - in fact I don't believe that. I very much agree with you that nuclear power will have to bear the brunt of the burden, but I have also realised (thanks to this thread) that renewables DO have their place and can (in the right circumstances and areas) be very useful.

I sometimes get the impression from ardent pro-nuke activists that renewables are a complete waste of time and are really just a toy for DIY enthusiasts and I think the point I was trying to make is that that is a bit unfair. The trick is to work out the balance - and if I had to pull numbers out of my ass, I would go for about an 80/20 split (80% nuclear, 20% renewables)

That's a pipe dream of course, but I hope I clarified my point a bit better.

[Lonewulf]

I understand, Octavo, I just wanted to dispel the notion that I, at the very least, do not dismiss renewables altogether; I know you weren't referring to me, but I just wanted to make that clear. I also believe that more pro-nuke proponents accept renewables as a viable source of secondary energy than you will see anti-nuke proponents accepting nuclear energy as a viable source of secondary energy, much less primary energy. :)

[Abooga]

In regards to an earlier comment on nuclear disasters...

What is the power source with the greatest danger of a catastrophic failure resulting in great loss of life and extreme destruction of communities?


Hydroelectric


What?

Source?

I think that´s B.S. Hidroelectric (unless you build a dangerous dam) is probably the safest and most eco-friendly of energies.

[DRBUZZ0]

I like renewable... where they work. I mean, I wish the Flying Spaghetti Monster had made the earth with more areas with high temperature geothermal features reasonably near the surface or some other sort of renewable energy source more avaliable.

I've said before that solar is basically useless as a major power source. Satellites, space probes, remote locations, backup power for certain systems - it's great for that. But the energy density is just too low and the need for space inherently too high for major power for residences/industry/transportion.

Wind power is somewhat better, but it's too grid-destabilizing to use for more than a a relatively small portion of electricity. Denmark can do it because even though they get 20% of power from wind, they're really connected to a much larger grid in the rest of europe. Also it's really only useful at all in places with reliable, sustained relatively fast winds. And even there, it takes tremendous amounts of realestate.

Yes, there are some places that the land (or water) is avaliable that are close to demand with good winds where it can be a viable and even profitable source of additional energy - but really I think we need to get out of the mentality that "Every little bit helps" and therefore concentrate all the efforts and funds toward things which can only provide a relatively small portion of energy needs.

Really, cutting CO2 emissions from power generation by 10% ain't gona cut it. We need to cut them as much as reasonably possible. It's already too late to stop global warming, but it's not too late to make a big dent in it.

Furthermore, I simply find the side effects of burning coal to be... intolerable. It's bad for the environment and health in so many ways from mining to acid rain to CO2 to heavy metals. It's what I consider the number 1 problem for air quality. And "clean coal" only helps so much. Natural gas fired plants are better, but not 100% and natural gas is not abundant enough in areas which need power.

Conservation is also good, but it can only do so much. All the conservation measures implemented in most of the world have not reduced energy demand - they've only managed to slow it's growth by some. And when conservation becomes too stressed as the foundation of energy policy, you inevitably have "Energy Rationing" and that can have economic consequences as well as be a major limiting factor to the things that a society can do.

I don't see much that can really fill the need aside from nuclear energy.

And what really gets me so irritated about the anti-nuclear activists is the use of such stupid terminology. We need to swtich to "Green Energy" GOD that term goes right through me. It's intentionally vague and more vague than the term "renewable" even. Why? Because otherwise you'd have to present an actual viable source. If you just say "Green energy" or "Good energy" or "Happy Energy" you can gloss over the whole thing.

The other thing that comes up a lot is "distributed generation." Again this doesn't really address the problem. It's more a philosophy about how power should be generated than a solution. You can put solar cells on the roofs of every house in a town and you'll only notice a big difference in your wallet. And "distributed generation" and "microgeneration" doesn't even work well with wind power, since tall wind turbines get better air currents and "wind farms" located in optimal areas always do better than turbines just stuck around the place.

It irritates me a lot. I don't want "nuclear energy" as much as I want energy that is economic, avaliable, CO2-Free and can provide the power needed. I don't see much alternative. And the risks/waste of nuclear pale in comparison to many other sources.

[Lonewulf]

What?

Source?

I think that´s B.S. Hidroelectric (unless you build a dangerous dam) is probably the safest and most eco-friendly of energies.

"Eco-Friendly", sure, if you don't like rainforests.

Brazil to flood rainforest (http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0317-reuters.html)
The government's plans run counter to advice from experts at the World Commission on Dams (WCD), an independent body of international experts, who say dams should be avoided in areas rich in species -- like the Amazon which is home to an estimated 30 percent of the world's animal and plant species.




Wikipedia agrees:

Hydroelectric projects can be disruptive to surrounding aquatic ecosystems. For instance, studies have shown that dams along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of North America have reduced salmon populations by preventing access to spawning grounds upstream, even though most dams in salmon habitat have fish ladders installed. Salmon spawn are also harmed on their migration to sea when they must pass through turbines. This has led to some areas transporting smolt downstream by barge during parts of the year. In some cases dams have actually been demolished, e.g. the Marmot Dam, because of impact on fish. The final phase of the Marmot Dam removal was completed on Saturday October 20th, 2007, when the temporary dam was demolished and the river started to flow freely for the first time in 100 years[5]. This was the largest dam removal project in the US. Turbine and power-plant designs that are easier on aquatic life are an active area of research.

Generation of hydroelectric power changes the downstream river environment. Water exiting a turbine usually contains very little suspended sediment, which can lead to scouring of river beds and loss of riverbanks. Since turbines are often opened intermittently, rapid or even daily fluctuations in river flow are observed. For example, in the Grand Canyon, the daily cyclic flow variation caused by Glen Canyon Dam was found to be contributing to erosion of sand bars. Dissolved oxygen content of the water may change from pre-construction conditions. Water exiting from turbines is typically much colder than the pre-dam water, which can change aquatic faunal populations, including endangered species. Some hydroelectric projects also utilize canals, typically to divert a river at a shallower gradient to increase the head of the scheme. In some cases, the entire river may be diverted leaving a dry riverbed. Examples include the Tekapo and Pukaki Rivers.

Large-scale hydroelectric dams, such as the Aswan Dam and the Three Gorges Dam, have created environmental problems both upstream and downstream.

A further concern is the impact of major schemes on birds. Since damming and redirecting the waters of the Platte River in Nebraska for agricultural and energy use, many native and migratory birds such as the Piping Plover and Sandhill Crane have become increasingly endangered.

And carbon emissions?

Greenhouse gas emissions

The reservoirs of hydroelectric power plants in tropical regions may produce substantial amounts of methane and carbon dioxide. This is due to plant material in flooded areas decaying in an anaerobic environment, and forming methane, a very potent greenhouse gas. According to the World Commission on Dams report, where the reservoir is large compared to the generating capacity (less than 100 watts per square metre of surface area) and no clearing of the forests in the area was undertaken prior to impoundment of the reservoir, greenhouse gas emissions from the reservoir may be higher than those of a conventional oil-fired thermal generation plant.[6]

In boreal reservoirs of Canada and Northern Europe, however, greenhouse gas emissions are typically only 2 to 8% of any kind of conventional fossil-fuel thermal generation. A new class of underwater logging operation that targets drowned forests can mitigate the effect of forest decay.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectric#Environmental_damage

As for people killed:

Dam failures

Failures of large dams, while rare, are potentially serious — the Banqiao Dam failure in Southern China resulted in the deaths of 171,000 people and left millions homeless. Dams may be subject to enemy bombardment during wartime, sabotage and terrorism. Smaller dams and micro hydro facilities are less vulnerable to these threats.

The creation of a dam in a geologically inappropriate location may cause disasters like the one of the Vajont Dam in Italy, where almost 2000 people died, in 1963.

But it's not EEEEVIL nuclear, so it's okay!

[DRBUZZ0]

What?

Source?

I think that´s B.S. Hidroelectric (unless you build a dangerous dam) is probably the safest and most eco-friendly of energies.

Not all of these are hydroelectric dams, however there is no shortage of examples of how even modern dam structures can and do fail, not always due to bad engineering but also due to unanticipated rain fall, unstable ground and such:

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/dams/failure.html
http://simscience.org/cracks/intermediate/death.html
http://simscience.org/cracks/intermediate/failures.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dam_failures

As you can see there have been recent major failures with loss of life and property as well as more than a few narrowly avoided disiasters in the past few years. Also, more minor incidents which caused deaths and loss of property are not always listed.

Here are some examples of modern hydroelectric dam failures with multiple lives lost in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Barnes_Dam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teton_Dam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taum_Sauk_pumped_storage_plant (no deaths, but severe injuries and extreme devastation of the area)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_Hills_Reservoir (the classic example - although this dam was primarily for containing a water supply, hydroelectric operations were planned to be added)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam (A seemingly "modern" concrete dam built in the 1920's and not unlike many remaining in use today failed killing hundreds)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camar%C3%A1_Dam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malpasset (Another concrete dam killed hundreds and wiped communities off the map)


Of course, if you want the granddaddy of all dam failures, there were the twin failures of the Banqiao and Shimantan Dams in China in 1975.

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


At least 26,000 people died directly from the failure. The death toll from famine and disease directly attributable to the dam has been cited as up to a quarter of a million. Five million buildings destroyed. 10 million people left homeless.

Given that is in China, and it's unknown how well the dams were maintained and designed, but it still should not be taken lightly. And if nothing else - it's no more irrelevant than bringing up Chernobyl in the context of nuclear energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam (killed thousands)

[Hindmost]

Wasn't Litvinenko poisoned with plutonium in his food?

If it is who I think it is...it was Polonium.

glenn

Opps...didn't realize Ziggurat already answered this...

[J. Arthur Hastur]

Vent Radioactive Gas?

No

Venting Radioactive Gas Prevents Explosion. Vent Radioactive Gas?

Yes

Sound Safety Horn?

[DRBUZZ0]

Vent Radioactive Gas?

No

Venting Radioactive Gas Prevents Explosion. Vent Radioactive Gas?

Yes

Sound Safety Horn?

Yeah nuclear plants do vent radioactive gas on occasion. So does my basement. Actually the nuclear plant not far from me was built in an area once used as a granite quarry. The have been known to get high readings for radioactive gas discharge during certain weather patterns. It was traced to radon seeping from cracks in the granite.

[Ziggurat]

Not all of these are hydroelectric dams, however there is no shortage of examples of how even modern dam structures can and do fail, not always due to bad engineering but also due to unanticipated rain fall, unstable ground and such:

I don't think this made your list because it wasn't actually a dam failure, but the Vajont Dam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam) disaster was also pretty bad. Wiped out an entire village and killed about 1900 people. But the dam itself actually (and somewhat remarkably) remained intact through the entire ordeal. Basically, a major landslide on the mountain above the dam dumped a huge amount of rock into the resevoir, and resulted in a giant wave of water that overtopped the dam. So dam disasters are possible even if the dam itself doesn't fail.

[Schneibster]

Oops again.

[Schneibster]

Oops.

[Schneibster]

LOL!!! Guess there was a problem with the site. Moderators please correct!

[luddite]

No matter what happens, if something goes wrong, the reaction stops. In the worst case, the entire bundle of fuel rods melts into a puddle of slag at the bottom of the containment, and the reaction stops. Nothing gets out of the containment.

How can we be so confident of the containment? My daughter, who is studying engineering, was shown examples at the beginning of her studies of a series of spectacular engineering failures which were not understood until they were studied after the fact. Building collapses, bridge failures, dams breaking. The twin towers were specifically designed to withstand a direct impact from an airplane.

In Ontario, it turned out after the fact that the Pickering nuclear power plant is built almost directly above the point where 2 previously unknown fault lines cross. It continues to operate on what is now recognized as the most geologically active point in the country. You couldn't have picked a shakier siting if you set out to choose one.

Then I want to add a point about human stupidity and carelessness. I read an article a few years ago that demonstrated that despite improvements in brakes, front panel design, mandatory seatbelts, child restraints, airbags and other clear safety improvements, automobile fatalities remain fairly constant. It appears that drivers come to rely on the safety mechanisms and simply take more risks. Buzzo's assertion that he would be extremely careful in an RBMK reactor, but would relax if he was in another nuclear plant is suggestive.

Routine leads to carelessness in any case. I know that in Bruce County in Ontario, there is a black market in the devices that measure radiation exposure for Bruce power workers. Apparently workers would rather not lose work days due to overexposure to radiation. Which leads me to two questions:

1. If the processes are so well understood and controlled, how do power workers routinely become exposed to radiation above the permitted levels?

2. Is this the sort of people we want monitoring our nuclear power plants?

I want to go back to sparks and point out that while he overstated the case in saying that no evidence whatsoever has been offered, I'd have to say that the evidence has been underwhelming.

In part this is because of the relative positions. By saying "It's perfectly safe" you set yourself up for a much more demanding proof than someone who says there might be safety concerns. Because to prove there are safety concerns you just have to identify one or two. To prove that it's perfectly safe, however, you have to demonstrate that at every stage of the process the risks are none or negligible, that the safety features are more than adequate. And I do not think this has been done.

There has been a lot of handwaving about how TMI and Chernobyl couldn't possibly happen again, but even this claim has been inadequately supported.

I've introduced two articles that spoke about potential dangers with western reactors and they've been completely ignored.

If we strip away the angry rhetoric, people like sparks are unconvinced because your evidence was not compelling enough. Perhaps sparks should ask more specific questions about what concerns he has. But the pro-nuclear supporters need to recognize that they have a massive challenge, too. And so far there have been too many angry assertions on both sides.

And I'm still trying to reconcile the fact that governments are designing architecture to contain civilian nuclear waste for as much as a million years (in the case of Finland) while people on this forum are asserting that it's harmless after a hundred. The DOE document cited in the National Geographic article I linked to is extensively quoted on the web. In references, the 400,000 number comes up repeatedly as the point of "peak radioactivity". I haven't been able to find the source document yet though.

We all have work to do.

[DRBUZZ0]

Well for one thing the amount of radiation that a worker is exposed to is very conservatively limited. I could see how a worker might not want to miss a day because they're pushing a few microrems for their monthly dose.

TMI could happen again. I think it's unlikely. The exact same senerio could not happen again, but could a partial meltdown occur: Unlikely but impossible to rule out. If it did, it would be another PR nightmare and would require the reactor be shut down and some clean up be done... that's about it.

Chernobyl, simply put, cannot happen in a light water pressurized reactor. That having been said there always need to be redundant and passive safety measures taken. For example:

The pressure vessel is designed to be 100% incapable of loosing containment in even the worst possible theoretical overpressure situation.

However, just incase you are wrong, a sump and internal containment system is added. This is gaurenteed to never fail in any forseable event.

But just incase you are wrong, you have ceramic fuel which is encased in zirconium alloy tubes. You are 100% sure that there is no senerio where this could cause the fuel to be despersed even if the reactor vessle and secondary containment fail.

Even despite this, you add a massively overbuilt containment dome.

Another key is "Fail to safe" design. In otherwords, a coolant system failure, a loss of pressure, a loss of control of the reactor and any other event will result in it being shut down. This is similar to "Passive safety"


I can give a parallel example: In deep ocean submersiples they are built to be lighter than water. They would float except for lead weights which are held on by electromagnets. There is no mechanical connection. If you need to surface, you can throw a switch to release them. There is no relay, no logic circuit. You directly cut the power. If the batteries fail, the weights drop. If the switch fails, it cuts power. If all else fails, the cord could be cut, because it runs through the pressure sphere.

Similarly, on the Apollo landers, it's almost impossible to envision the accent engine not firing. It used two propellant in separate tanks which mixed to ignite the engine. If all else failed, the astronauts could manually open the valves. Once mixed they would ignite. No doubt there at all.


To understand why a worker might be exposed to more than permitted you have to realize that this is governed by "Linear Non-Thershhold Theory" and this amounts to exposure limits being "As low as reasonably possible." In other words: A tiny amount of radiation puts you at a tiny risk of health effects. A small amount puts you at a small risk of health effects. A somewhat larger dose means a somewhat larger risk. As such the dose limitations for the power industry are small... smaller than the airline industry. It's possible some workers may have "fudged" their dose because of not wanting to be sent home. I'm not excusing that, but that's not really a safety issue as it is made out to be.


As far as hundreds or millions of years for waste: That depends entirely on the nature of the waste. Also it depends on what is considered "harmless." One recognized standard is the point at which material presents a health hazard roughly equivalent to that of natural minerals.

Plutonium and other high-energy alpha emitters with long halflives will dramatically increase the time that you need to contain something.

[Lonewulf]

The twin towers were specifically designed to withstand a direct impact from an airplane.
Not that particular kind of airplane, no. Specifically, not something that big and with that much fuel.

Bad analogy.

[DRBUZZ0]

Well I think common sense dictates that it's just really dangerous to mix nuclear reactors and aircraft. Having aircraft flying at a nuclear reactor is pretty dangerous. The only thing I could think of that would be worse would be putting a nuclear reactor in harms way as an obvious target for enemy states or organizations who might want to attack by air means or otherwise. Yep....

Oh wait...

http://depletedcranium.com/carrier.jpg


I once had someone tell me that it was dangerous to have a reactor near a city and they mentioned how Con-Ed had proposed a reactor in Brooklyn NY in the 1950's, as an insane proposal.

I said that the thought of a reactor in New York City was something most wouldn't consider..... except during "Fleet Week" Too bad they didn't get any super carriers in last time they did Fleet Week. Oh well... maybe next year. But I think a lot of them have been kinda busy with Bush's little forign policy stuff..

[Ziggurat]

Not that particular kind of airplane, no.

Correct - the design didn't consider planes that large. It's also worth noting that while not designed for such an impact, they DID withstand the impact.

[Lonewulf]

I think that the engineers also weren't counting on a full fuel tank. I think they were concentrating mostly on the possibility of an airplane out of fuel (and thus, not able to truly control itself), as opposed to an intentional contact.

[Ziggurat]

1. If the processes are so well understood and controlled, how do power workers routinely become exposed to radiation above the permitted levels?

By handling activated material outside the reactor itself. Radiation directly from the reactor is not a significant contributor.

2. Is this the sort of people we want monitoring our nuclear power plants?

You've got the question backwards. Do we want permitted levels set low enough that people will exceed them before they're put at any significant risk? And the answer is yes, we want them set that low, and they are set that low.

And I'm still trying to reconcile the fact that governments are designing architecture to contain civilian nuclear waste for as much as a million years (in the case of Finland) while people on this forum are asserting that it's harmless after a hundred.

Welcome to the world of politics. Governments do things that don't need to be done all the time. For those politicians who are opposed to nuclear power, or don't want it stored in a particular location, inflating the requirements for storage time on waste is essentially a back-door way of trying to prevent those activities. And while they might get input from various scientists, in the end, it's the legislators, not some impartial scientific expert pannel, which actually sets the requirements. That is as it should be, but it's not without drawbacks, and this is one of them.

The DOE document cited in the National Geographic article I linked to is extensively quoted on the web. In references, the 400,000 number comes up repeatedly as the point of "peak radioactivity". I haven't been able to find the source document yet though.

I haven't either. I've seen the 400,000 number listed in connection to the DOE and Yucca, but usually just in terms of them having to do a projection for that far into the future. The National Geographic article is the only one I've seen which connects that number to a future peak in radioactivity. And that claim doesn't make any sense, so I think the reporter screwed up on something.

[Ziggurat]

I can give a parallel example: In deep ocean submersiples they are built to be lighter than water. They would float except for lead weights which are held on by electromagnets. There is no mechanical connection. If you need to surface, you can throw a switch to release them. There is no relay, no logic circuit. You directly cut the power. If the batteries fail, the weights drop. If the switch fails, it cuts power. If all else fails, the cord could be cut, because it runs through the pressure sphere.

Many reactors have essentially the same mechanism: a rod (or rods) held up by an electromagnet which will drop if power is cut, whether from some system failure or because of a decision to stop the reaction. Dropping the rod removes fuel from the core and drops an absorber in its place, shutting down the reaction. It's a passive safety system: nothing needs to be functioning in order for it to shut down the reaction, rather things need to continue to work in order for it to not shut down the reaction.

[luddite]

I think that the engineers also weren't counting on a full fuel tank. I think they were concentrating mostly on the possibility of an airplane out of fuel (and thus, not able to truly control itself), as opposed to an intentional contact.
This is really irrelevant to this forum. But I did see an interview with the chief architect who was simply devastated that the buildings fell. If I remember correctly, he did account for an airliner that size. He didn't calculate what the burning fuel would do, that's right. And that's the problem with engineering. You don't anticipate all the potential problems. But even if he had figured on the burning fuel, he wouldn't have come to the right conclusions. It took a long time for the structural engineers to figure out that the supports had bent with the heat and pulled the structure in on itself. Steel wasn't supposed to yield that way. In fact, months later they were still talking about what unexpected reaction had actually caused some of the steel to melt. Because jet fuel burns well below the point that steel melts, so it was hard to explain the molten steel.

[luddite]

I haven't either. I've seen the 400,000 number listed in connection to the DOE and Yucca, but usually just in terms of them having to do a projection for that far into the future. The National Geographic article is the only one I've seen which connects that number to a future peak in radioactivity. And that claim doesn't make any sense, so I think the reporter screwed up on something.

I've seen quite a few references to the 400,000 year peak dose. Like I said I haven't yet found the DOE source document. The best, most detailed information I've found is here:

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/805733-vytCTn/webviewable/805733.PDF

There are graphs which clearly show the peak dose rising to 400,000 years and this explanation:

It is useful to know which radionuclides are the greatest contributors to the calculated dose. At early times (the first 60,000 to 90,000 years) the dose is dominated by the highly soluble, very mobile radionuclides, I4C, 99Tc,a nd Iz9I. After that, the dose is dominated by 237Np with increasing contributions by several other actinides at late times (231Pa2, 26Ra2, 27A2~42, 220 230Th, ‘“Pb).

Note that the document regards civilian waste.

[Ziggurat]

And that's the problem with engineering. You don't anticipate all the potential problems.

Well, sure. But the thing is, skyscrapers aren't designed to accomodate failure. The building was designed to not fall down when hit by a plane, but there was no design to account for how to contain damage in the event that the building did fall down. Which is why the collapse of the twin towers caused a number of surrounding buildings to also fall. And that's a fundamental difference in the design philosphy between something like a nuclear reactor and a skyscraper. The reactors are designed so that the containment vessel won't blow open, but they're ALSO designed (at least in the west) so that even if it does blow open, damage is contained.

In fact, months later they were still talking about what unexpected reaction had actually caused some of the steel to melt.

Melting has nothing to do with the failure mechanisms that led to collapse. Steel softens at significantly lower temperatures than it melts at, due to a phase transition. All you needed to get collapse was for enough key parts of the structure to hit that phase transition temperature. And actually, there aren't any credible reports of molten steel either.

Because jet fuel burns well below the point that steel melts, so it was hard to explain the molten steel.

This is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding. There is no specific temperature, or even temperature range, at which any fuel burns. There is a specific ignition temperature (meaning a minimum temperature you need to burn), there is a specific amount of heat given off by that combustion, and there are typical temperatures at which fuel burns under a given set of conditions. But change the conditions, and you will change the temperature that the flame produces. In particular, if you insulate the fire so that heat remains trapped, you can get far higher temperatures than can be achieved with an open flame. And you don't need jet fuel to melt steel. Burning carbon will do just fine, if you insulate the fire well enough. And there was plenty of available carbon for fires which were quite persistent even after collapse. So even if there were bits of steel which melted, there's no reason to think this had anything to do with burning jet fuel or the collapse itself.

[Ziggurat]

I've seen quite a few references to the 400,000 year peak dose.

This, then, is part of the missing puzzle. Peak dose is not the same as peak radiactivity. The radioactivity will continually decline. The dose rate rises because they're assuming that containment fails, and that various radioactive elements will then seep out. But what's relevant isn't really how far off that peak dose occurs, but what that peak dose is. And it's really not that large. It's on the order of our existing background radiation (~300 mrem/year).

[luddite]

I know. I'm resisting the urge to comment more because this is so irrelevant to nuclear power.

I'm referring not to the post immediately above, but the one about jet fuel.

[Hindmost]

Finally found something on the subsidy issue..


US Department of Energy figures show that over the 40 years to 1993 US expenditure on nuclear R&D totalled $60 billion, resulting in it supplying 20% of the electricity, whereas solar & geothermal received $22 billion and supplied only 3% of the power. More recent figures show the renewables total in the DOE R&D budget as $356 million in FY2000 and $375 million in FY2001, of which wind got $33 and $40 million respectively.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip71.htm

The subsidies are substantial for nuclear power...but it seems it has given more back for the investment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005

The energy policy has now been revised and this wiki site seems to have a reasonable set of highlites.

glenn

[DRBUZZ0]

Finally found something on the subsidy issue..



http://www.uic.com.au/nip71.htm

The subsidies are substantial for nuclear power...but it seems it has given more back for the investment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005

The energy policy has now been revised and this wiki site seems to have a reasonable set of highlites.

glenn


To be fair not all the subsidies are directly pertaining to nuclear energy. Some of it was to encourage development of mining and enrichment infrastruicture, which benifits nuclear energy but prior to the 60's was really oriented almost entirely toward military applications.

But in any case, the numbers, even not adjusted for such things are pretty compelling IMHO.

[Schneibster]

This, then, is part of the missing puzzle. Peak dose is not the same as peak radioactivity. The radioactivity will continually decline. The dose rate rises because they're assuming that containment fails, and that various radioactive elements will then seep out. But what's relevant isn't really how far off that peak dose occurs, but what that peak dose is. And it's really not that large. It's on the order of our existing background radiation (~300 mrem/year).I agree, examining the paper it specifies how much radioactive material will move how far in how much time if containment fails, and differentiates between early radionuclides that are highly mobile (carbon-14, technetium-99, and iodine-129), and late, long half-life radionuclides that are much less mobile (neptunium-237, with lesser contributions from a number of actinides, protactinium-231, radium-226, thorium-229 and -230, actinium-227, plutonium-242, and lead-210). The later radionuclides' lesser mobility is due to them not being water-soluble; they are heavy metals, as opposed to carbon, technetium, and iodine in the early stages, all of which can be carried away by water. The earlier radionuclides also have shorter half-lives, whereas the later ones are longer-lived, and therefore less active. The chart on the right side on page 10 of 13 indicates an approximate maximum worst-case dosage of about 300 mrem/yr, and average background in the US is 360 mrem/yr, more than half of it caused by radon-226 released from decaying uranium naturally present in the soil.

The containment failure modes are low-temperature, caused by water, and high-temperature, caused by "igneous events," i.e., a volcano erupts on the exact site of the nuclear waste storage depot. The low-temperature scenario is far more likely, and even then is given a chance of well under 1 in 1,000,000 of occurring; given our knowledge of plate tectonics, the "igneous event" scenario is unlikely in the extreme, approximately equal to the chance of winning the lottery on successive draws.

[DRBUZZ0]

It is worth noting that there are similar natural events of similar likelihood which could produce radioactive exposure from entirely natural sources of equal or larger dose and toxicity.

For example (I will try to find the article) but radium-226 is a strong alpha emitter with a half-life in the thousands of years (long enough to be a long-term concern. Short enough to be highly radioactive) and which is capable of binding to organic materials or otherwise being taken up into an organism and causing damage.

It occurs naturally in uranium ore as a product of decay. In at least one example I read about some time ago there was evidence that unusual water activity caused this material and other highly radioactive uranium daughters to be leached from a large uranium ore deposit and concentrated in a local water table.

Obviously such events would be exceedingly rare. Geology doesn't usually work that fast and uranium ore is generally of high enough density that not a lot leaches out of it.

But such an (extremely) rare event could pose a hazard to local wildlife or humans. This is a very unlikely event but impossible to completely rule out. As such, most radioactive waste will not really pose a greater hazard or probability than other events like this..

It's just one more deposit of radioactive material on a planet that already has many.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I will tell you why we are not currently building new nuclear reactors for powering our cities.

YELLOW BOOTIES

http://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/images/04.03_thumb.jpg

Way to go Jimmy!

A US navy trained nuclear scientist acting as president roaming about in yellow booties.

[Octavo]

There is one more point I'd like to raise. At Koeberg the reactor operators are trained to deal with just about every eventuality and like airline pilots they have a manual with a checklist that has to be followed in cases of emergency.

The chief objective of the reactor operators is to maintain containment and shut down the core in the event of serious problems in a safe manner. However, if something happens that threatens containment (like, say the core has melted through the floor and is in danger of melting through the containment building), the RO's are instructed to call the off-site disaster management centre which is manned 24hrs a day by highly-trained specialised staff.

The people at this centre have a COMPLETELY different perspective and the actions that they take are all motivated by the need to keep exposure and leakage to a minimum. They have entirely different procedures and methods than the RO's.

I'm not sure if this is how it works at all nuclear plants or just Koeberg (can anyone tell me?)

The idea here being that the RO's are interested in keeping the plant online and the core safe and approach things from that perspective - the disaster guys don't give a feck about the core or the people manning the plant - their sole objective is to keep contamination at bay and their procedures reflect that priority (often to the detriment of anyone unlucky enough to be on-shift at the plant).

Also, the containment building (at Koeberg at least) is designed to withstand a directed strike by a 747 or a cruise missile an maintain structural integrity. The entire plant is built on a raft of rollers in order to ensure it can withstand an earthquake of magnitude 8 on the richter scale without any damage to the containment building.

I don't think people realise the level of redundancy built into these plants and the extent to which people have planned for every single eventuality.

[bobdroege7]

Here is why: the criticality of a reactor is dependent not merely upon the amount of nuclear material present, and not merely upon the amount of fissionable nuclear material present, but also upon the presence of not merely neutrons, but neutrons of the appropriate energy level. The majority of neutrons released during fission are too fast to be absorbed by the U-235 nucleus; they must be slowed to increase the probability of absorption, which is required for fission. The materials that slow the neutrons are called "moderators." Without these materials, the neutrons are too fast, and the mass of fissionable material becomes subcritical. In a civilian reactor, only 5% of the uranium present is fissionable U-235, and that's only just after refueling; the other 95% is non-fissionable U-238. If the fuel melts, those proportions will be the same; there is no difference in melting point between the two isotopes. Without the moderator, the mass is subcritical and will not continue to react.

No matter what happens, if something goes wrong, the reaction stops. In the worst case, the entire bundle of fuel rods melts into a puddle of slag at the bottom of the containment, and the reaction stops. Nothing gets out of the containment.




this is all true, but there is an important source of the neutrons that make the reactor safer still.

Some of the neutrons that keep the reaction self sustaining come from the fission products, and are delayed as they isotopes responsible must decay according to their half-lives. This means there is a time delay inherent in the reactor that limits the speed at which the reactor power level increases. Until a point is reached where the reactor goes, what is called prompt critical, which is what happened at Cherynoble.

There was also another prompt criticality accident, in Idaho in the early days and as a result all US reactors are designed to limit the amount of reactivity that can be added to a reactor. Single stuck rod and still able to shut down etc.

Also the industry has made significant changes in how operations are conducted such that an accident like 3 mile island is less likely to happen. I worked at a Nuclear plant that the NRC shut down for nearly 2 years due to concerns about maintenance of reactor safety systems.

They have the NRC and industry sponsored groups such as INPO to regulate the industry.

They learn from their mistakes and the Industry continues to get safer.

but you are wrong about technicium

from

http://www.dayah.com/periodic/

Beside technetium, promethium is one of the two elements with atomic number less than 83 that have only unstable isotopes, which is a rarely occurring effect of the liquid drop model and stabilities of neighbor element isotopes.

Oh, and reactors that use Zirconium to house the ceramic uranium can't melt down as they catch on fire before they melt, using water as their source of oxygen, which is what happened at TMI.

Cheers

[Schneibster]

Thanks for reminding me about promethium. I always forget there's one in the lanthanides.

[bobdroege7]

Thanks for reminding me about promethium. I always forget there's one in the lanthanides.

No prob, I've learned a lot lurking in your trail.

[Belz...]

You'd have to do something incredibly stupid to get radiation burns from natural uranium.

Such as ?

[Belz...]

If a nuclear plant suffers catastrophic failure, land areas the size of US states can be made unlivable for decades, perhaps longer. The number of people killed outright or by radiation induced disease can be conservatively estimated at tens of thousands.

Where in the blue hell did you get those silly figures ?

[Belz...]

And as far as me being hysterical: Better safe than dead my friend.

That's a fine life philosophy.

You know, you could get electrocuted in your own home. Better let go of that silly electricity. Better safe than dead, my friend.

But then again, who doesn't distort facts to bolster their own position?

That's another fine life philosophy. If you don't care about honesty or truth, then I have nothing more to say to you.

[Belz...]

In regards to an earlier comment on nuclear disasters...

What is the power source with the greatest danger of a catastrophic failure resulting in great loss of life and extreme destruction of communities?

Hydroelectric

Hey, don't knock hydrolectricity. At least it doesn't damage the environment with toxic radiatioactive byproducts...

Oh... yeah, but we DO flood gigantic areas, don't we ? :D

[Lonewulf]

That's a fine life philosophy.

You know, you could get electrocuted in your own home. Better let go of that silly electricity. Better safe than dead, my friend.
Oooh, and you're statistically FAR more likely to be hit by a car than killed by almost any other way. Better stay home... better safe than sorry.

That's another fine life philosophy. If you don't care about honesty or truth, then I have nothing more to say to you.
Aw, what's wrong with a little fact distortion? It's not like anyone cares about petty things like facts and reality, anyways. As long as you can make stuff up, THAT'S what matters. :D

[Rob Lister]

Such as ?

That was my question but I figured it was just a poorly worded post. I suppose you could heat the U and then apply it to the skin...but that would be a thermal burn, not a radiation burn. Then again, it depends on how you define "burn". I guess in theory, any exposure is a "burn", albeit even so slight as to not have any effect whatsoever.

[Belz...]

That was my question but I figured it was just a poorly worded post. I suppose you could heat the U and then apply it to the skin...but that would be a thermal burn, not a radiation burn. Then again, it depends on how you define "burn". I guess in theory, any exposure is a "burn", albeit even so slight as to not have any effect whatsoever.

I was thinking about crushing the uranium in your fist until it reaches critical mass, but I don't know if I could do that :D

[Lonewulf]

I was thinking about crushing the uranium in your fist until it reaches critical mass, but I don't know if I could do that :D
Are you planning on making it into the Guinness Book of World Records, or getting the Darwin Award? From the sounds of it, you're headed for both. :D

[Hellbound]

Actually, isn't there a spot somewhere that's thought to be the remnants of a natural, spontaneous fission event? I can't recall any details, but I seem to remember something of the sort. I'll search if I have to, but this is one of those odd facts I'm sure someone here knows, if it's got any truth to it at all :).

[BenBurch]

Actually, isn't there a spot somewhere that's thought to be the remnants of a natural, spontaneous fission event? I can't recall any details, but I seem to remember something of the sort. I'll search if I have to, but this is one of those odd facts I'm sure someone here knows, if it's got any truth to it at all :).

Yes, it's in Africa. Couldn't happen today; Isotope ratios change over time.

[Rob Lister]

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml

[Hellbound]

Yes, it's in Africa. Couldn't happen today; Isotope ratios change over time.

Yeah, well :p

But you gotta admit, that might cause radiation burns if someone stood next to it while it was "burning".

Of course, this would require a time machine...

ETA: Thanks for the link, Rob. I knew I wasn't crazy (at least, not in that way) :)

[Schneibster]

Such as ?The options I had in mind are all covered by the former rule 8. :D

I bet if you made cloth-of-uranium out of it, and made underpants out of that, and wore them, you might get some burns. Probably take a few months, though.

Like I said, REALLY stupid.

[Rob Lister]

I have a DU round on my desk. Sure, it's only Du but it's enough to keep my brother in law from visiting.

[DRBUZZ0]

I have a DU round on my desk. Sure, it's only Du but it's enough to keep my brother in law from visiting.

Where did you get it? Do you have any more? How much for it?

My understanding is that DU rounds are legal to own and such, if they're expended and no longer claimed by the military, but they're hard to find. They show up on eBay once in a while. I have a couple tiny pieces of DU scrap.

I highly doubt that uranium underpants would burn... maybe be a bit uncomfortable though.

I wonder how many people realize that from 1959 until the line was discontinued in the 1970's "Fiestaware" used depleted uranoium oxides in their "red" colored dinnerware and sold millions many of which are still in the cupboards of people all over the place and still eaten off of to this day.

The small amount of uranium which might be leached from the glaze is not considered a hazard and the radiation is minimal. It's not anything to be concerned about. But there's more than enough to light up a geiger counter from a good few feet away.

[Hindmost]

I was thinking about crushing the uranium in your fist until it reaches critical mass, but I don't know if I could do that :D

If you see the blue flash...nothing else will matter...

glenn:p

[Rob Lister]

It's a round minus the charge. It is ...surprisingly... heavy, for it's size. I got it from an A10 warthog tech pal of mine. It's enough to keep my silly-ass brother-in-law out of our house --- he has a fear of all things nuclear.

[Corsair 115]

If I remember correctly, he did account for an airliner that size. He didn't calculate what the burning fuel would do, that's right...

...It took a long time for the structural engineers to figure out that the supports had bent with the heat and pulled the structure in on itself. Steel wasn't supposed to yield that way. In fact, months later they were still talking about what unexpected reaction had actually caused some of the steel to melt...

...Because jet fuel burns well below the point that steel melts, so it was hard to explain the molten steel...I would suggest you immediately head to the Conspiracy Theories forum. There are actual architects and structural engineers who post in that forum and they will be happy to answer any technical questions you may have over the collapse of the WTC towers and the events and conditions which precipitated it.

[Belz...]

If you see the blue flash...nothing else will matter...

glenn:p

Pfah! It's not a magical +1 flash, so it can't touch me.

It is ...surprisingly... heavy, for it's size.

No kidding!

It's enough to keep my silly-ass brother-in-law out of our house --- he has a fear of all things nuclear.

Tell him it's too late. Just talking to you on the phone is enough to get contaminated.

[Belz...]

I would suggest you immediately head to the Conspiracy Theories forum. There are actual architects and structural engineers who post in that forum and they will be happy to answer any technical questions you may have over the collapse of the WTC towers and the events and conditions which precipitated it.

Yeah. But be warned, Luddite. Aside from the calm, well-mannered architects and engineers, there's also ME in the CT forum.

[luddite]

Finally found something on the subsidy issue..



http://www.uic.com.au/nip71.htm

The subsidies are substantial for nuclear power...but it seems it has given more back for the investment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005

The energy policy has now been revised and this wiki site seems to have a reasonable set of highlites.

glenn
Glenn, I've been trying to get unbiased sources. I can get quite a number of sources like Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Suzuki Foundation and others that peg nuclear subsidies as astronomical.

Your source is the Uranium Information Centre of the Australian Uranium Association. Now I'm not saying they're making things up. But they do massage their numbers to be favourable to nuclear.

First of all, in your quote, I noticed that the amount of wind power produced for the subsidy was not quoted. They noted that nuclear subsidies paid off better than solar. This is unfair. Nuclear is for baseload power, solar tends to be for peak. Yes, there's less peak power, but it's also more expensive all-around. It's also replacing dirty alternatives. If we built nuclear peaking plants, the economy of nuclear would go out the window.

They split the R&D subsidies for nuclear into fission and fusion but lump all renewables together, noting they're not very good at delivering electricity. Well, if they include the enormous ethanol subsidies, I guess that would be true. These are ridiculous comparisons.

Finally they make unsubstantiated assertions that are routinely challenged by proponents of an expanded renewable grid:

for intermittent and essentially opportunistic supply of wind- or solar-generated electricity to a grid system, the maximum potential appears to be about 20% of the total

Nuclear energy fully accounts for its waste disposal and decommissioning costs in financial evaluations.

[luddite]

I would suggest you immediately head to the Conspiracy Theories forum. There are actual architects and structural engineers who post in that forum and they will be happy to answer any technical questions you may have over the collapse of the WTC towers and the events and conditions which precipitated it.
I am so sorry I ever started this. I do not want to get into the conspiracy theories. And all my questions have been satisfied. The thin relevant point to this forum was that engineers routinely screw up. And they screw up big time often enough that we shouldn't be complacent. That's all. The details are actually irrelevant.

[Lonewulf]

Pfah! It's not a magical +1 flash, so it can't touch me.
You're behind in the times. D&D updated to 3rd edition, where complete immunity is nearly impossible to come by. :D

(Though who knows what 4th edition will be like?)

Glenn, I've been trying to get unbiased sources. I can get quite a number of sources like Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Suzuki Foundation and others that peg nuclear subsidies as astronomical.

Greenpeace is not unbiased. In fact, the founder of Greenpeace has left the organization in disgust when it was hijacked for political activism that focused more on being anti-corporation than pro-environmental. Greenpeace also has a long history of distorting facts to suit their activism, and have participated in terrorist activities to accomplish their goals instead of trying to be productive. Not an "unbiased" source in my mind.

Or are they "unbiased" only if they agree with you?

The Sierra Club does not totally oppose nuclear reactors. The Sierra Club opposes building new nuclear reactors, both fission and fusion, until specific inherent safety risks are mitigated by conservative political policies, and regulatory agencies are in place to enforce those policies. Fusion is currently opposed due to its probable release of the hydrogen isotope tritium[5].

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

I don't know about the Suzuki Foundation personally.

The thin relevant point to this forum was that engineers routinely screw up.
Sure. And yet, nuclear has an astonishing safety record if you look past the handful of accidents. Hydroelectric has had far more. Of course, hydroelectric is "green", so that's okay. People getting killed is okay if it's by green sources, right? ;)

And they screw up big time often enough that we shouldn't be complacent. That's all. The details are actually irrelevant.

If your biggest piece of evidence that they "screw up big time" is pointing out 9/11, then you fail entirely.

It would be like me saying a facility was designed to take a bomb, and then shout out that engineers failed entirely when it didn't take a direct hit from a thermonuclear blast.

[Rob Lister]

Luddite seems to be a very honest person.

I wonder if he will reconsider his position as a whole given the facts presented in this thread.

It's really, really, a great thread.

[luddite]

Greenpeace is not unbiased. In fact, the founder of Greenpeace has left the organization in disgust when it was hijacked for political activism that focused more on being anti-corporation than pro-environmental. Greenpeace also has a long history of distorting facts to suit their activism, and have participated in terrorist activities to accomplish their goals instead of trying to be productive. Not an "unbiased" source in my mind.

Sorry if I was unclear. That's my point. I've been avoiding Greenpeace and others as sources for a balanced view. But I think it's equally or more unfair to quote the uranium industry. Greenpeace does not get money directly for opposing the nuclear industry. The uranium industry benefits directly from promoting it.

[luddite]

If your biggest piece of evidence that they "screw up big time" is pointing out 9/11, then you fail entirely.

No, that's not my biggest piece of evidence. That was the last in a list of screwups. I also included dams in my list, by the way.

Which is why I'm so sorry I brought it up. Because you say anything that involves 9/11 and it gets magnified. It was a small part of a small point.