Slashdot Mirror
Domain: vattenfall.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to vattenfall.com.
Comments · 7
-
Re:Guess you won't need those subsidies anymore
-
Re:Existing Nuclear Fission would be obsolete fast
I am not sure you can call that praying.
-
Re: $1M doesnt buy what it used to
-
Net Energy Return of Nuclear Power
BAS push a similar argument that Vattenfall does. If you were to look at the IPCC 4th assessment report, working group 3, chapter 4 "Energy Supply" (In particular 4.3.2 pp. 269-270 "Nuclear Power", and also the summary graph Figure 4.19 on page 283, which compares the lifecycle CO2 emissions per unit energy of different primary source) you would find the conclusions reached in that chapter are based on Vattenfall and they build nuclear power plants so it's not surprising the results favor nuclear power. Whilst they are the best run nuclear reactors in the world and an example of what a *baseline* nuclear program should look like, U.S reactors fall dreadfully short.
The work of Vattenfall *and* Storm van Leeuwen and Smith, upon which that chapter cites as references, both use the same method to calculate energy consumption funded by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy and are used in 80 odd industry sectors. The exceptionally detailed work of Dr Phillip Smith, Nuclear Physicist and Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen (MSc) (Stormsmith.nl), who both work in the nuclear industry and have specialisation on energy system analysis, is mostly ignored in the IPCC report. They have no vested interest in the outcome whilst Vattenfall does.
Their criticisms of Vattenfall include "Process analysis leads to a large underestimation of the total construction energy requirements when labor and supporting activities of the construction are not included".
When considering the energy density of the enriched uranium isotope you find that Pressure Water Reactors use 0.3% of the available energy density. This brings us back to Storm van Leeuwen and Smith whose analysis was to asses the Net Energy Return of the Nuclear industry.
For example, for the expected 300TWh's output of a new AP-1000 (low side Vattenfall, high side Storm/Smith) energetic estimates for construction of a nuclear power plant is somewhere between 11TWh and 35TWh, energy cost for demolition around 55TWh to 70TWh, that's around a third before you start. Yet you still have to factor dismantling and clean up of the core alone 5.6TWh's - 16TWh's. They talk in Peta-joules but I've done the conversions to put it in a frame of reference that will be easier to understand.
Using a conservative energy expenditure of 1528Kwh per ton of rock (containing Uranium) you have to process 500 tons of rock, that's 763500Kwh's, to produce one kilo of Uranium. Assuming an extremely optimistic extraction efficiency approaching %50 AND assuming you have a high grade ore that's roughly 763Gwh's per ton and you need 160tons for your first core. Even before enrichment you've consumed over 100TWhs without a 1/3 core refuel every ten years for forty and we haven't even factored energetic costs of a spent fuel containment facility or the logistics of moving spent fuel safely.
I'm not saying we shouldn't develop nuclear power plants as I think this is an essential step to dealing with Pu-239 and U-238 - but that's another conversation (also touched on by the IPCC in that chapter). The peer-reviewed data based on scientific approach to energy use calculation shows the energetic returns for PWR in this Nuclear Industry do not exist no matter how much carbon they displace and all that is happening is the IPCC is trading one externality (Carbon Dioxide) for another (Radioactive isotopes).
This is the reality anyone will uncover if you explore the subject of Nuclear Power.
The problem with the Nuclear power debate is that it is so polarised. As soon as you talk about solving it's problems your labeled as 'anti-nuclear' by the 'pro-nuclear' people for mentioning the problems and labeled as 'pro-nuclear' by the 'anti-nuclear' people for actually talking about a solution. Either way there seems to be little room for the responsible nuclear advocacy required to move the industry forward.
-
Re:some comparisons between wind and nuclear
First the point on funding, the figures and pdf that you cited did not mention the other funding sources available to nuclear power. Some of them are;
2005 U.S energy bill provided another $13 billion dollars worth of subsidies via revocation of the Public Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA) which was put into law in 1935 to stop a re-occurrence of the 1929 stock market crash.
Half a billion dollars worth of subsidies for procuring companies (usually oil companies) proposing "pre-approved" reactor designs, even if they don't build it, and a 1.8 cent per kilowatt hour tax credit if they do.
Also Nuclear power needs a special insurance construct to be allowed to operate, this comes in the form of re-authorising the Price-Anderson Act to underwrite the Nuclear industry with $600 Billion of Taxpayer money (closer to a trillion if you factor the huge amount of land you are going to lose in the event of an actual accident). Now I know this is insurance underwriting but no other industry needs a special legislative act just to exist.
Additionally assessments of the financial viability of Nuclear Power from some organistions;
Standard and Poor's assessment of the Nuclear industry's financial viability "the industry's legacy of cost growth, technological problems, cumbersome political and regulatory oversight, and the newer risks brought about by competition and terrorism keep credit risk too high for even federal legislation that provides loan guarantees to overcome"
an assessment supported by Britain's Royal Institute of International Affairs "even with an explicit tax on carbon-based power generation, new nuclear power plants cannot be economical without government subsidies"
So it's not really a meme, there is just more to it than apparent on the surface.
Even being generous, I'd say wind probably covers at least 2 orders of magnitude more land area per MW than nuclear.
Indeed, The difference is that the area occupied by wind farming can still be used for farming whereas the area mined for uranium contains radioactive isotopes that have to be contained in the area. Acid leech mining has greatly reduce the surface area that Uranium mining takes even though it is illegal in Russia and the United States it is carried out in Australia. Further Wind power does not need to draw upon of be located near a large water source, as is the case with most nuclear power plants.
That's roughly the same as demolishing 10-30 Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, not a single building. And they're spread over >1000 km^2.
The point is the energy expenditure on demolishing a nuclear power plant. I'll explain.
The IPCC 4th assessment report, working group 3, chapter 4 "Energy Supply". In particular 4.3.2 pp. 269-270 "Nuclear Power", and also the summary graph Figure 4.19 on page 283, compares the lifecycle CO2 emissions per unit energy of different primary sources. However the conclusions reached in that chapter are based on Vattenfall and they build nuclear power plants so it's not surprising the results favor nuclear power. Whilst they are the best run nuclear reactors in the world and an example of what a *baseline* nuclear program should look like, U.S reactors fall dreadfully short.
The work of Vattenfall *and* Storm van Leeuwen and Smith, upon which that chapter cites as references, both use the same method to calculate energy consumption funded by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy and are used in 80 odd industry sectors. The exceptionally detailed work of Dr Phillip Smith, Nuclear Physicist and Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen (MSc) (Stormsmith.nl), who both work in the nuclear indust
-
Re:Finally
I do. See for example the IPCC 4th assessment report, working group 3, chapter 4 "Energy Supply". In particular 4.3.2 pp. 269-270 "Nuclear Power", and also the summary graph Figure 4.19 on page 283, which compares the lifecycle CO2 emissions per unit energy of different primary sources.
The conclusions reached in that chapter are based on Vattenfall and they build nuclear power plants so it's not surprising the results favor nuclear power. Whilst they are the best run nuclear reactors in the world and an example of what a *baseline* nuclear program should look like, U.S reactors fall dreadfully short.
The work of Vattenfall *and* Storm van Leeuwen and Smith, upon which that chapter cites as references, both use the same method to calculate energy consumption funded by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy and are used in 80 odd industry sectors. The exceptionally detailed work of Dr Phillip Smith, Nuclear Physicist and Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen (MSc) (Stormsmith.nl), who both work in the nuclear industry and have specialisation on energy system analysis, is mostly ignored in the IPCC report. They have no vested interest in the outcome whilst Vattenfall does.
Their criticisms of Vattenfall include "Process analysis leads to a large underestimation of the total construction energy requirements when labor and supporting activities of the construction are not included".
One thing that is not immediately obvious is that the primary greenhouse gas from the Nuclear industry is not Carbon Dioxide but Chlorinated Fluro-Carbons (CFC114) a greenhouse gas 20,000 times more potent than C02. Whilst it's equivalent effect is slightly over 8 megatons of C02 more potent is the destruction this compound causes to the ozone layer and it's eventual effect on Phytoplankton which creates more breathable oxygen than the Amazon.
If that wasn't serious enough, long term it's not radiation but radioactive isotopes that will eventually make it into the food chain via bioaccumulation. As the hidden cost of carbon is imposed on our generation in the form of a Carbon tax, so we pass on a cost to future generation forced to have to deal with radioactive isotopes and other environmental externalities. Wouldn't it be better to develop a longer term strategy wrt Nuclear power than we currently have that actually addresses the very real problems the industry has?
This isn't surprising at all, when you consider the extreme energy density of nuclear fission.
Which is only relevant if you use the energy density of the enriched isotope and currently PWR use 0.3% of the available energy density. This brings us back to Storm van Leeuwen and Smith whose analysis was to asses the net energy return of the Nuclear industry. For example, for the expected 300TWh's output of a new AP-1000 (low side Vattenfall, high side Storm/Smith) energetic estimates for construction of a nuclear power plant is somewhere between 11TWh and 35TWh, energy cost for demolition around 55TWh to 70TWh, that's around a third before you start. Yet you still have to factor dismantling and clean up of the core alone 5.6TWh's - 16TWh's. They talk in Peta-joules but I've done the conversions to put it in a frame of reference that will be easier to understand.
Using a conservative energy expenditure of 1528Kwh per ton of rock (containing Uranium) you have to process 500 tons of rock, that's 763500Kwh's, to produce one kilo of Uranium. Assuming an extremely optimistic extraction efficiency approaching %50 AND assuming you have a high grade ore that's roughly 763Gwh's per ton and you need 160tons for your first core. Even before enri
-
Re:NUCLEAR IS NEVER THE ANSWER
In defense of the 'nutter', nuclear power is so expensive it's not really worth investing in, unless you are planning to build some nukes.
Nuclear power is the cheapest power source, cheaper than all but the cheapest coal plants, cheaper than hydro and wind, much cheaper than solar.
Swedish power company's power generation costs
IEA survey on electricity generation costs (PDF, page 46 fig 3.10, page 57, fig 4.6 and 4.7)Nuclear is also the safest in terms of fatalities per MWh generated (yes, even including Chernobyl).
Stats on all significant power generation accidents 1969-1996 (PDF, page 240, fig 7.2.6)There are lots of other neat stats in the two PDFs, including injury rates (nuclear is about the same as hydro, only coal is safer), wind generation is much cheaper in the U.S. (maybe because the U.S. is only building it when it makes economic sense instead of where ever environmentalists want it?), solar costs almost 10x as much as other power sources