Slashdot Mirror
The Nuclear Power Renaissance
Actual Reality writes "It is ironic to me that much of the same sentiment that thwarted the nuclear power industry back in the 80's is partially responsible for reviving it. Nuclear power is very clean compared to any power source that burns fuel. The US has missed several advancements in nuclear technology. We can only hope that environmental concerns will not again stifle our progress."
I don't know in detail about the US situation, but in the UK what killed nuclear power was not environmental concerns but the cost. When the government privatised the nuclear power stations they had to finally admit what had until then been denied - that it was the most expensive form of generation then in widespread use. It's possible this has changed, but the dearth of new builds despite apparent government sympathy leads me to believe that it probably hasn't.
Secondly, reprocessing. The US's main focus for reprocessing is wrapped up in the Bush Administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). This is a freaking scam, and the National Academy of Sciences backs me up. Basically, the types of reactors envisioned require materials science that just isn't there yet, requires funding that just isn't there yet, and requires an infrastructure that Just Isn't There Yet.
The solution is to turn Yucca Mountain into a medium-term repository. Bury it, safely, for 100 to 200 years, let the exceptionally hot stuff decay away, and I'm pretty darned sure civilization will be able to find some use for the energy stored in there in 100 years. But until then, let the technology mature. The commercial industry (and, by extension, every person in the U.S. who pays for electricity) has been paying into the Yucca fund for too long not to see any return on that investment.
Oh, one more snarky comment. Please provide support via links for your assertions; it's not hard. I would like to see evidence that after 30 years, the spent fuel coming out of a burner like envisioned for GNEP is actually less radioactive than the original ore.
"Diplomacy is something you do until you find a rock." --Richard Pound
However, natural gas (mostly methane, CH4) has the highest hydrogen to carbon ratio of any fossil fuel. That makes it produce less CO2 per unit energy than any fossil fuel.
Anything else has more C-C bonds and so cannot have as high of a ratio.
Disclaimer: I don't have my chemistry books handy or could make sure the above is compltely true. If I remember correctly, it is. YMMV...
The Integral Fast Reactor produces a comparatively small amount of waste (the designers guess estimate than a ton per gigawatt of power per year), and the waste itself is no more radioactive than uranium ore after about two hundred years (as opposed to thousands or millions of years).
After the project was nearly ready for production, it was torpedoed largely by John Kerry and Hazel O'Leary. This wasn't a partisan thing; two of the biggest backers were Richard Durbin and Carol Moseley Braun. It's one of the biggest wallbangers in political history that I can think of. I am at a loss as to why anyone is considering building a reactor on any other design.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
There are designs which don't produce long-lived waste. Our lovely government just happened to can the project before it was completed.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Putting them away from population centers wastes a lot of energy in the transmission lines and also gives people a false sense of security where they won't press for answers or safety. The Enrico Fermi reactor that melted would have contaminated the whole northeast corridor. Too many don't realize that and think setting them 50 or 100 miles away makes them safe. It doesn't.
This made me think of another point. Any such plant like this creates about 2 units of heat for every unit of electricity.
While you can't get this up to 100% obviously, you can collocate various industries that need heat - such as ethanol plants*. Heck, run steam pipes to various buildings to provide heat. Ammonia refrigeration using heat is a known technology, so it can even provide AC.
Even if you end up selling the heat ridiculously cheap prices - it's currently going up the evaporation cooling tower. Just like how a number of pollution products collected by scrubbers are actually valuable materials.
An ethanol plant getting cheap heat from a nuclear plant for it's processes would help lower the cost of the nuclear power(more money to pay off the building loan quicker) as well as lower the cost for the ethanol(cheaper to produce).
You're getting up to, at minimum, a large town to provide all the workers in the two(or more) plants, as well as all the support workers for them. People like doctors, teachers, waiters, accountants, police, etc...
*Many of which are currently coal or gas fired.
I don't read AC A human right
How plentiful is Uranium for nuclear power?
This link is a pretty good read for that information. Current price of uranium is nowhere near the historic inflation-adjusted high ($75/pound versus $145/pound). However, the author gives some very good information on why the price will be skyrocketing soon:
-there's a gap between production and consumption that's currently being closed by using stockpiles, i.e. old Russian nukes. Once those are used up, that gap opens up again.
-there are many nuclear power plants coming online in the next decade or so. 28 are currently under construction, over 100 more in the next decade.
-at current rates of demand, we'll need 900 new nuclear plants by 2050 to keep up.
In short, it's plentiful now, but it won't be soon.
Do you realize that the reactor core at Chernobyl was moderated with GRAPHITE? Graphite burns in air. THAT is why the radiation release was so catastropic there. US reactors are all water-moderated, not graphite-moderate, so they are inherently safer and the potential for a radiation release on that scale is much less. FURTHERMORE, Cernobyl didn't have a giant concrete western-style containment vessel over the entire place. And do you realize that US's WORST commercial nuclear accident is estimated to have killed *one* person?
The nuclear waste sites you mention are all, or almost all due to nuclear weapon manufacture, NOT commercial nuclear power.
Nuclear waste IS an issue, but it is much LESS of an issue than the *billions of tons* of toxic ash, and carbon dioxide produced by coal power, which you advocate using (not to mention lesser amounts of other nasty pollutants such as mercury, sulfur and the like--ever heard of acid rain? Toxic mercury fish? Where do you think acid rain comes from?). Further, that coal is often mined using extremely environmentally destructive strip mining.
I would like to comment that France has more nuclear power than the USA, but LESS of a problem with nuclear waste. Why is that? It is because we here in the USA are *complete idiots* about safe disposal of waste. It can be done, we're just too stupid to do it! And most of the problem is due to the ignorance and attitude of people like you!
Coal mining, burning, and transport has probably led to the deaths of millions of people. Nuclear power has NOT come CLOSE to such a death toll EVEN INCLUDING NUCLEAR WEAPON USE ON JAPAN.
And you know what? The deaths due to burning coal and other fossil fuels are going to exponentiate once much of the planet becomes refugees due to sea levels rising due to global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions!
I grant you, we SHOULD be using windmills, bicycles, sweaters, walking, transit, hydropower, and solar cells, but advocating the use of *any* carbon-emitting energy source over nuclear power is---your word-- INSANE.
Here's some more supplementary material:
Case Study: The Side Effects of a Coal Plant
A 500 megawatt coal plant produces 3.5 billion kilowatt-hours per year, enough
to power a city of about 140,000 people. It burns 1,430,000 tons of coal, uses
2.2 billion gallons of water and 146,000 tons of limestone.
It also puts out, each year:
10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (SOx) is the main cause of
acid rain, which damages forests, lakes and buildings.
10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) is a major cause of
smog, and also a cause of acid rain.
3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main
greenhouse gas, and is the leading cause of global warming. There are
no regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S.
500 tons of small particles. Small particulates are a health hazard,
causing lung damage. Particulates smaller than 10 microns are not
regulated, but may be soon.
220 tons of hydrocarbons. Fossil fuels are made of hydrocarbons; when
they don't burn completely, they are released into the air. They are a
cause of smog.
720 tons of carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a poisonous gas
and contributor to global warming.
125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack
Yes, you're right about the ratio, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_vehicle#Energy_content.
.25 .33 .38 .40
simply, it's the ratio of carbon atoms to hydrogen atoms:
methane- CH4 = 1:4 =
ethane -C2H6 = 1:3 =
propane-C3H8 = 3:8 =
butane -C4H10= 2:5 =
Methane has the lowest amount of carbon per mole.
But no matter how you slice it, all hydrocarbon combustion creates CO2.
IMHO, If we need to, as a civilization, we can survive on solar power using existing technologies if we reduce our consumption to more modest levels.
sure.
http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMJPC2003_775/PV2003_4431.pdf
Jimmy Carter studied to be a nuclear engineer while in the Navy. So he probably knew better than any other
politician what the risks were.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_carter
Breeder reactors _are_ a proliferation concern. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Reprocessing
Separating isotopes _IS_ possible...Maybe difficult, but not impossible. Fuel reprocessing is done
to make this purposely more difficult.
And it's easy to look back with 30 years of hindsight and criticize, but it was an intelligent decision at
the time, and might still be today. Breeder reactors have proven to be better, but I'll bet it wasn't
so obvious 30 years ago. And the proliferation issue still hasn't gone away.
why sequester the methane when you can turn around and burn it again?
Because it's a joke. Natural Gas = Methane. Parent is suggesting that we burn natural gas, convert the CO2 back into natural gas, and then pump it back underground.
Now mods have to take away the parent's "funny" modifier, because I explained the joke, therefore killing it.
DATABASE WOW WOW
For a safe design go and look up "Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactor". These have the capability to become a much safer design but they are still on the drawing board.
For a decent article discussing the various types of reactor currently in use look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_technology
It seems to suggest that Pressurised Water Reactors are the safest design.
I dont read
Nuclear reactors are very safe. The dangerous part is us.
Chernobyl: The idiots turned off the pumps.
Three Mile: The idiots went cheap with the sensors.
A well funded plant with competent people running it is very safe.
The environmental FUD has ensured that modern reactors have both.