Nuclear power

[zog]

According to what I've been reading and the timetables for the new revised and streamlined NRC licensing, more nuclear power in this country is a long way off. This recent article that I read (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wirestory?id=11871616&page=2) underscores that which along with the much higher initial costs and no end in sight licensing gaunlet (imho) effectively kills them.

The biggest obstacle right now is each reactor and support systems are designed for that specific site, and the contracts go out to bid, usually a good system, but not for nuclear.

Our Navy uses the same design for every ship or sub in that class, the next class will have pretty much the same designs with some monor improvements. Countries like France, where nuclear power has been much more successful use the same design and contracotrs over and over. You want to build a plant, OK, here are the plans, here is where you buy all the stuff, etc...

This month the International Atomic Energy Agency is meeting to discuss more or less a global standard design of 4th generation nuclear plants, which I believe is the key to nuclear power becomming a real energy solution.

 

[charlie b]

as for the question of where all the waste will go how about outer space we have the rockets there is plenty of room out there.

This will never happen, of course. Imagine the consequences of a rocket failure during launch!

 

[zog]

This will never happen, of course. Imagine the consequences of a rocket failure during launch!

That would be bad, but the Russians currently have about 40 nuclear powered crafts in orbit right now. Really, the biggest obstacle to shooting waste into spae is the cost, I runs about $4,000 a pound to put something in orbit.

 

[bluesmoke...oops]

This month the International Atomic Energy Agency is meeting to discuss more or less a global standard design of 4th generation nuclear plants, which I believe is the key to nuclear power becomming a real energy solution.

Nuclear power already is a real energy solution. The IAEA meeting hopefully will provide for more widespread realization of how well it works and for widespread implementation of already discovered solution.

 

[zog]

Nuclear power already is a real energy solution. The IAEA meeting hopefully will provide for more widespread realization of how well it works and for widespread implementation of already discovered solution.

"Better solution" would have been a better word to use. If the USA, and the rest of the world did it is well as France it would make a huge difference. The Gen IV reactors will make a huge difference too.

And all that spent fuel? Let's not get rid of it yet, lots of energy to be used in that fuel, could be a source someday, not waste.

 

[bluesmoke...oops]

Build a breeder reactor next to a "standard" reactor. Breeder reactors should be able to use the fuel that comes out of an existing standard reactor for another fuel cycle, allowing the fuel to generate more power, and using more of the long term materials present.

 

[ed downey]

This is kind of interesting regarding Electric Power Production.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html

 

[zog]

Build a breeder reactor next to a "standard" reactor. Breeder reactors should be able to use the fuel that comes out of an existing standard reactor for another fuel cycle, allowing the fuel to generate more power, and using more of the long term materials present.

And a nuclear wepons facility next to the breeder reactor. I am pretty sure breeders are banned in the USA.

 

[ericsherman37]

I vote for hydro electric, it's clean no hazardous waste, efficent. Most of the power supplied from my utility provider is Hydro (TVA). The enviromentalist jump up and down about species nobody knows, that were going extinct anyway, and it also creates recreation areas. It has the same problem as wind power though, there are limited areas that it can be used.
(We had to wait many years to replace an exsisting bridge for studies about a Bog turtle that had never been seen, but conditions were favorable for it to live there.)

In Oregon we get about 2/3 of our electricity from hydropower. (reference: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=OR). Like it or not, species conservation is relevant. Here, the issue is predominantly wild salmon runs. We can't just go plow over all the species out there and expect the world to be unchanged. One species of bog turtle or rare tiger lily or whatever might not make much of a difference, but the cumulative effect of hundreds or thousands of species extinctions due to hydro plants or other industry IS a noticable and usually detrimental phenomenon. You might do well reading a biology textbook.

This will never happen, of course. Imagine the consequences of a rocket failure during launch!

No kidding. There would be a country full of people that look like the Toxic Avenger.

 

[bluesmoke...oops]

And a nuclear wepons facility next to the breeder reactor. I am pretty sure breeders are banned in the USA.

Last I heard the treaty preventing them expired (though I claim faulty memory if I'm wrong)

As for the salmon issue, I live in Washington and one of the big ways to help the salmon would be to remove gill netting from the columbia. But it will never occur.

 

[hillbilly1]

......... You might do well reading a biology textbook.



No kidding. There would be a country full of people that look like the Toxic Avenger.

You might try some reading also, there has been lots of species that have went extinct before man has put his footprint on earth. The United States has more forested acreage now than it did 1000 years ago.Forest fires went unchecked and burned millions of acres, now we put most out fairly quickly. Living in the big city makes you think that there is rampant destruction. Fly over the rural areas (which isn't far outside the big cities) and you would be amazed at how underdeveloped this country is.

 

[dbuckley]

"Better solution" would have been a better word to use. If the USA, and the rest of the world did it is well as France it would make a huge difference. The Gen IV reactors will make a huge difference too.

Countries like France, where nuclear power has been much more successful use the same design and contracotrs over and over. ... meeting to discuss more or less a global standard design of 4th generation nuclear plants, which I believe is the key to nuclear power becomming a real energy solution.

If the rest of the world did it like France then using today's technology we'd be out of uranium far too quickly.

Build a breeder reactor next to a "standard" reactor. Breeder reactors should be able to use the fuel that comes out of an existing standard reactor for another fuel cycle, allowing the fuel to generate more power, and using more of the long term materials present.

Exactly, but then there's lots of weapons grade materials about. But this is the only long term solution with widespead nukes; we need to get the other 95% of the energy out of the uranium that conventional reactors discard.

They've been pouring money into fusion research for fifty years and they still can't generate useful energy. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for nuclear fusion to be practical.

The dad of a friend of my daughter is still involved in cold fusion research.

If any of these (lets be polite) super-optimists actually achieve their goals, then that's the energy problems more or less solved, so its worth pursuing the impossible, just in case they pull off the imnpossible.

Of course, that'll replace the finite energy model we currently enjoy and which looks like being a major planetary-limiting exercise with a whole new different set of problems, but to go there would be a threadjack.

 

[robbietan]

I vote for hydro electric, it's clean no hazardous waste, efficent. Most of the power supplied from my utility provider is Hydro (TVA). The enviromentalist jump up and down about species nobody knows, that were going extinct anyway, and it also creates recreation areas. It has the same problem as wind power though, there are limited areas that it can be used.
(We had to wait many years to replace an exsisting bridge for studies about a Bog turtle that had never been seen, but conditions were favorable for it to live there.)

Hydro involves terraforming and (sometimes) dislocation of locals who inhabit the area to be permanently flooded.

I vote for geothermal, reliable and "green", whatever that means

 

[ericsherman37]

You might try some reading also, there has been lots of species that have went extinct before man has put his footprint on earth.

Yah, there have. And proportionally, a lot more since.

The United States has more forested acreage now than it did 1000 years ago.

Correction: The U.S. has lots more tree farms now than it did 1000 years ago. I grew up and still live in rural Oregon; if there's any state where forestry is important, it's here. Have you ever driven through the rural western Pacific Northwest? Most of the highways are lined with forests, but have you noticed anything odd? First of all, all the trees are the same species. When they replant they just plant more Douglas Fir and the like. Second, all the trees are the same size. Third, they're REALLY dark in the understory and forest floor, even in daylight. That's not how a natural forest looks. A natural forest in this region has fir, cedar, hemlock, spruce, red alder, big-leaf maple... and so forth. The understory has elderberry to sword fern and everything in between. You're living in a box; there's more to healthy forests than just acreage. It's been proven that sustainable/selective harvesting of a given area of timber yields more board-feet in the long term than just clearcutting it all at once. It's just hard to get timber companies to look past their short-term profits.

Forest fires went unchecked and burned millions of acres, now we put most out fairly quickly.

Uh... yeah? I still can't figure out why we do that. All of the forests (at least in this region) are naturally SUPPOSED to be wiped out by fire every few hundred years. Some species (lodgepole pine) literally NEED fire in order to reproduce. Others (ponderosa pine) need periodic fires in order to thrive. You must hold the human species in arrogantly high esteem if you believe that by coming in and "taming" these wild forest fires, that we somehow "improved nature." Now we get these ugly, choked-out forests that are SUPPOSED to be getting burned. The only things that live in them are a few species of bugs and a few species of birds that eat them.

Living in the big city makes you think that there is rampant destruction. Fly over the rural areas (which isn't far outside the big cities) and you would be amazed at how underdeveloped this country is.

I've never lived in a big city (except 2 years in Rochester, NY at college).

 

[iwire]

Yah, there have. And proportionally, a lot more since.



Correction: The U.S. has lots more tree farms now than it did 1000 years ago. I grew up and still live in rural Oregon; if there's any state where forestry is important, it's here. Have you ever driven through the rural western Pacific Northwest? Most of the highways are lined with forests, but have you noticed anything odd? First of all, all the trees are the same species. When they replant they just plant more Douglas Fir and the like. Second, all the trees are the same size. Third, they're REALLY dark in the understory and forest floor, even in daylight. That's not how a natural forest looks. A natural forest in this region has fir, cedar, hemlock, spruce, red alder, big-leaf maple... and so forth. The understory has elderberry to sword fern and everything in between. You're living in a box; there's more to healthy forests than just acreage. It's been proven that sustainable/selective harvesting of a given area of timber yields more board-feet in the long term than just clearcutting it all at once. It's just hard to get timber companies to look past their short-term profits.



Uh... yeah? I still can't figure out why we do that. All of the forests (at least in this region) are naturally SUPPOSED to be wiped out by fire every few hundred years. Some species (lodgepole pine) literally NEED fire in order to reproduce. Others (ponderosa pine) need periodic fires in order to thrive. You must hold the human species in arrogantly high esteem if you believe that by coming in and "taming" these wild forest fires, that we somehow "improved nature." Now we get these ugly, choked-out forests that are SUPPOSED to be getting burned. The only things that live in them are a few species of bugs and a few species of birds that eat them.



I've never lived in a big city (except 2 years in Rochester, NY at college).

You need to do a little more reading and not just all from one source.

It is not the doom and gloom you present.

 

[ericsherman37]

It is not the doom and gloom you present.

Maybe you should do some extracurricular reading

It's not as rosy as most people want it to be.

 

[ActionDave]

It's not as rosy as most people want it to be.

Really? I've lived long enough now to have heard every doomsday scenario that has been concocted. Some of them twice. None of them have come true. Anybody out there remember the Population Bomb." We were supposed to be out of food some time in the nineties. How about the Ice Age we were headed for in the seventies. Boy shucks, barely made it out of that one.

Nuclear power is safe and clean with no CO2 emissions. Large chunks of the world are using it successfully and safely; we should also.

 

[zog]

If the rest of the world did it like France then using today's technology we'd be out of uranium far too quickly.
.

From March 2009 issue of Scientific American

If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption.

Most of the 2.8 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity generated worldwide from nuclear power every year is produced in light-water reactors (LWRs) using low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. About 10 metric tons of natural uranium go into producing a metric ton of LEU, which can then be used to generate about 400 million kilowatt-hours of electricity, so present-day reactors require about 70,000 metric tons of natural uranium a year.

According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered?a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.

Using more enrichment work could reduce the uranium needs of LWRs by as much as 30 percent per metric ton of LEU. And separating plutonium and uranium from spent LEU and using them to make fresh fuel could reduce requirements by another 30 percent. Taking both steps would cut the uranium requirements of an LWR in half.

Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself. Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium?a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.

 

[dbuckley]

Seems fair Zog - France generates about 80% of its juice from nukes, globally the number is about 14%. If we have 230 years at 14%, then at 80% we have about 40 years.

Something has to change, and fast breeders is one of the possibilities. I've yet to be convinced that the seawater extraction can scale.

Frankly, I don't think we'll get that far anyway; peak oil is a geologic certainty, the only question is when, and once peak oil kicks in, I think the world is going to get to be an ugly place.

 

[zog]

Frankly, I don't think we'll get that far anyway; peak oil is a geologic certainty, the only question is when, and once peak oil kicks in, I think the world is going to get to be an ugly place.

Could not agree more, it has been all about the oil for a long time now. I believe there is a lot less than we are led to believe. The world is going to be changing dramatically very soon.