What about nuclear power?

This entry was posted on 4/28/2007 10:49 PM and is filed under nuclear.

Trackbacks

• No trackbacks exist for this entry.

Comments

• 5/27/2007 10:14 AM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
  Paul is right-on about nuclear power. Even if Yucca were a viable storage option---and there's a LOT of question about that---just the existing stockpile of US nuclear waste will take up 3/4 of Yucca's capacity. If we build more nuclear plants, we will need more Yuccas.
  
  Trying to solve our energy and climate change problems by plunging into a new era of nuclear plants without having a technically feasible, affordable plan for dealing with the nuclear waste FOR MILLENNIA to come is completely irresponsible. It's saying, we're not adult enough to make the hard choices necessary to live within our energy budget. We'll take the energy now and hope a solution to the waste problem can be worked out later. This is the generational equivalent of child abuse.
  
  Finally, nuclear is not a zero-carbon energy source---the mining, transportation, and processing of the fuel all generate large amounts of CO2, as does construction of the plant.
  Reply to this
  1. 5/28/2007 11:03 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     Mark,
      thanks for this info and your thoughts.  "....generational equivalent of child abuse" - a powerful phrase; VERY sad.................and true.
     
     I didn't know that existing US nuclear waste would fill that much of Yucca Mountain - yikes.  Makes the economics of U.S. nuclear power even worse.  Copied below is an excerpt from Senator Diane Feinstein's July 9, 2002 " statement in opposition to the resolution that would establish Yucca Mountain as the National Repository for Nuclear Waste."    (Link to the full statement here .)

     "I am voting against this resolution. I support the development of a long-term strategy of storing our nation's nuclear waste. However, a single storage repository is not the answer to our nuclear waste problem. I have three major concerns about the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository:
     

     • First, the repository's inadequate storage capacity.
     • Second, the environmental risks of storing nuclear waste at the site.
     • And third, the risks of transporting nuclear waste to the site.

     Based on these factors, I believe it would be a mistake to bring all of our nation's nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. Instead of a single repository, it would be better to develop regional nuclear waste permanent storage facilities which would increase overall storage capacity and reduce risks associated with transporting waste great distances.

     Today nuclear waste is stored at 131 facilities in 39 states. These facilities hold nearly 47,500 metric tons of nuclear waste. This amount is growing rapidly. Within 40 years, it is estimated that our country will have generated nearly 108,000 metric tons of nuclear waste. The Yucca Mountain repository, as I understand it, is authorized to hold only 70,000 metric tons. So at our current rate of nuclear waste production, we will have generated this amount by the earliest estimated date of the repository's opening in 2010. In fact, we may generate the full 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste before the site ever opens.
     

     What is the point of creating a storage site that will be filled to capacity before it even opens?"
     *******************************************************
     
     I agree with Senator Feinstein's first and third bullets regarding only having Yucca Mountain for a nuclear waste storage site.  However, these arguments point to the need to complete Yucca Mountain AND to also create additional long-term storage.  The sooner these issues are addressed, the sooner nuclear power will lose it's constituency.  Another example of spineless politicians - all they need to do is facilitate an open, direct, action-oriented discussion on how we can store long-term nuclear waste.  If no one does this soon, a crisis (for example, leakage of a high-level waste spent fuel pool) will bring the issue to the forefront and we'll witness "fire-drill" management (it's not leadership).
     
     In closing, since many economists recommend having the market internalize (account for) all of the costs of a given trade, discussions should begin NOW about a tax shift from income to nuclear power to recognize the future costs (still unknown, but can be estimated) of long-term nuclear waste disposal.  Nuclear power is NOT cheap, as many would have you believe.

     
     Reply to this
     1. 7/3/2007 12:34 PM Jim Blair wrote:
        Hi,
        
        France has the cheapest electricity in Europe because they get most of it from nuclear. They deal with the "waste problem" by re-processing the "waste" into new fuel.
        
        The US has a political block against re-using spent nuclear fuel and THAT is the "problem".
        
        I have nothing against solar (except the sun does not shine at night and cloud cover is unpredictable). And wind is fine when it blows. Here in Wisconsin, wind speeds are lowest during the summer when electric demand is highest.
        
        The REAL choices are coal, methane (natural gas) or nuclear. And of those, nuclear has the least bad features.
        Reply to this
• 7/3/2007 12:20 PM Jim Blair wrote:
  Hi,
  
  If CO2 is the problem, nuclear power is the solution. The so called "waste disposal" is an excuse to keep building coal power plants (as we are now doing). France and Japan have very low CO2/person emissions but create much wealth per capita. How?
  Simple: they get most of their electric power from nukes.
  
  What about the "waste"? They both just recycle it. Plutonium in that "waste" is nuclear fuel. Look up nuclear reprocessing in wikipedia.
  Reply to this
  1. 7/4/2007 9:41 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     

     Jim,

     Thanks for your comments.

     CO2 is one energy-related problem -- so are other greenhouse gases such as methane (the primary component of natural gas).  Methane has a global warming potential 23X that of CO2 over a 100 year period.  Other energy-related problems include our dependence on foreign energy, five straight years of record trade deficits, and air pollution from fossil fuels - we're literally killing ourselves.
     
        On June 27, 2007, the EPA (yes, the Bush Administration's EPA) "proposed to strengthen the national ambient air quality standards for ground-level ozone, the primary component of smog.  The proposed revisions reflect new scientific evidence about ozone and its effects on people and public welfare.  Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung function, thereby aggravating asthma or other respiratory conditions.  Ozone exposure has also been associated with increases in respiratory infection susceptibility, medicine use by asthmatics, doctors' visits, emergency department visits and hospital admissions.   Ozone exposure also may contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease."
     
     
     What about nuclear power?
     
     Nuclear power has the potential to help with all of the problems above.  However, we can't continue to have our nuclear "cake" and eat it too.
     
     From my 5/28/2007 comment above: Senator Diane Feinstein on July 9, 2002 -
         Today nuclear waste is stored at 131 facilities in 39 states. These facilities hold nearly 47,500 metric tons of nuclear waste. This amount is growing rapidly. Within 40 years, it is estimated that our country will have generated nearly 108,000 metric tons of nuclear waste. The Yucca Mountain repository, as I understand it, is authorized to hold only 70,000 metric tons. So at our current rate of nuclear waste production, we will have generated this amount by the earliest estimated date of the repository's opening in 2010. In fact, we may generate the full 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste before the site ever opens.
     
     We should not build any new nuclear plants until we have implemented a long-term storage facility for the majority of the nuclear waste we have at that time (then we'll know what it costs, and we'll be able to start moving spent fuel rods from pools of water on nuclear reactor sites all over the country to safe, long-term storage).
     
     Electricity and steam from nuclear power needs to be included in a BTU tax shift so these prices start moving toward their true costs.  Nuclear reprocessing will help, but we're way too far behind the 8-ball to ignore our current situation.
     
     And, I believe there are better ways than nuclear to generate electricity -- wind and solar come to mind.  To paraphrase Amory Lovins, "Generating electricity with nuclear energy is like cutting butter with a chainsaw."  There are inherent benefits to more decentralized power generation - for example, do you want a new transmission line next to your home?; and, less energy is lost in transmission.  Which model is in greater demand now in developing countries?  Huge centralized electricity power grids like we have now, or smaller decentralized grids?  Which presents the best market opportunity for U.S. exports?
     
     ~    ~    ~
     
     P.S. - should we build more coal plants?  First, account for the environmental damage from burning coal in the price of it's outputs (electricity and steam), then LET THE MARKET DECIDE.
     
     P.S.S - Is solar energy economically viable given that "the sun does not shine at night and cloud cover is unpredictable."  Is wind energy economically viable given that "wind is fine when it blows. Here in Wisconsin, wind speeds are lowest during the summer when electric demand is highest."  I don't know.  First, account for the environmental damage and other externalities (e.g., think we should pay more to account for the wars we've been/are in?) from burning fossil fuels in the price of the outputs.  Also, include the cost of long-term storage of nuclear waste in nuclear outputs, then LET THE MARKET DECIDE.
     

     
     Reply to this
• 7/7/2007 10:37 AM Jim Blair wrote:
  Hi,
  
  On the new ozone and mercury standards, sure both are health hazards. BUT to reduce their emissions from existing coal power plants, it would cost billions of dollars and take decades to retrofit those coal plants, and they would STILL emit as much CO2. If we ever recognize the problem of GHG (not likely), then those coal plants would need to be shut down anyway. So why spend billions to "improve" them and then shut them down?
  
  Aside: if CO2 is recognized as the "problem" then "dirty coal" is actually better (or less harmful) to the environment than "clean" coal, because the sulfur and ash emissions partially offset the greenhouse effect of CO2.
  
  
  "Nuclear power has the potential to help with all of the problems above."
  
  YES
  
  "However, we can't continue to have our nuclear "cake" and eat it too."
  
  What does that mean? Nukes have supplied about 20% of US electric power for the last 40 years and included in the price has been the cost of "waste disposal". Just that the money collected has not been used for that purpose.
  
  "Nuclear reprocessing will help"
  
  I agree. Converting the accumulated nuclear "waste" into nuclear fuel that we could use to supply all of the electricity we now get from coal and still have enough extra to sell to other countries (like Iran and North Korea so they would not build their own reprocessing plants) would indeed "help" energy independence, trade balance and CO2 emissions.
  
  I say it would "help a LOT".
  Reply to this
• 7/7/2007 10:55 AM Jim Blair wrote:
  "P.S. - should we build more coal plants?"
  
  Hi,
  
  If Al Gore is correct, we should not only stop building more coal power plants, we should start shutting down the existing ones.
  
  But what could we replace them with? How else could we generate the approximately 50% of our current electricity? What else could make so much power on OUR demand? Not depending on the uncertainties of the weather?
  
  
  "And, I believe there are better ways than nuclear to generate electricity -- wind and solar come to mind"
  
  And at night? And when it is calm?
  
  IF we were to make much greater use of solar and wind, we would need to generate it where the sun shines (desert Southwest) and where the wind blows (Texas to North Dakota) and then transport it to where the people live (New England, Great Lakes and Southern California), and also find a way to store surplus power for times when bad weather reduces the supply. And to stop fluxuations in output from "crashing the grid"--as has happened in the past even when the output has not been altered by wind gusts and passing clouds.
  
  Extend you list to include some more realistic choices.
  Reply to this
  1. 7/9/2007 10:32 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     

     Jim,

     Double joust -- appreciate you raising these arguments.

     This is NOT an "either/or" choice.  For example, should we generate our energy from fossil fuels OR from renewable sources?  For many years renewable energy will only supplement electricity generated from non-renewable energy sources.  The lights are not going out.
     
     -----------------------------------------------------
     
     Paul: "However, we can't continue to have our nuclear 'cake' and eat it too."
     
     Jim: "What does that mean? Nukes have supplied about 20% of US electric power for the last 40 years and included in the price has been the cost of 'waste disposal'. Just that the money collected has not been used for that purpose.
     
     Reply: It means we are taking the benefits without paying the costs.  We're stealing from future generations.  As Mark from Grinning Planet said in a comment above, "We'll take the energy now and hope a solution to the waste problem can be worked out later.  This is the generational equivalent of child abuse."
     
     -----------------------------------------
     
     Jim: "Nukes have supplied about 20% of US electric power for the last 40 years and included in the price has been the cost of 'waste disposal'. Just that the money collected has not been used for that purpose."
     
     Reply: Per Wikipedia, "a surcharge of a tenth of a cent per kilowatt-hour is added to the electric bills of customers."  This surcharge WILL IN NO WAY cover the cost of waste disposal.
     
     Let's add up the costs of:
       a) selecting AND building a long-term nuclear waste storage site(s);
       b) transportation of nuclear waste to the storage site;
       c) guaranteeing that nuclear material can not be used in a deliberate act of sabotage (I can guarantee that hundreds of people will not die in a renewable energy related accident); and,
       d) reprocessing (potentially).
     
     From the original entry above:
        Yucca Mountain, Nevada is the (one, uno) proposed site for storing U.S. high-level nuclear waste.  It's been studied for almost 30 years by the U.S. Department of Energy.
     
     Yucca update: March 2007 - "It will cost $26.9 billion to build and operate the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump through 2023.  ...The department did not release a new figure for the total life-cycle cost of the Nevada project, estimated several years ago at $58 billion ."  P.S. - don't forget transportation concerns and costs.
     
     ------------------------------------------
     
     Jim: "Converting the accumulated nuclear 'waste' into nuclear fuel that we could use to supply all of the electricity we now get from coal and still have enough extra to sell to other countries (like Iran and North Korea so they would not build their own reprocessing plants) would indeed 'help' energy independence, trade balance and CO2 emissions.
     
     Reply: Per Wikipedia, "France is generally cited as the most successful reprocessor, but it presently only recycles 28% (by weight) of the yearly fuel use, 7% within France and another 21% in Russia."  France is the most successful and they only reprocess 28%!  The U.S. reprocesses 0%.  We'd have a lot of "ramping-up" to do.  How do you guarantee that nuclear material will not be used in a deliberate act of sabotage - particularly with all of the transport being proposed?  Given the potential loss of life and destruction, if you can't guarantee it, why take a chance?  "Dirty" nuclear bombs come to mind.
     
     The tax shift proposed is a start towards financial recognition of the true costs of non-renewable energy.  As the cost of non-renewable energy grows, the MARKET will decide the best energy path.
     

     
     Reply to this
• 8/3/2007 11:00 AM Jim Blair wrote:
  Mark says:
  
  "Finally, nuclear is not a zero-carbon energy source---the mining, transportation, and processing of the fuel all generate large amounts of CO2, as does construction of the plant."
  
  Yes, but that applies to any power source. It takes energy to build, transport and erect wind turbines, solar collectors, or any other energy source. The proper comparison is "energy in/energy out" over the lifetime of the source. And some solar PV materials have a rather short useful lifetime.
  
  But it's hard to make any meaningful comparison with solar since the technology is not mature enough, and most PV systems being built today (those heavily subsidized in Germany for example) will be obsolete in a few years.
  
  Remember all those solar panels that were added to houses in the Madison area during the Carter years (when the Feds paid much of the cost)? I don't see any of them still in use today, do you? In my part of town trees have grown to shade those few that remain.
  That subsidy was a waste of money.
  
  You say:
  
  "How do you guarantee that nuclear material will not be used in a deliberate act of sabotage -"
  
  Answer: we can't. But so far the terrorist have targeted mostly mass transit: trains (Spain, India, England), buses (Israel, England) and airplanes (USA, France). Because these are "soft" targets.
  
  Are we to shut down mass transit because of that?
  
  And if they do decide to target nuclear plants, we already have 103 of them in the US. Would it be any easier for them if we had 350? (I say 350 because that is my estimate of how many it would take to shut down and replace all of the coal fired power plants in the US--which I say should be our top energy priority)
  
  Finally, while in Alberta, I read that the Canadians are concerned that wind energy is approaching enough of their total electric supply that it raises concern that wind gusts will cause their power network to "crash".
  Reply to this
  1. 9/17/2007 4:35 PM Eric wrote:
     "How do you guarantee that nuclear material will not be used in a deliberate act of sabotage -"
     I think the wording of the question left "terrorist" out for a reason. It is far far far more likely that the staff at a nuclear facility will accidentally or purposefully spill, damage or sell radioactive material than anti-americans using radiation as a weapon. Terrorist cells have access to much easily acquired, deadlier and undetectable weapons than nuke sludge (most being inventions of US military). However, government subsidized nuclear facilities can always have a little "spill" to increase government funding.
     
     Also, I'd take a "crash" over a "meltdown" any day.
     
     We can't monopolize any energy industry as the one answer. That only creates an industry that is too powerful to be replaced when it becomes obsolete. And I believe that is the true cause of all global warming.
     Reply to this
• 9/17/2007 4:18 PM Eric wrote:
  No matter what energy source we use, the best policy is less. This is a made up figure, but I bet around 80% of all electricity is wasted on TV's that no one is watching, lights that are not illuminating anything, heat that warms empty houses, or at least someone who would rather turn up the thermostat than wear an ugly sweater. Although where we get it is incredibly important, what we do with it is more so. We spend a lot of time and research trying to figure out what will be the best choice down the road, but if we reduced energy consumption in total NOW, we could use irresponsible energy production more responsibly than responsible energy production irresponsibly. Also, you should never rely on one technology to fix all your problems. A monopoly is always worse for the environment than a bad idea. Finally, I believe that a world wide climate tracking system integrated with solar panels and wind turbines is the way to go (contradicting the monopoly idea)whereby weather conditions are measured globally, thereby calculating how much light the solar panels are likely to receive, and turbines are likely to encounter wind. That being the allowance of energy we have for the day. Unused energy gets sold, needed energy gets bought. Whats worse, cancer from coal burning, radiation poisoning from nuclear mis-handling, or not having enough juice to watch the last half of your documentary about cancer and radiation? Some might pose the debate "well hospitals need that energy to keep patients alive." Well usually a vast majority of people in Hospitals are cancer victims. The hospital will use less energy if less people are sick and dying. Clear that one up by asking people whats a bigger worry, the lights going off in the middle of cancer surgery, or having cancer.
  Reply to this
  1. 9/17/2007 10:16 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     

     
     There IS a tremendous amount of wasted energy in our country.  Shifting federal taxes from income to non-renewable energy will solve a large portion of this problem - who wants to pay more taxes?

     
     Reply to this

Leave a comment