According to 39 Senators, "renewable" includes nuclear

This entry was posted on 6/17/2007 9:42 PM and is filed under nuclear.

Trackbacks

• No trackbacks exist for this entry.

Comments

• 7/4/2007 11:52 AM Jim Blair wrote:
  Hi,
  
  What does "Renewable" have to do with anything? Why not ask if a given power source is "sustainable" or "organic", to introduce other irrelevant buzz words?
  
  If the problem is Green House Gas emissions, the relevant criteria to evaluate power sources is GHG emissions.
  
  Is hydro-power "renewable"? I mean a dam silts up, typically in about a century. Lake Mead is at a record low level and if the drought continues, they may have to reduce power generation by Hoover Dam.
  
  Does the fact that a nuclear reactor creates more nuclear fuel than it consumes not qualify if as "renewable"?
  (as it that really matters).
  
  Since the problem is not "running out" of a fuel source, raising the question of "renewable" is a diversion.
  Reply to this
  1. 7/7/2007 7:49 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     Jim,
     
     Nothing like a good joust - thanks for commenting.
     
     From the Department of Energy, renewable energy means -
        Energy derived from resources that are regenerative or for all practical purposes can not be depleted. Types of renewable energy resources include moving water (hydro, tidal and wave power), thermal gradients in ocean water, biomass, geothermal energy, solar energy, and wind energy.
     
      
     
     Using a source you cited in another comment, Wikipedia's definition of renewable energy also doesn't include nuclear power.  I don't believe any do (except that of the 39 Senators).  You'll have to ask DOE and Wikipedia why they don't include nuclear.
     
     For me, an energy technology is not renewable until it works and it is viable.  No grandiose claims; instead, on-the-ground, actual results.  Otherwise, it's a moot discussion.  The parts of being viable include technological, economic, and political.
     
     The definitions of renewable energy don't include nuclear because the vast majority of nuclear fuel comes from uranium.  Until there are widespread, commercially available reactors "that are regenerative" and nuclear waste is actually handled instead of being ignored (i.e, the nuclear power regenerative technology genre has proven itself), nuclear power is not renewable energy.  When regenerative nuclear power has proven itself technologically, economically, and politically, it can be called "renewable."  As examples, wind and solar power classes have proven themselves in these ways so they are, without question, renewable.
     
     More important than terminology - no new nuclear plants should be built until we technologically, economically, and politically handle the waste generated by nuclear power plants.
     
     Our big energy-related problems are numerous, not just greenhouse gas emissions.  My 07/04/2007 comment under "What about nuclear power" lists many of them.  Twenty-three other problems that will be solved or significantly reduced by cutting federal income taxes (payroll taxes) and implementing a BTU tax to make up the revenue are listed here.
     
     Your question, "is hydro-power 'renewable'?"  Yes.  Water evaporates and then returns to earth as rain.  The DOE and Wikipedia definitions back this up.  You mention Lake Mead and drought conditions.  Global warming is causing droughts and flooding in many areas of the world.   This is part of the "downward death spiral" of global warming that I'll cover in a future entry.
     
     Reply to this
• 7/8/2007 9:51 AM Jim Blair wrote:
  "For me, an energy technology is not renewable until it works and it is viable. No grandiose claims; instead, on-the-ground, actual results."
  
  Hi,
  
  Nuclear has provided 20% of US electric power for about 40 years, plus all of the power for all of the major Navy ships (submarines and aircraft carriers), plus 80% of the electric power for France and about 60% for Japan. Does that count as on-the-ground, actual results?
  
  "Otherwise, it's a moot discussion."
  
  I agree. We need power that is proven to work. Even at night and on calm days.
  
  
  "The parts of being viable include technological, economic, and political."
  
  In France and Japan that includes nuclear. France has the lowest cost electricity in Europe. In the US nuclear is excluded for political reasons.
  
  "The definitions of renewable energy don't include nuclear because the vast majority of nuclear fuel comes from uranium. Until there are widespread, commercially available reactors "that are regenerative" and nuclear waste is actually handled instead of being ignored (i.e, the nuclear power regenerative technology genre has proven itself), nuclear power is not renewable energy.
  
  So nuclear IS "renewable" in France and Japan, but not in the USA. And for reasons that are political, not technical or economic.
  
  "When regenerative nuclear power has proven itself technologically, economically, and politically, it can be called "renewable."
  
  And it has in France and Japan (to name 2 places). But due to a refusal to alter a mindset formed in the 1960's and 70's nuclear remains off limits in the US.
  
  "...no new nuclear plants should be built until we technologically, economically, and politically handle the waste generated by nuclear power plants."
  
  It is that kind of thinking that is the reason why new coal power plants are NOW being planned and built all over the USA including in Wisconsin.
  And why the US will continue to emit more CO2.
  Reply to this
  1. 7/10/2007 10:02 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     

     Jim,

     You're comments are greatly appreciated.

     Nuclear power in the U.S., whether for electricity or Navy ships, is not viable.  We have no way to safely handle long-term storage of nuclear waste and therefore have no idea what it will cost to do so.

     Solar and wind power systems are supplying power today all over the world.  This is not an "either/or" choice between renewable energy and fossil fuels.  For many years, renewable energy will only supplement the electricity derived from non-renewable sources.  The lights are not going to go out.
     
     Because we are not paying the true cost of non-renewable energy (including environmental damage and, for nuclear, long-term storage of waste), the renewable energy industry has been hindered, growing by only ½ of 1% between 1985 and 2005 (Energy Information Administration  Monthly Energy Review - page 7 ).  Renewable energy has been at a price disadvantage because it has received no "credit" for being environmentally benign.
     
     A federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy will begin the process of financial recognition of the environmental benefits of renewable energy.
     
     France and Japan
     France and Japan's nuclear programs have not proven themselves to be technologically and economically viable - they are NOT renewable.  To put the size of their programs in perspective, per Wikipedia, the U.S. generates 99,000 MW of electricity from nuclear power - this is almost 27% of the entire world's generation of electricity from nuclear.  France is in second place with 63,000 MW and Japan in third with 48,000 MW.  These are not numbers to be proud of given the irresponsibility of leaving nuclear waste for future generations to deal with.
     
     Breeder reactors and reprocessing
     Per Wikipedia, "notable" breeder reactors include:
     

  2. BN-600 (Russia)
  3. Clinch River Breeder Reactor (U.S., construction abandoned)
  4. Monju (Japan)
  5. Superphénix (France, closed)
     
         Nuclear power is renewable.......not. 

       "The potential of reprocessing has not been achieved because it requires breeder reactors, which are not yet commercially available."  (Wikipedia, under Fuel Resources)
     
     Reprocessing:  "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. ^"   (Wikipedia, under Reprocessing)
     
     Nuclear Waste Disposal in France
     From Wikipedia, "For the waste that cannot be reprocessed, it has decided for political reasons to not store its waste 'permanently' but to build a research laboratory charged with investigating various options, including deep geological storage, above ground stocking and transmutation and detoxification of waste. Waste would not be buried permanently but rather stocked in a way that makes it accessible at some time in the future."
     
     France too is stealing from their grandchildren and their grandchildren.  Long-term storage has not been handled, but avoided while they continue to generate high-level nuclear waste.
     
     Nuclear Waste Disposal in Japan
     Per a Australian Uranium Association Ltd June 2007 report:

       - "In 1995, Japan's first high-level waste (HLW) interim storage facility opened";
       - "Nuclear Waste Management Organisation (NUMO) has begun an open solicitation process to find a site.....A third phase to 2025 will end with site selection.  Repository operation is expected from about 2035, and the 3000 billion yen (US$ 28 billion) cost of it will be met by funds accumulated at 0.2 yen/kWh from electricity utilities (and hence their customers) and paid to NUMO. This sum excludes any financial compensation paid by the government to local communities."
     
     Like the U.S., Japan is trying to address the nuclear waste issue.  This is good.  However, like the U.S., they will not know what it costs until the waste disposal process is operating successfully.
     
     Nuclear non-proliferation
     Nuclear waste disposal costs need to include the required safeguards to guarantee that nuclear material that could be used in an act of sabotage is not stolen at the reactor, during transport, during reprocessing, or at the disposal site.  This requirement is included because I can guarantee that hundreds of people will not die in a renewable energy related terrorist attack/accident.  An "apples to apples" comparison is needed.

     Why is the nuclear industry in such a sorry state?
     If you want to assign blame for the current state of the nuclear power industry, look to the "have our nuclear cake and eat it to" officers, elected representatives, and regulators that failed to invest in technologies such as reprocessing and long-term storage.  But, maybe the reason they didn't invest is not because they were greedy, but because they knew that nuclear power was not economically viable.
     
     Bottom line
     I'm not anti-nuclear, we just need to be able to handle nuclear waste long-term and know how much it costs to store it.
     
     When reprocessing plants are operating that can handle the nuclear waste generated, and we have long-term storage for all of the 5% or so that is left over, and someone is willing to invest in this because it is economically viable (without subsidies)......go for it.
     
     Lastly, if more fuel is produced than is consumed, you may call it renewable.
     

  
  Reply to this
  1. 7/16/2007 11:01 PM Jim Blair wrote:
     "Why is the (US) nuclear industry in such a sorry state?" (Aside from it having generated 20% of US power for the last 40 years with very little CO2 and a better safety record than any other power source)
     
     One reason is that President Carter banned the recycling of reactor waste, resulting in it building up and requiring a "nuclear waste storage site" that the industry collected over 25 billion dollars from rate payers to fund, but which has not been used for that purpose.
     
     Your "what about the 5% that would be left unrecycled" is a puzzle. I mean why should 5% be harder to store than the current 100%. It would have a much shorter half life than the current waste.
     
     And (lastly) a breeder reacter DOES produce more fuel than it consumes. So why not call it "renewable"?
     Reply to this
     1. 1/8/2008 12:40 AM Paul Riehemann wrote:
        
        <One reason is that President Carter banned the recycling of reactor waste, resulting in it building up and requiring a "nuclear waste storage site" that the industry collected over 25 billion dollars from rate payers to fund, but which has not been used for that purpose.>
        
        As we know from the experiences of other countries - listed in comments above - reprocessing of nuclear waste is not a panacea.
        -------------------
        
        <Your "what about the 5% that would be left unrecycled" is a puzzle. I mean why should 5% be harder to store than the current 100%. It would have a much shorter half life than the current waste.>
        
        We don't even have long-term storage for 5% of our nuclear waste so we don't know what it costs.
        -------------------
        
        <And (lastly) a breeder reacter DOES produce more fuel than it consumes. So why not call it "renewable"?>
        
        Covered in comments above.
        
        Reply to this

Leave a comment