Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 16:16:05

yellowcanoe wrote:
Tanada wrote:
I agree with all of the above and will just add that Canada needs to stop changing its mind about building the next generation of CANDU units or it will find itself in the same situation within a decade.


Ontario is so deeply in debt and hydro rates have increased so much due to privatization of generation and excessively high tariffs for renewable energy that it is extremely unlikely that any future government would commit to building new nuclear plants. It's already too late to prevent a reduction in nuclear capacity as two of the 550MW reactors at Pickering are scheduled to be shutdown in 2022 and the remaining 4 units in 2024. I expect the lost generating capacity will be replaced primarily with natural gas fired generators. A project to refurbish the four units are Darlington is underway and it is likely that the Bruce units will also be refurbished.


Ontario is on a one way ticket trip to massive energy problems in the future. What you describe is the usual kick the can down the road nonsense that impacts public infrastructure in general. What I want to know is how the government could afford anything in the past if it never had enough money. Of course, the real story is the entropy of obligations. Governments take more and more on with various do-gooder programs over time. But nobody rationalizes these programs by fully retiring obsolete ones, instead new ones are hammered on top. Both the federal and provincial governments are raking more money in real terms than ever before, but screech for more as if they are paupers.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5017
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 18:10:59

People, evil doin is happening within the nukular "industry"

U.S. energy chief says to start negotiations on nuclear pact with Riyadh

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saud ... E02KC?il=0

U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who this week visited Saudi Arabia on his first official trip to the region told Reuters that negotiations between the two allies will start soon to tackle the details of the pact - known as a 123 agreement. “We heard that message that ... ‘we want the United States to be our partner in this’,” Perry said, referring to discussions he had during his meetings with Falih and the top Saudi leadership. Perry met with Saudi King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman during his trip. But one potential sticking point could prove to be Riyadh’s ambitions to have the ability of one day enriching uranium - the process for producing fissile material which can have military uses. Riyadh has said it wants to tap its own uranium resources for “self-sufficiency in producing nuclear fuel” and it was not interested in diverting nuclear technology to military use. But under Article 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, a peaceful cooperation agreement is required for the transfer of nuclear materials, technology and equipment. Washington usually requires a country to sign a pact that blocks it from making nuclear fuel which has potential bomb-making applications. In previous talks Saudi Arabia has refused to sign up to any agreement that would deprive it of the possibility of one day enriching uranium itself. Perry declined to comment whether that issue was raised during his visit to Saudi Arabia.
Plan B is now being implemented: It is called Looting.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 18:14:35

Hahahaha...spend 30 years trying to pull apart one reactor. People, the nukular "industry" is a self-bankrupting total disaster.

Operator submits 30-yr plan to scrap trouble-prone Monju reactor in Japan

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Econom ... r-in-Japan

Under the latest proposal, the Monju operator -- the Japan Atomic Energy Agency -- plans to divide the 30-year period through 2047 into four phases. In the first phase, nuclear fuel will be extracted from the reactor core and other places by March 2022, followed by the second phase in which the operator prepares to decommission pipes and pumps where sodium coolant has circulated. The agency will begin scrapping the reactor in the third phase but has not disclosed detailed working processes from this point.
Plan B is now being implemented: It is called Looting.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 18:25:57

In a relatively ideal world managed by pragmatic and responsible entities and people, Nuclear could and should be an answer though probably not thy answer. But, we don't live in such a world and the clock is ticking on any form of energy transition.
The Big Economic Plunge is approaching
User avatar
onlooker
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Synergies Between Nuclear Energy and Coal

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 11 Dec 2017, 15:38:02



Some recent converts to nuclear energy advocacy are offended and confused by the fact that nuclear energy and coal have been lumped together in the Department of Energy’s recent effort to return profitable conditions to established power plants that do not depend on favorable weather or just-in-time natural gas fuel delivery. A segment of the offended advocates were initially stimulated to learn more about nuclear energy because of their legitimate concerns about climate change and air pollution. As they learned more about the under-developed potential of nuclear fission power sources that can provide vast quantities of reliable electricity without releasing any CO2 or “criteria air pollutants” they became stronger advocates. Many recognized that much of what they had been taught about nuclear energy was wrong. In some cases, they realized that some of the lessons that had been actively promoted were fabricated


Synergies Between Nuclear Energy and Coal
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3757
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Synergies Between Nuclear Energy and Coal

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 11 Dec 2017, 21:20:13

Silly premise. Nor is the nuclear fuel cycle carbon free. Mining uranium requires oil powered machines, and enriching uranium for fission requuires electricity, still mostly made from coal.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4409
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Tue 12 Dec 2017, 21:28:59

I don't know which is more hilarious: The Buffoonery of the Fission Industry or the Outright Hokum of the Fusion "Researchers"
Plan B is now being implemented: It is called Looting.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Synergies Between Nuclear Energy and Coal

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 03:19:07

KaiserJeep wrote:Silly premise. Nor is the nuclear fuel cycle carbon free. Mining uranium requires oil powered machines, and enriching uranium for fission requires electricity, still mostly made from coal.


You are being totally parochial in your outlook yet again KJ. France has been enriching Uranium for well over a generation now using fission produced electricity to produce fission reactor fuel. In addition due to the vast energy density of nuclear reactions compared to chemical reactions the carbon footprint for the currently oil powered machinery used to mine Uranium resources is tiny compared to the vast emissions that come from even Natural Gas, the lowest carbon emitting fossil fuel. Several modern mining operators are actually using in situ leaching to produce Uranium by drilling, fracking and then leaching the ore baring rock in the ground without extracting anything other than liquid containing the dissolved Uranium and the inevitable by products. Once the ore strata are stripped of economically recoverable Uranium the unwanted leachates can be reinjected back into the formation and the wells capped. This drill/frack/leach process not only allows vastly deeper strata to be easily exploited, it also has a very very small equipment footprint compared to a large open cast mine producing low grade ores which are the typical competing sources at this point in history.

48% of Uranium is mined by in situ leaching
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14349
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 09:07:09

User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16934
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 10:05:48

Tanada, or anybody else who might know. If I may ask out of pure curiosity. Not taking a position either pro or con nuclear. If in fact over the course of a few decades, civilization declines precipitously, how or can all the current nuclear reactors be decommissioned safely and effectively? And also, can all the waste products being safely stored-reused for at least a few hundred years?
The Big Economic Plunge is approaching
User avatar
onlooker
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 10:22:18

onlooker wrote:Tanada, or anybody else who might know. If I may ask out of pure curiosity. Not taking a position either pro or con nuclear. If in fact over the course of a few decades, civilization declines precipitously, how or can all the current nuclear reactors be decommissioned safely and effectively? And also, can all the waste products being safely stored-reused for at least a few hundred years?


There is a long list of chemical and nuclear sites that have simply been abandoned rather than be cleaned up, especially in the former USSR; This during relatively stable times for civilization. If things fall apart to any degree, does anyone really think we'll do any better?
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 11:49:07

GHung wrote:
onlooker wrote:Tanada, or anybody else who might know. If I may ask out of pure curiosity. Not taking a position either pro or con nuclear. If in fact over the course of a few decades, civilization declines precipitously, how or can all the current nuclear reactors be decommissioned safely and effectively? And also, can all the waste products being safely stored-reused for at least a few hundred years?


There is a long list of chemical and nuclear sites that have simply been abandoned rather than be cleaned up, especially in the former USSR; This during relatively stable times for civilization. If things fall apart to any degree, does anyone really think we'll do any better?

Maybe I have not read all the nuclear threads and Tanada's replies. We may be annoying to him and others if we keep rehashing the same questions. But apparently Ghung, you have been on this site for quite some time and have not been convinced at all about the safety of nuclear. I think I will bow out now and await the cogent reply of Tanada but I believe he believes we have the knowhow to do this and build safer nuclear power stations but the will is not their politically and people are too biased against nuclear. Let us see if his reply is different or more nuanced.
The Big Economic Plunge is approaching
User avatar
onlooker
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 12:17:49

Ghung, you have been on this site for quite some time and have not been convinced at all about the safety of nuclear.


I'll skip the part about me being one of the only people on this site that has actually been trained in the operation of nuclear reactors, and all that. My doubts are based of humans' record of dealing with the messes we've made in the past: the complex and expensive processes that determines who cleans it up and who pays. See the recent case of Duke Energy and old/failing coal ash ponds in NC as a relatively minor example. Societies don't simply decide things will be made right and then do it. Alakazam! Bring forth your magic wands!

I, again, ask a simple question that requires no "nuance": Considering our record of such things, does anyone think, when things begin to fall apart, when we are struggling to even provide basic goods and services to the masses, that we will have the wherewithal and will to clean up the hundreds of sites that will require high levels of finance, expertise, and commitment?

Considering our current rather dismal performance on just about everything, that, in the US, we can't even BUILD new reactors without bankruptcies, cost and time overruns, and confusion, color me skeptical, at the least. I've yet to see a comment (or any evidence) presented here that even comes close to changing my conclusions.

A Table showing about 150 shutdown reactors is at the end of this paper. About 17 of these had the full decommissioning process completed by the end of 2016.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/informatio ... ities.aspx
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby aspera » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 13:22:06

Ghung: ...the complex and expensive processes that determines who cleans it up and who pays.


Consider the notion of Defensive Expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_expenditures) which themselves do not generate common wealth or contribute to primary productivity. They just allow BAU to continue a bit longer.

Yet, since defensive expenditures consume money (i.e., make claims on future energy production), these expenditures become less possible as cheap energy ends. With time not just the "clean ups" discussed here but all forms of maintenance become problematic (i.e., you might have that Tesla Model 3 all charged up but no paved road to ride on).
Plant a garden. Soon.
User avatar
aspera
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 16:22:49
Location: Lakeland Republic

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 13:33:51

The problem with all these gloom and doom forecasts about how 'awful' nuclear waste is you can not point to any examples of massive death tolls from nuclear energy production. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

The closest anyone can come is Chernobyl where at the very extreme limit of possible relation to actual events you might tacitly link a few thousand excess deaths to the disaster.

Meanwhile nuclear fission electricity has offset billions of tons of CO2 production and along with that it has offset hundreds of thousands, possibly million, of deaths from respiratory ailments that would have resulted from producing the same electricity with fossil fuels. That is not just coal, but also oil and natural gas all of which cause deaths from people inhaling the exhaust products as they are spewed willy nilly into the environment.

A more realistic look at Chernobyl's effects find less than 100 deaths from acute radiation sickness and a few hundred cases of thyroid disease because the population was deficient in dietary iodine and absorbed too much of the radioactive isotope in the first three weeks after the accident before it decayed away to safe levels. If you consume the appropriate amounts of iodine in your diet then you are relatively immune to the thyroid issue that caused most of the harm after Chernobyl. Nobody in Japan suffered the same issue as a result of Fukushima and with the media hysteria you must realize a mass breakout of thyroid illness would have been headlines around the world.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14349
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 13:54:02

EDF stock at time of 2008 financial collapse was 85. Now its 10.50.

Nuclear is dependent on oil which France doesn't have.

Thus France is bankrupt like America.
Plan B is now being implemented: It is called Looting.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 13:58:09

5 years from now these useless contraptions will cost 50-100 billion

Toshiba Pays Up More Than $3B In Georgia Nuclear Expansion

https://www.wabe.org/toshiba-pays-3b-ge ... expansion/

Quote:
As of today, Toshiba has paid nearly $3.7 billion dollars to Georgia utilities. The Japanese company had promised the money to cover debt from its now-bankrupt subsidiary, Westinghouse. Westinghouse was the lead contractor building two nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle, which is near Augusta. The company’s bankruptcy drove costs on the nuclear expansion higher and pushed the timeline for completion back. Now, Georgia Power says the reactors will be complete in 2022, five years behind schedule, and the expansion will cost at least $22 billion. Georgia Power owns 45.7 percent of the project.
Plan B is now being implemented: It is called Looting.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 15:06:06

Tanada wrote:The problem with all these gloom and doom forecasts about how 'awful' nuclear waste is you can not point to any examples of massive death tolls from nuclear energy production. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

The closest anyone can come is Chernobyl where at the very extreme limit of possible relation to actual events you might tacitly link a few thousand excess deaths to the disaster.

Meanwhile nuclear fission electricity has offset billions of tons of CO2 production and along with that it has offset hundreds of thousands, possibly million, of deaths from respiratory ailments that would have resulted from producing the same electricity with fossil fuels. That is not just coal, but also oil and natural gas all of which cause deaths from people inhaling the exhaust products as they are spewed willy nilly into the environment.

A more realistic look at Chernobyl's effects find less than 100 deaths from acute radiation sickness and a few hundred cases of thyroid disease because the population was deficient in dietary iodine and absorbed too much of the radioactive isotope in the first three weeks after the accident before it decayed away to safe levels. If you consume the appropriate amounts of iodine in your diet then you are relatively immune to the thyroid issue that caused most of the harm after Chernobyl. Nobody in Japan suffered the same issue as a result of Fukushima and with the media hysteria you must realize a mass breakout of thyroid illness would have been headlines around the world.


Sounds like Tanada is saying it's no big deal if these sites are not cleaned up and nuke plants are not properly decommissioned. Turn them off and walk away?
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 15:42:19

GHung wrote:Sounds like Tanada is saying it's no big deal if these sites are not cleaned up and nuke plants are not properly decommissioned. Turn them off and walk away?


What do you imagine happens when you walk away from a defueled reactor either before or after decomissioning? You have a large steel vessel that has a mild radioactive output and a lot of concrete some of which may reasonably be classified as also emitting more radioactivity than it did when it was freshly manufactured. That is it. The radiation levels are low enough after a few weeks that workers can walk within meters of the reactor vessel in complete safety, and that vessel is encased in a several meter thick concrete shell. Close the door and walk away, nothing much is going to happen within the lifetime of the materials present.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14349
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 15:47:01

Tanada wrote:
GHung wrote:Sounds like Tanada is saying it's no big deal if these sites are not cleaned up and nuke plants are not properly decommissioned. Turn them off and walk away?


What do you imagine happens when you walk away from a defueled reactor either before or after decomissioning? You have a large steel vessel that has a mild radioactive output and a lot of concrete some of which may reasonably be classified as also emitting more radioactivity than it did when it was freshly manufactured. That is it. The radiation levels are low enough after a few weeks that workers can walk within meters of the reactor vessel in complete safety, and that vessel is encased in a several meter thick concrete shell. Close the door and walk away, nothing much is going to happen within the lifetime of the materials present.


Oh,,,, and who is going to pay the de-fueling costs if everything has crashed and there's no money for it?
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

cron