[JLK]

Nuclear fission works. We need to start building more capacity ASAP.

[NuclearProfessor]

Nuclear Energy is not just achievable, but its safe, inexpensive, pollutant free, reliable, sustainable, and we have it.
Nuclear Energy is the answer to our energy independence, and the US should lead the world in developing this technology. Oil will start to run out in a few decades, Nuclear power plants which generate 20% of our electricity will be closing in 20 years, add to that the growing demand for power and you will find that we cannot survive let alone advance with out nuclear power. I hope we will come to realize that sooner than later.

Ned Xoubi, MSNE

Moderator's note : - While it's apreciated that you've declared a personal stake in this technology, this is a gobal website so it seems both unmannerly and rather parochial to write of "our energy independence" as if the US were the site's primary interest.
In addition, opinions stand or fall on this site by the cogency of evidence presented, not by the mere provision of bald assertions of personal beliefs, so please feel free to respond in detail to the many demerits already posted concerning your preference.

Backstop

[born2respawn]

On a tanget: I find the spelling error in the moderator edit pleasently ironic.

Back to the subject at hand: America has a problem with what to do with it's nuclear waste at present, I gather burying it all in Nevada was turned down. This problem will only get worse as more nuclear plants are produced. Greater energy efficiency would be a giant step in the right direction, and there are probably many ways renewables could be generated before nuclear power plants became a necessity.

[Aaron]

Most people look @ it the wrong way. We need to cut consumption. This is why my house stays so cold in the winter/why my lights are never on/why i bike whenever possible.

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic50.html

Nuclear Energy is not just achievable, but its safe, inexpensive, pollutant free, reliable, sustainable, and we have it.

But can we scale it to replace oil & gas?

[Rincewind]

Just two quick comments

Energy conservation and efficiency does not necessarily mean hardship. Amory Lovins could be a bit too optimistic with his estimates of cost effective 10X improvements in energy efficiency, but based on my work in NZ consdier that 4X improvements are easily achievable if we are motivated as individuals and societies.

How can anyone claim absolutely that "Nuclear Energy is not just achievable, but its safe, inexpensive, pollutant free, reliable, sustainable, and we have it. "

When the life cycle of the systems is over 10 or 100s of thousands of years (where's the evidence or experience to show that the claim it is safe and sustainable is provable?)

Nuclear energy is so heavily subsidised, and in some many ways, by taxpayers all around the world that no one really nows what is costs to get electricity from nuclear fission. Generally what is quoted is the capital cost and the O&M. Not long term storage or full decomissioning costs. (I also remain unconvinced that either SAFSTOR or ENTOMB are viable long term options)

One example of a sudbisdy that combines both these safety and economics is the underwriting of the potential liability faced by nuclear generators by taxpayers. This is not just in the U.S. but in Canada and Europe. If it is 'safe' why can't nuclear generators insure their plants for the full risk and then pass this cost on their customers?

Cheers Doug

[PhilBiker]

Speaking from the POV of the USA where nuclear technology is much more feared than most of the rest of the world.....

Nuclear energy is so heavily subsidised, and in some many ways, by taxpayers all around the world that no one really nows what is costs to get electricity from nuclear fission. Generally what is quoted is the capital cost and the O&M. Not long term storage or full decomissioning costs. (I also remain unconvinced that either SAFSTOR or ENTOMB are viable long term options)

This is a common reaction to nuclear energy, of which I'm a fairly adamant proponent. I would respond

Gas and Diesel powered transportation are much more heavily subsidized than Nuclear in the form of road building and maintenance. Aviation is just as hugely subsidized, particularly in the USA, by "defense" dollars. If you object to the subsidy of commercial nuclear electricity generation, you should also object to transportation subsidies.

Decomissioning costs are built into the cost of building an operating a nuclear plant, a few plants have been successfully decommissioned recently, the cost borne out over the life of the plant by the ratepayers. Contrast this with other industry such as chemical and metallurgy. Who pays to clean up abandoned industrial sites? These are either left to be dangerous hazards in the environment, easily as dangerous as nuclear waste; or they are cleaned up under the EPA's "Superfund". How many more "Love Canals" are there out there?

Compared to most dangerous heavy industry, the nuclear power generation industry is a paragon of environmental and fiscal responsibility. Here's a good example:

http://www.maineyankee.com/dismantle/cost.html

[PhilBiker]

Waste needs to be reprocessed many times. The end cycle waste is much less hazardous. There is no technical reason that we stick to the "once-through" fuel cycle, only political reasons.

[PhilBiker]

When the life cycle of the systems is over 10 or 100s of thousands of years (where's the evidence or experience to show that the claim it is safe and sustainable is provable?)

Here.
another cool link.

[Rincewind]

Dear PhilBiker

Yes I don't support the any subsidies that encourage over consumption and inefficient use of resources irrespective of the industry.

I note that at the bottom of the article it states

"decommission a nuclear power plant comes from labor and the transportation and disposal of waste materials. Because the U.S. Department of Energy has not yet fulfilled its mandate to transport and dispose of Maine Yankee's used fuel, the cost of on-site storage of this fuel must also be included in money collected from electricity customers."

Looks like the US taxpayer is expected to pick up the cost of the long term high level waste, high storage cost waste? Why?

I am aware of the OKLO natural reactor (2 billion years ago!) not sure of your point. I wouldn't have wanted to live near that site during or even for a long time after it was fissioning. My point is that from our rather limited experience we can not make claim that nuclear 'safe' [absolutely stated].

Comparing the nuclear industry to the other industries and saying it is a paragon is somewhat disingenious. Unless you are arguing that it doesn't matter if they are crap as long as they are not as crap as someone else?

The issue here is RISK which is a function of probability of something going wrong and the consequences (dollars lives etc.) if it happens. I admit that so far the nuclear industry has a realitively low accident rate (not a spotless one) but the consequences of a seriosu failure would be significant and long term.

The NRC sets a standard of 6 in 100,000 probability of a serious failure. I admit that these are pretty long odds but they are better (or worse depending on the prize) than Lotto.

Here is my URL for you http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nucl ... pageID=790

Finally I am not an American I cannot comment on what Americians consider acceptable risk. But down here in the land of the long white cloud we have lots of other energy service options and Nuu-clear can take a running jump.


Cheers Doug

[PhilBiker]

The issue here is RISK which is a function of probability of something going wrong and the consequences (dollars lives etc.) if it happens. I admit that so far the nuclear industry has a realitively low accident rate (not a spotless one) but the consequences of a seriosu failure would be significant and long term.

As significant as the accident in Bhophal, India? How about Seveso, Italy? I think compared to any other industry dealing with materials that are as dangerous as nuclear materials, the nuclear industry is indeed a fantastic example to follow. If only all industrial facilities were held to the same standard as the nuclear industry the world would be a much better place.

I think people single out nuclear energy based on irrational fear that it is somehow the worst possible disaster in the world. I got news for you, the chemical industry makes some pretty damn bad stuff, stuff every bit as bad as ionizing radiation, or worse, since most of the really bad toxic substances like Dioxin and Benzene and CFCs are not naturally occuring (somewhat like Plutonium and Strontium 90) and cause similar DNA damage or worse than nuclear materials. They aren't watched over nearly as closely, nor are their facilities as secure as nuclear facilities.

If you truly want to see what's out there causing RISK, there's much worse stuff than ionizing radiation from nuclear power. At least once-through nuclear waste will be somewhat harmless in 10,000 years, the stuff (and we don't even know what all of it is) in Love Canal will never be safe.

The Oklo reactors are relevant because they didn't destroy the local area, and they didn't spread radiation significantly or beyond where they lied. They give us a very important look into the effects of long-term storage on an area.

Looks like the US taxpayer is expected to pick up the cost of the long term high level waste, high storage cost waste? Why?

This is what has to change, the US taxpayers need to pay for reprocessing not long-term storage. If we weren't so knee-jerk frightened of anything "nuclear" (and particular anything with even trace amounts of Plutonium) we'd be able to reprocess and the end result waste would have half lives in the tens and hundreds of years instead of tens of thousands.

[PhilBiker]

Thanks for the link to Davis-Besse. It is a very interesting case that I've read up on quite a bit. If you think that's bad, take a look at the information on the fire at the Browns Ferry plant in 1975. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nucl ... pageID=190 Much more frightening.

But the new reactors from Westinghouse are bing mass produced and the industry has incorporated lessons learned from these and other near misses. These problems indicate a need to move forward with newer safer next generation nuclear technologies like the Integral Fast Reactor and others.

The bottom line is we're out of options if we want to keep anything in any way resembling the energy production we have now. Nuclear is the only technology that is here and ready to ramp-up today.

[Rincewind]

I agree other technolgies present real dangers, which need to be addressed. My position is so is nuclear and potentially the consequences are just or even more signficant.

I do not, however, agree with you:

That nuclear is a long term sustainable energy option even ignoring the potential risks there is only so much uranium 235. Yes I know fast breeders using thorium can extend the timeframe, but that technology still remains unproven at the scale needed (or at any scale for that matter).

That there are no other options. We can use energy a hell of lot more efficiently than at present and we can change our lifestyles. Changing lifestyles does not necessarily mean a decline in our quality of life. Walking is good for you

P.S. What Westinghouse says they can deliver and what they do deliver may be two different things. Generation III+ have yet to be proven and Generation IV are hypothetical.

Cheers Doug

[Andy]

Rinceweed,

Good to know that others out there are not misinformed and taken in by the nuclear industry propaganda. I agree with you 100% on the intractable nature of nuclear technology. It just doesn't make sense to trade cancer for heart disease.

Others like to use the example of the natural reactor that operated 2 billion years ago as proof that waste can be safely handled. As you stated, I cannot see the relevance. Humanity and present lifeforms were not around at that time and thus extrapolating these facts to the consequences on life of storing nuclear waste into the future are meaningless. Another aspect that cannot be overlooked is the fact that safe containment of radiation in the past is no guarantee of safe containment in the future. I am sure if you talk to geologists, you would have heard the saying "Never trust a Rock"

As to other chemicals being as dangerous as ionizing radiation, that is in fact true but the difference is that most of those chemicals, principally organic chemicals can be attacked, broken down and diluted by the Earth's natural cleansing processes, or even mankind's clean up efforts. I admit that the timescale for breakdown can as long as radioactive timescales but the fact is with care, they can be addressed. Radiation is different, it cannot be broken down, diluted etc., the only solution is to wait for each element to undergo its decay at its own unalterable rate, some short (seconds), others long (billions of years) This property along with the no threshold /safe dose makes radiation uniquely hazardous.

Agreed as well on your arguments about fast breeder technology and the corresponding uncertainties.

We can reduce energy consumption by at least 1/2 and probably much more by simply doing more collective transport, cycling, walking, better city design etc. We can have more distributed power which allows cogeneration that uses energy at 90+ % efficiency, we can eat less meat that requires grain, we can stop using electricity for resistance heating applications especially at the industrial scale, we can start using the light of the day for office lighting and numerous other examples. Finally, we MUST reduce our population or all efforts will be in vain. Even breeder reactors if they are successful cannot overcome exponential growth.

[NuclearProfessor]

But can we scale it to replace oil & gas?

If you mean can we have a Nuclear car, of course not, but nuclear energy is being considered now in the research of Hydrogen Production. If scientists and engineers succeed in making Hydrogen the main energy source (for cars, heat,…) by making it available, and affordable, then one might say that nuclear can replace oil & gas.
Producing Hydrogen requires a lot of energy, and it would not make sense to burn oil and gas to produce Hydrogen, and then turn around and use that in cars or heat. Thus nuclear energy is the most sensible choice for Hydrogen production.
Oil and gas is very cheap, and the idea is to make available other sources of energy to have ready and available when oil can no longer being produced at economical prices, or when it runs out.

Ned Xoubi

[Wildwell]

Maybe time for some of the doomsayers to put up or shut up? The following articles prove most of the doomsayers information on here is nonsense. The only issue is aviation and scalability for road transport. I think we can finally put a lot of this to rest.

Here are the basic facts.

1. In 1983, uranium cost $40 per pound. The known uranium reserves at that price would suffice for light water reactors for a few tens of years. Since then more rich uranium deposits have been discovered including a very big one in Canada. At $40 per pound, uranium contributes about 0.2 cents per kwh to the cost of electricity. (Electricity retails between 5 cents and 10 cents per kwh in the U.S.)
2. Breeder reactors use uranium more than 100 times as efficiently as the current light water reactors. Hence much more expensive uranium can be used. At $1,000 per pound, uranium would contribute only 0.03 cents per kwh, i.e. less than one percent of the cost of electricity. At that price, the fuel cost would correspond to gasoline priced at half a cent per gallon.
3. How much uranium is available at $1,000 per pound?
There is plenty in the Conway granites of New England and in shales in Tennessee, but Cohen decided to concentrate on uranium extracted from seawater - presumably in order to keep the calculations simple and certain. Cohen (see the references in his article) considers it certain that uranium can be extracted from seawater at less than $1000 per pound and considers $200-400 per pound the best estimate.
In terms of fuel cost per million BTU, he gives (uranium at $400 per pound 1.1 cents , coal $1.25, OPEC oil $5.70, natural gas $3-4.)
4. How much uranium is there in seawater?
Seawater contains 3.3x10^(-9) (3.3 parts per billion) of uranium, so the 1.4x10^18 tonne of seawater contains 4.6x10^9 tonne of uranium. All the world's electricity usage, 650GWe could therefore be supplied by the uranium in seawater for 7 million years.
5. However, rivers bring more uranium into the sea all the time, in fact 3.2x10^4 tonne per year.
6. Cohen calculates that we could take 16,000 tonne per year of uranium from seawater, which would supply 25 times the world's present electricity usage and twice the world's present total energy consumption. He argues that given the geological cycles of erosion, subduction and uplift, the supply would last for 5 billion years with a withdrawal rate of 6,500 tonne per year. The crust contains 6.5x10^13 tonne of uranium.
7. He comments that lasting 5 billion years, i.e. longer than the sun will support life on earth, should cause uranium to be considered a renewable resource.
8. Here's a Japanese site discussing extracting uranium from seawater.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html

Paul Weisz's article on long−term energy supplies (Physics Today, July 2004, page 47) states that uranium resources with breeder reactors could provide the world's energy needs for "hundreds of years." That is a gross underestimate. The world's energy needs could be provided by uranium−fueled breeder reactors for the full billion years that life on Earth will be sustainable, without the price of electricity increasing by more than a small fraction of 1% due to raw fuel costs.1
The error in Weisz's calculation is that he is referring to uranium available at its present price, $10−20 per pound. But in breeder reactors, 100 times as much energy is derived from a pound of uranium as in present−day light water reactors, so we could afford to use uranium that is 100 times as expensive.

The cost of extracting uranium from its most plentiful source, seawater, is about $250 per pound—the energy equivalent of gasoline at 0.13 cent per gallon! The uranium now in the oceans could provide the world's current electricity usage for 7 million years. But seawater uranium levels are constantly being replenished, by rivers that carry uranium dissolved out of rock, at a rate sufficient to provide 20 times the world's current total electricity usage. In view of the geological cycles of erosion, subduction, and land uplift, this process could continue for a billion years with no appreciable reduction of the uranium concentration in seawater and hence no increase in extraction costs.

Reference
1. B. L. Cohen, Am. J. Phys. 51, 75 (1983).

Bernard L. Cohen
([email protected])
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-11/p12.html

The Sustainability of Mineral Resources
(exposition and illustration)

It is commonly asserted that because "the resources of the earth are finite", therefore we must face some day of reckoning, and will need to plan for "negative growth". All this, it is pointed out, is because these resources are being consumed at an increasing rate to support our western lifestyle and to cater for the increasing demands of developing nations. The assertion that we are likely to run out of resources is a re-run of the "Limits to Growth" argument (1) fashionable in the early 1970s, which was substantially disowned by its originators, the Club of Rome, subsequently. It also echoes similar concerns raised by economists in the 1930s, and by Malthus at the end of the 18th Century.

In recent years there has been persistent misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the abundance of mineral resources, with the assertion that the world is in danger of actually running out of many mineral resources. While congenial to common sense, it lacks empirical support in the trend of practically mineral commodity prices over the long term.

An anecdote brings this home: In 1980 two eminent professors, fierce critics of one another, made a bet regarding the real market price of five metal commodities over the next decade. Paul Ehrlich, a world-famous ecologist, bet that because the world was exceeding its carrying capacity, food and commodities would start to run out in the 1980s and prices in real terms would therefore rise. Julian Simon, an economist, said that resources were effectively so abundant, and becoming effectively more so, that prices would fall in real terms. He invited Ehrlich to nominate which commodities would be used to test the matter, and they settled on these (chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten). In 1990 Ehrlich paid up - all the prices had fallen.

Of course the resources of the earth are indeed finite, but three observations need to be made: first, the limits of the supply of resources are so far away that the truism has no practical meaning. Second, many of the resources concerned are either renewable or recyclable (energy minerals and zinc are the main exceptions, though the recycling potential of many materials is limited in practice by the energy and other costs involved). Third, available reserves of 'non-renewable' resources are constantly being renewed, mostly faster than they are used.



http://www.uic.com.au/nip75.htm

[eric_b]

Maybe time for some of the doomsayers to put up or shut up? The following articles prove most of the doomsayers information on here is nonsense. The only issue is aviation and scalability for road transport. I think we can finally put a lot of this to rest.(... BIG SNIP)

Yaaaawn Babe, every one of your points has already been addressed. Many times. As an aside, you need an editor. How many people do you think are going to wade through that verbose ponderous post? PO is just one part of a multi-faceted pincher facing humanity. Unchecked population growth, unsustainable farming practices, pollution and environmental degradation and collapse others.

We've likely waited too long to switch over to fission power at this point, at least not without a crisis. Fusion power remains science fiction at this point, and likely will remain that way for some time, if not indefinitely.

[Tyler_JC]

You are missing the point, how many BTUs of energy does it take to get 1 BTU of uranium from seawater. If that number is less than one, it does not make sense to engage in that activity.

Think about it.

If the entire economy was converted into energy production with a return on energy investment 5, at the end of the day, we would have 5X the starting economy. If we converted the entire economy into energy production with a return on energy investment of .5, at the end of the day we would have .5X the starting economy.

Any form of energy that has an EROEI of less than one will result in waste. We are better off using oil energy to fuel our economy, not waste it on uranium from seawater.

[Wildwell]

Eric: If you actually bothered to read what was written above then you'd realize most of what is discussed on this site is complete bunkum.

Did you read we have uranium for some breeder reactors for 1 BILLION-5 BILLION years? No, I didn’t think so. Breeder reactors have been in use on a large scale since 1984.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... asbre.html

When you have read it all, come back for a debate.

[Wildwell]

You are missing the point, how many BTUs of energy does it take to get 1 BTU of uranium from seawater. If that number is less than one, it does not make sense to engage in that activity.

Think about it.

If the entire economy was converted into energy production with a return on energy investment 5, at the end of the day, we would have 5X the starting economy. If we converted the entire economy into energy production with a return on energy investment of .5, at the end of the day we would have .5X the starting economy.

Any form of energy that has an EROEI of less than one will result in waste. We are better off using oil energy to fuel our economy, not waste it on uranium from seawater.

Read the article, in full and come back for the debate. And just from the known reserves of uranium on land we have enough for 1000-250,000 years. This doesn't include other sources of nuclear fuel.

The issue of scalability for road transport remains and aviation, that I grant you, but other than that, this is almost a ‘none’ issue.

I've been looking into sustainable farming methods as well, lot of work going on in this area.

[killJOY]

Ever hear of "concision"? [*he says as he hits "stop watching topic"*]