Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
33. Since nuclear isn't compatible with most renewables...
Sun Jun 9, 2013, 03:03 PM
Jun 2013

Last edited Sun Jun 9, 2013, 06:09 PM - Edit history (2)

...if you want a carbon free world, then yes, it means getting nearly all of our electricity from nuclear. Getting 1/3rd would require a new Yucca Mtn every two years.

eta:

From a presentation by John Holdren.

The nuclear option: size of the challenges

• If world electricity demand grows 2% /year until 2050 and nuclear share of electricity supply is to rise from 1/6 to 1/3...
–nuclear capacity would have to grow from 350 GWe in 2000 to 1700 GWe in 2050;
– this means 1,700 reactors of 1,000 MWe each.

• If these were light-water reactors on the once-through fuel cycle...
---–enrichment of their fuel will require ~250 million Separative Work Units (SWU);
---–diversion of 0.1% of this enrichment to production of HEU from natural uranium would make ~20 gun-type or ~80 implosion-type bombs.

• If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium...
---–the associated flow of separated, directly weapon - usable plutonium would be 170,000 kg per year;
---–diversion of 0.1% of this quantity would make ~30 implosion-type bombs.

• Spent-fuel production in the once-through case would be...
---–34,000 tonnes/yr, a Yucca Mountain every two years.

Mitigation of Human-Caused Climate Change
John P. Holdren


Director John P. Holdren



Dr. John P. Holdren is Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).
Prior to joining the Obama administration Dr. Holdren was Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and Director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, as well as professor in Harvard's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Director of the independent, nonprofit Woods Hole Research Center. Previously he was on the faculty of the University of California, Berkeley, where he co-founded in 1973 and co-led until 1996 the interdisciplinary graduate-degree program in energy and resources. During the Clinton administration Dr. Holdren served as a member of PCAST through both terms and in that capacity chaired studies requested by President Clinton on preventing theft of nuclear materials, disposition of surplus weapon plutonium, the prospects of fusion energy, U.S. energy R&D strategy, and international cooperation on energy-technology innovation.

Dr. Holdren holds advanced degrees in aerospace engineering and theoretical plasma physics from MIT and Stanford. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, as well as a foreign member of the Royal Society of London and former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He served as a member of the MacArthur Foundation’s Board of Trustees from 1991 to 2005, as Chair of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on International Security and Arms Control from 1994 to 2005, and as Co-Chair of the independent, bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy from 2002 to 2009. His awards include a MacArthur Foundation Prize Fellowship, the John Heinz Prize in Public Policy, the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, and the Volvo Environment Prize. In December 1995 he gave the acceptance lecture for the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, an international organization of scientists and public figures in which he held leadership positions from 1982 to 1997.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/about/leadershipstaff/director
No Solar Way Around It [View all] FBaggins Jun 2013 OP
Simple question. Does the cost analysis include the cost of taking care BlueStreak Jun 2013 #1
or mothballing the reactor one day? mopinko Jun 2013 #3
At Fukushima, they are having to install a huge new water tank every week now BlueStreak Jun 2013 #6
The water will be hazardous for thousands of years? FBaggins Jun 2013 #10
They're recycling the water as it's cooled. wtmusic Jun 2013 #11
They have massive amounts of groundwater leaking INTO the reactor water. kristopher Jun 2013 #24
Simple answer. Yes. FBaggins Jun 2013 #4
Yes, I guess it would be if you don't actually plan to do anything about the waste. BlueStreak Jun 2013 #7
People are exposed to hundreds of times as much radioactivity from coal as nuclear. wtmusic Jun 2013 #14
Finland is building the world's first deep geological repository. FBaggins Jun 2013 #15
If we were to lean heavily on nuclear it would require a new Yucca Mtn every 8 months. kristopher Jun 2013 #25
Nonsense. FBaggins Jun 2013 #29
Since nuclear isn't compatible with most renewables... kristopher Jun 2013 #33
Of course it's compatible. FBaggins Jun 2013 #36
What? oldhippie Jun 2013 #39
WRONG AGAIN!! PamW Jun 2013 #41
Pam, great explanation, but a question ... oldhippie Jun 2013 #46
NOPE!! PamW Jun 2013 #49
Thanks. I see where I might have been confused ... oldhippie Jun 2013 #52
Holdren is blowing smoke PamW Jun 2013 #42
WRONG AGAIN!! PamW Jun 2013 #38
Thank you for a voice of reason ..... oldhippie Jun 2013 #40
Thank You. PamW Jun 2013 #43
Another question, if the first one was too hard. Does the study include the costs BlueStreak Jun 2013 #2
Nope. It also doesn't include... FBaggins Jun 2013 #5
Yeah, right. BlueStreak Jun 2013 #8
You realize that's Chris Busby's nonsense, right? FBaggins Jun 2013 #9
ad hominem attacks, the last refuge of people who have no answers BlueStreak Jun 2013 #16
Ad hominem would be simply calling him a nutcase FBaggins Jun 2013 #17
The "tooth fairy" above was the "Tooth Fairy Project" PamW Jun 2013 #48
Agree that the NRC is too close to industry. wtmusic Jun 2013 #12
Have you stopped beating your wife? PamW Jun 2013 #44
. wtmusic Jun 2013 #47
It should have been set straight in 1977 PamW Jun 2013 #50
Shellenberger featured prominently in "Pandora's Promise" wtmusic Jun 2013 #13
of course the costs include everything relating to chernobyl , hiroshima, & nagasaki nt msongs Jun 2013 #18
and radon and solar flares and bananas. wtmusic Jun 2013 #19
Why lump Hiroshima and Nagasaki into it? PamW Jun 2013 #45
For the same reason that... FBaggins Jun 2013 #51
Shellenberger's Breakthrough Institute is on par with the Heritage Foundation kristopher Jun 2013 #20
Why isn't the UK going to pay $0.053/kwh? kristopher Jun 2013 #26
Why aren't they building lots of solar at over three times that price? FBaggins Jun 2013 #28
Because they make economic policies based on Right Wing Values. kristopher Jun 2013 #30
British citizens all have right wing values? FBaggins Jun 2013 #32
That doesn't answer the question - it's nonsense. kristopher Jun 2013 #34
"Over Kris' head" and "nonsense" aren't the same thing. FBaggins Jun 2013 #37
Intellectual laziness on your part. FBaggins Jun 2013 #27
Still waiting: Why isn't the UK going to pay $0.053/kwh? kristopher Jun 2013 #31
So the Chinese are dishonest about the price of nuclear... FBaggins Jun 2013 #35
We could move your family to a new campus with all of the spent fuel rods produced in America Kolesar Jun 2013 #21
Does the campus look like this? wtmusic Jun 2013 #22
Why not? FBaggins Jun 2013 #23
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»No Solar Way Around It»Reply #33