I Toured a Nuclear Power Plant yesterday. 2500 Mw output, 24/7

[NYC_SKP]

...except when one or the other reactor is down for maintenance.

I visited a huge wind farm last week. Both technologies are impressive and both provide carbon neutral electricity.

I fully support building a few more of these, but of the more advanced design that reuse the fuel and have less waste.

I'd really get excited if we could close the equivalent number of coal plants.

The most impressive thing a president could say about energy: we need to find ways to use much, much less energy and become energy independent.

:patriot:

[dbonds]

1. Nuclear outputs a lot of carbon to make and transport the fuel.

It is only slightly better than coal.

[mediaman007]

2. They put out a lot of heat into the environment via water used for cooling.

[NYC_SKP]

3. True, a crazy number like a million gallons per minute of warm water...

...pours into the ocean nearby, and its usually less than 20 degrees warmer than ambient.

This results in a different ecosystem in the immediate vicinity, which I think is fine.

75 degree water instead of 55, lots of sealife.

[Indenturedebtor]

25. Actually colder water is generally better for sealife. Especially along America's coast

Cold water holds more O2.

But forget the fact that with even the modest number of reactors we have today there have been quite a few incidents. Recently in France and Japan.

Nuclear is not the way to go unless it's fusion.

And don't forget that if you let "them" control the fuel and production, you let "them" tell you what to pay. Distributed systems like wind and solar are the way to go.

[Howzit]

11. And water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas that CO2

So much for reducing greenhouse gasses.

[sabbat hunter]

31. all energy producing plants

produce steam, what do you think turns the turbines?

[Howzit]

43. That steam is captive in a closed system and is made from pure water to reduce turbine blade erosion

It is not simply exhausted to atmosphere, but is cooled in condensation towers and re-used.

[NYC_SKP]

4. Same can be said for photovoltaics and wind systems...

...it takes carbon to do anything except to conserve.

[dbonds]

5. Not on the same scale.

The carbon cost of the fuel rods is just marginally less than coal produced power. Of course everything else has a carbon footprint also, but Nuclear is not saving much.

According to a
report from the Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research, between 1,900 and 3,300 nuclear plants would
need to be built worldwide by 2050 in conjunction with
renewable energy measures in order to stabilize carbon
emissions at their year 2000 levels.

http://www.tradewatch.org/documents/NuclearGlobalWarming.pdf

[wtmusic]

50. You are not even close.

Carbon footprint in g/kWh (full life cycle emissions)

Nuclear 6
Coal 980

You're off by 16,000 %. I think that sets a record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint

Yes, nuclear plants will need to be built about one a week (it actually happened in 1983) in order to stabilize carbon, and make life possible for your descendants. Continuing to burn coal will make that possibility even more remote.

[whistle]

7. Can you support that claim with hard data?

[dbonds]

8. See my other post in this thread, I have a link that supports it.

[Dead_Parrot]

9. It says no such thing

It doesn't even give a figure for coal, which is closer to 1kg/kWh - not even in the same ballpark.

You should probably read up a little more.

[dbonds]

10. Well you are off by 10% on coal, more like 900 than 1k.

But aside from that. You are correct that the article doesn't give the coal numbers. I was remembering a different page that I can't locate atm. It had the projected numbers over 50 years and nuclear is an ever increasing foot print that approaches the coal number, but slightly better. And it requires and ungodly number of nuclear plants just to maintain a bad 2000 carbon output levels. And aside from the insanity of creating tons of nuclear waste that we have no way to deal with, nuclear will not be of any use to us in getting carbon emissions down until we are passed the threshold of runaway global warming. Oh, and they are insanely dangerous and mistakes are not only deadly, but they render large areas of the land uninhabitable for a very long time. Of course there are some people that never learn from our past mistakes and want to try nuclear again.

[kristopher]

12. I'm not a friend of nuclear, but your carbon numbers aren't close to correct

It can be criticized for no effective waste disposal method, high costs and slow deployment relative to renewable alternatives, and the inescapable threat of nuclear proliferation that goes with wide scale use to combat climate change.

Estimates on fissioncarbon production range from about 10g-60g CO2e /kwh of electricity. Wind is about 10-25G CO2e /kwh. Coal is 900-1100g CO2e /kwh.

[dbonds]

17. Read the subject of the post you responded to, exact same as what you said.

[kristopher]

22. Actually

You never explicitly retracted this claim in post #1:

"Nuclear outputs a lot of carbon to make and transport the fuel. It is only slightly better than coal."

[dbonds]

28. That is still true, no retraction necessary, but you need to look long term.

As more plants come online the existing high grade uranium will be used up quickly and it will continually take more and more processing to create new fuel till we one day run out. I am looking for that projection I saw. But going full out nuclear with todays carbon cost will still only reduce us to year 2000s carbon output, which isn't much of an improvement. Of course none of that even factors in the insane risk that many nuclear plants will produce or the inability to handle the radioactive spent fuel rods.

[kristopher]

36. That simply isn't true.

In the range of emissions I provided for nuclear, the high end accounts for lower yield ores. Your statement is grossly inaccurate.

Nuclear has problems, but excessive carbon emissions is not on the list.

[dbonds]

39. Don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't say excessive. I said slightly better than coal. Nuclear doesn't not solve our problems. It outputs too much carbon to even come close to reducing the carbon output enough to be significant and you could not get enough of them online to help at all before we reached the threshold of runaway global warming. On the low yeild ores, I want to find those projections again. They were higher than the numbers you gave. But projects are are just projections and different methodologies could have different numbers.

[kristopher]

40. No, you didn't. But that's the value judgement attached to what you DID say.

When you find your mysterious missing numbers, please, remember to share them with us.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to consider your statement that nuclear CO2e emissions are just slightly lower than coal to be a pretty damned stupid thing to claim:

Technology * Capacity/configuration/fuel * Estimate (gCO2e/kWh)

Wind 2.5 MW, offshore 9
Hydroelectric 3.1 MW, reservoir 10
Wind 1.5 MW, onshore 10
Biogas Anaerobic digestion 11
Hydroelectric 300 kW, run-of-river 13
Solar thermal 80 MW, parabolic trough 13
Biomass Forest wood Co-combustion with hard coal 14
Biomass Forest wood steam turbine 22
Biomass Short rotation forestry Co-combustion with hard coal 23
Biomass FOREST WOOD reciprocating engine 27
Biomass Waste wood steam turbine 31
Solar PV Polycrystalline silicone 32
Biomass Short rotation forestry steam turbine 35
Geothermal 80 MW, hot dry rock 38
Biomass Short rotation forestry reciprocating engine 41
Nuclear Various reactor types 66
Natural gas Various combined cycle turbines 443
Fuel cell Hydrogen from gas reforming 664
Diesel Various generator and turbine types 778
Heavy oil Various generator and turbine types 778
Coal Various generator types with scrubbing 960
Coal Various generator types without scrubbing 1050


B.K. Sovacool / Energy Policy 36 (2008) page 2950

[dbonds]

41. Well see now you just gone and been an ass about it.

Short version, regardless of the numbers, nuclear is an insane way to go because of many other factors, but also including it won't help with global warming. Long version, if you want to start calling people names for things they read and discussed then says a lot about you. Why should I be motivated to find data for you, I know I read it - I really don't care what you think. If I run across it, I may feel motivated to send it to you, may not.

[kristopher]

42. No name calling by me.

I said the claim was stupid. It is. No one expects you to back it up because it is an obviously false statement, as demonstrated by the citation I provided.

[dbonds]

55. The data might not be right, but it isn't a false statement in that I did run across that.

At least no one challenges the fact that building more nuclear plants is insane. Glad everyone is on board with that.

[Howzit]

60. "Glad everyone is on board with that."

Isn't that another leap of faith? Look at the number of times a post is read compared to the number of responses. Now tell me how you know what all those silent voters believe.

Perhaps you meant to say that no one would dare post anything that conflicts with popular opinion?

[dbonds]

61. What is your opinion?

If you are going to respond to a statement at least stand up and state your opinion.

[Howzit]

63. There is a place for all forms of energy, including nuclear

Just don't have nuclear plants designed and built by the lowest bidder. I would ask the French for advice on this.

[wtmusic]

64. Greenpeace founder now backs nuclear power

"Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power - a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing his former environmental group formed to oppose.

The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, and there is a high-enough risk that "true believers" like Al Gore are right that world economies need to wean themselves off fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases, he said.

"It's like buying fire insurance," Moore said. "We all own fire insurance even though there is a low risk we are going to get into an accident."

The only viable solution is to build hundreds of nuclear power plants over the next century, Moore told the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. There isn't enough potential for wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal or other renewable energy sources, he said."

http://www.idahostatesman.com/235/story/360625.html

Although the idea that nuclear power is "a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing" is just bizarre, what more and more are getting on board with is the idea that nuclear power may be the only way to save the planet.

[kristopher]

67. Pulling out that old chestnut again, eh?

Sourcewatch has a great deal to say about the honorable Mr. Moore:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Moore

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Moore_on_Nuclear_Power

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Moore:_Media_coverage_that_doesn%27t_disclose_Moore%27s_nuclear_consultancy_work

I don't think it is quite the "green" endorsement you seem to think it is...

[NYC_SKP]

65. Hi kristopher

Wow, step away for a couple days and all hell breaks loose, only one reply to my original response.
Thanks for the correct numbers re: carbon output incidental to mining, refinement, etc.

The tour was cool, it followed a good visit last week to UC Davis's wind research center and visit to 3Mw and 5Mw turbines.

I came to Greensburg, KS, yesterday to spend today at the high school with every student in town, K-12, and the principals and superintendent, doing energy related activities with wind turbine and hydrogen fuel cell car science kits, just to get their summer going.

Greensburg is the town that was 95% destroyed by an F5 tornado last year, they're slowly rebuilding, visited a couple LEED certified platinum buildings.

:hi:

[kristopher]

68. De nada

It sounds like you are getting a lot of good information under your belt. Control room is something, isn't it? Whether you support wider deployment or not, it is an undeniably awesome technology.

Take care.

[Nederland]

23. Your linked article doesn't say that

It makes no comparison between coal and nuclear. Stop making shit up.

[dbonds]

29. Stop being such a prick.

I didn't make anything up. I thought the numbers were in that article, but it was in another that I didn't save the link for when I was researching another topic. I'll try to find them again, but in the meantime do some research yourself.

[Dead_Parrot]

37. Nederland isn't the one being a prick

Because he's not the one making a extraordinary claim, and saying anybody who disagrees is wrong and needs to do some research.

Now if you've seen some paper that nobody else in the history of E/E has come across, dig it up and we'll have a look. Otherwise, you may want to consider the miniscule possibility that you are, in fact, mistaken.

[dbonds]

38. He still is being a prick

The info is out there. I'm not your journalist. I am not required to source every fact I ever heard. You are being ridiculous to hold every post to that standard. If you don't believe it, then so be it. There seems to be a rash of pro-nuke nuts these days.

[Dead_Parrot]

44. I don't actually hold every post to that standard

Just the ones that defy belief. Arguing that the WNA have pegged their figures too low or that Storm van Leeuwen has pegged his too high is one thing: To suggest that, in fact, every one of the hundreds of researchers who have looked at this have been out by entire orders of magnitude is fucking insane.

Quite a few E/E regulars follow environmental and energy research pretty closely, and to be honest a paper suggesting anything approaching coal emissions from the nuclear cycle would have been posted a half-dozen times the instant it was written.

So no, I'm not spending the next week searching for a paper that claims nuclear can emit nearly as much GHG's as coal. I'm not going to spend the weekend hunting invisible pink unicorns in my garage, either. Go figure.

If you want anyone to take you seriously, I'd suggest spending less time chucking insults around and a little more actually reading some science.

You might surprise yourself.

[dbonds]

53. You are grossly exagerating what I said.

All anyone has to do is post a link to previous research that disproves it, or as another poster did post the data. But no, you go directly to gross exaggerations and attacking my overall credibility. Seems to be a technique used to shut people up more than discuss or educate. I'm not setting here saying I had definitive data, it is something I read while working on something else. If you are interested in discussion and education, and not just suppressing other people from joining it - try a less insulting approach (that goes to a couple others too). Whether you meant to or not, it is a common technique of paid advocacy groups to divert topics by insulting posters and making it about the poster and not the data.

[wtmusic]

47. "The info is out there".

Why should I take your word for anything (or you mine, for that matter)?

On E/E posts are not held to research-paper standards, but if you can't source when challenged you come off as a pedant with little scientific background.

[dbonds]

51. You right that there is no reason any of us should believe the other.

My background is in Electrical Engineering, not Environmental. But I am interested in Environmental. The numbers I read were not doing Environmental research, it was for a different project but they stuck with me. I just didn't save the reference because that wasn't my task at the time. And while a few have zero'ed in on those numbers wanted a citation, no one has challenged the other posts about the insanity of building more nuclear plants which was my main point. They will not help with global warming because they can not come online before the runaway threshold has been reached.

[wtmusic]

52. So you do have a scientific background

in that case you may find this pro/con debate in Physics World interesting. I am pasting what is key from my point of view, but urge you to read the whole thing.

Do we need nuclear power?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/128

"If we are to stabilize the emission of carbon dioxide by the middle of the 21st century, we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean? Tidal power can produce large amounts of energy, but can we find a new Severn estuary and build a barrage costing £9bn every five weeks?

Nuclear power, however, is a well tried and reliable source, whereas the alternatives listed by Anderson are mainly hope for the future and have yet to prove themselves. At the height of new nuclear construction in the 1980s, an average of 23 new nuclear reactors were being built each year, with a peak of 43 in 1983. A construction rate of one per week is therefore practicable.

I hold no special brief for nuclear power. If there were another way of providing our energy needs without destroying the Earth, I would support it. I am not, I must admit, happy about the dangers of nuclear radiation. I know that, in the hands of engineers at, say, Sizewell, nuclear power is extremely safe, but I can think of many places that would not inspire me with the same confidence. There is always the fallibility of human nature, and the danger that politics will domineer engineering prudence, although the same could be said of all modern technology. Strict controls and eternal vigilance are therefore the price we must pay for its benefits. "

[dbonds]

56. I'll give that a read tonight.

On the safety issue, one of my coworkers when I was in Tampa knew an inspector. He indicated that one plant in particular was very lax with procedures and it worried him. This was about 10 years ago though I don't know if they have improved, at least there have been no accidents.

[TheWraith]

79. That's a falsehood of the highest order.

You could say the same nonsense about wind power, because it requires gas and diesel fuels to create the parts, to construct the turbine, etcetera. But the reality is that it's BS. The amount of carbon that's released is trivial compared to what is saved, and that additional amount could be further reduced by using electric vehicles.

And to say that something is "only slightly better than coal" because fossil-fueled vehicles or machines are involved at some point only shows a massive misunderstanding about how bad coal really is.

[doc03]

6. There are a half dozen coal fired plants within

25 miles of my house and a nuclear plant around 50 miles from here. I have no concerns at all about the coal fired plants but I am happy the nuclear plant is 50 miles away and that's too close for me. The coal fired plants are very clean in my opinion, I see nothing but some water vapor from the cooling towers, they installed some kind of lime injection system that eliminates 99% of the NO2 discharge. They also get a byproduct of gypsum from the process and they built a factory to convert the gypsum into drywall, that provides some much needed good paying jobs. As far as the warm water discharge that is the best area of the river to fish so apparently it doesn't harm the fish.

[GliderGuider]

14. Lucky you can't see CO2, then...

[doc03]

15. When I was growing up back in the 50's

everyone burned coal for heat and in the winter the day after a snow fall the snow was dark gray from the soot. In Pittsburgh back in those days you couldn't see across the street at times. Now today nobody uses coal for heat and the steel industry is nearly gone and what we have left has spent billions on environmental projects. I know how much the steel industry has cleaned up I have been working there for 38 years. When I started back in 1970 100's of tons of waste was discharged to the Ohio river (every day), today I doubt if we discharge 1% of that. Back in the 70's we had an air pollutant alert nearly every day in the summer. What do you want to do shut all manufacturing down in this country? Do you see the pollution in China? You know where that comes from? That is produced from the manufacturing jobs that moved over there. Wouldn't it be better to make things here where we remove 99% of the pollutants than in China where there are no environmental standards. My company built a new steel furnace a few years ago and about 1/3 of the costs went into environmental facilities. I talked to the Engineer that built the sister to our furnace in China, he said over there the ground is covered with red dust for a couple miles surrounding the plant. That CO and CO2 produced in China goes in the same air you know.

[GliderGuider]

16. Yes, it's all the same air

And yes, the non-CO2 pollution has been dramatically reduced in the last couple of decades.

My position is that I'd much rather live next door to a nuke than a coal plant, because CO2 emissions are the single most deadly thing we are doing to the planet as a whole right now.

Actually, when it comes right down to it, I'd rather not live next door to either of them. I'd much rather see less over-all industrial activity by humanity. If that meant I'd be materially poorer as a result, so be it. But my attitude isn't widely shared.

[doc03]

18. The CO2 emissions from a plant next door isn't going to

harm anything locally. That Nuke plant next door may turn into another Chernobyl. I'll take the coal plant. You are darn right your attitude isn't widely shared, around here you start preaching that stuff you would probably end up getting your butt kicked. So you would rather we become a third world country and let someone else make everything. Like I said the Chinese don't give a crap how much CO2 they produce. Wouldn't it be better for the environment worldwide if we build stuff here where we have environmental standards? Have you ever even seen a coal fired power plant?

[GliderGuider]

20. We have different priorities, there's nothing wrong with that.

I believe that the probability of a modern nuke turning into a Chernobyl in any given year is much less than 0.001%, or less than one chance in 100,000. The probability of a coal-fired power plant emitting ecologically-damaging CO2, on the other hand, is 100%.

I'd rather see us using less energy overall, because I think humanity will be able to adjust to a lower material standard of living. After all, historically we've always had a lower standard of living than we do now, and we got along just fine. I do not believe that humanity will be able to adjust to a planet that's an average of 5 degrees Celsius warmer than it is now, which is where we're headed with all this CO2.

I understand your position, but I regard it as being based on an incorrect perception of humanity's place in the web of life (i.e. our needs trump those of any and all other species on the planet). You might see mine as callous and indifferent to human suffering. The Internet is great for meeting people with different opinions, it's one of the things I enjoy most about it.

[doc03]

21. Myself I am not willing to give up my total electric

home, truck, scooter, boat all that other stuff. I see how the Amish live, it looks like too much work for me, you wouldn't need much money though. I am not convinced that the global warming is caused by humans or it is just a natural warming cycle. Millions of years ago the northern 2/3 of of Ohio was covered by a great glacier, it ended just a few miles from here and at one time it was a vast tropical forest that's where the coal came from. The earth has had many natural warming and cooling cycles, I am not convinced this is not the same.

[Nihil]

45. Yawn ...

"Conservation" equated to "living like the Amish"? Check.

Not willing to give up "stuff"? Check.

"Millions of years ago there was a glacier here" quote present? Check.

"Many natural warming and cooling cycles" quote present? Check.


Poster classification confirmed. Next?
:eyes:

[wtmusic]

49. If everyone on Earth shared your lifestyle

you wouldn't live another ten years, nor would any other living thing on earth. As an American you create roughly 5x as much CO2 as what other people use, and if you still think current global CO2 levels are the result of a "natural warming cycle" you don't know enough about the problem.

Rent "An Incovenient Truth", which demonstrates compellingly that compared to any prior warming/cooling cycles of the last 600K years, we are off the charts.

It will be interesting to see whether mankind can act collectively to save itself. Reading your post, I'm not encouraged.

[sabbat hunter]

33. No it won't

Chernobyl used an unsafe design, one that was known to be unsafe when it was built.

Current nuclear plant designs are very safe and it is impossible to have a chernobyl like issue because the designs are completely different.

[hunter]

24. The environmental damage done by coal mines is as extreme as ever.

They blow up entire mountains and fill entire valleys with the rubble, and eventually that rubble washes out as toxic waste.

Coal isn't delivered to the power plant by coal fairies from the ninth dimension, it's blasted out of the living earth.

The same can also be said about uranium, but per kilowatt hour the environmental damage is much less, while existing and proposed mitigation strategies might actually be realistic -- not the deceptions, fantasies, and hallucinations of the coal industry and its supporters.

[sabbat hunter]

the coal ash

is highly toxic.

I would rather live 5 miles from a nuclear power plant than 5 miles from a coal fired plant (currently live about 5 miles from a gas turbine plant)

[bananas]

13. I hope you realize that's all you'll see: just a few more.

Maybe only two more.
Wall Street won't finance new reactor construction without federal loan guarantees,
because they are so financially risky.
The CBO says the risk of default is "very high - well above 50 percent."
The nuclear industry only wanted to start with a half-dozen reactors,
to work out the first-of-a-kind engineering problems.
So the Republican Congress authorized $18B in guarantees, enough for six reactors at $3B each.
Unfortunately, the nuclear industry low-balled it's cost estimates, and didn't account for inflation,
so now Goldman Sachs says the $18B is only enough for maybe 3 reactors.
And the risk of default on those 3 is still "very high - well above 50 percent."
So one might get built on budget, one built with a taxpayer bail-out, and the third could have such huge cost overruns that it's abandoned.
Oops!

Read 'em and weep:

Nuclear loan guarantees 'undersized': Goldman Sachs banker
Posted by bananas in Environment/Energy
Mon Aug 04th 2008, 03:42 AM
"That would only be enough for about three new reactors, Gilbertson said" It was supposed to finance six reactors. The nuclear rennaissance is down to 3 reactors. When they ask for more loans, remember the CBO (and independant analysts) said the risk of default is "very high – well above 50 percent." It's an expensive boondoggle. (Link) Nuclear loan guarantees 'undersized': Goldman Sachs banker Washington (Platts)--31Jul2008 At $18.5 billion, the US Department of Energy's loan guarant...
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/597

Christie Todd Whitman: McCain's grand vision is a "nice idea" but it's "not going to happen"
Posted by bananas in Environment/Energy
Wed Aug 06th 2008, 02:59 PM
Forbes talks to some nuclear lobbyists: "NEI lobbyist Richard Myers said a new, two-unit nuclear power plant could cost as much as $14 billion. By comparison, the entire market capitalization of many companies in the industry is barely double this, or smaller." "Whitman says McCain's grand vision is a "nice idea" but it's "not going to happen"" "NEI has spent $1.23 million on lobbying so far in 2008." For some reason, they never mention the Congressional Budget Office analysis that the ris...
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/598

Business Week: Nuclear's Tangled Economics
Posted by bananas in Environment/Energy
Mon Jun 30th 2008, 11:01 AM
"I'm not quite sure the number McCain put out is obtainable," says Adrian Heymer, senior director for new plant deployment at the Nuclear Energy Institute. (Link) News June 26, 2008, 5:00PM EST Nuclear's Tangled Economics John McCain says new plants can help solve the energy crisis and address climate change. It's not that simple by John Carey <snip> In a mid-June speech, part of a continuing blitz on energy issues, McCain laid out his vision for 100 new nuclear plants—45 of t...
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/568

John Warner: Jimmy Carter Was Right
Posted by bananas in Editorials & Other Articles
Fri Aug 01st 2008, 04:21 PM
Source: NPR Science Friday John Warner: Jimmy Carter Was Right posted by Ira Flatow on Friday, August 1. 2008 It took 30 years, but Jimmy Carter finally has gotten recognition for the wisdom of his energy policies. Speaking on Science Friday, Senator John Warner, a Republican from Virginia who first entered the Senate during Carter's term in office, said that Jimmy Carter "was right" when he called for a massive program of energy conservation and alternative energy research. Senator Jeff Bing...
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/594

"Privately, I am told that Gore now opposes atomic energy, including new reactors."
Posted by bananas in Environment/Energy
Tue Jul 22nd 2008, 04:43 AM
(Link)/ Harvey Wasserman Al Gore inches toward Solartopia July 18, 2008 Bit by bit, Al Gore seems to be inching toward a Solartopian view of a future that must be completely sustainable in green energy. This week he advocated getting to an electric power system that is "carbon free" within ten years. <snip> It's thus extremely problematic that Gore continues to publicly avoid the issue of nuclear power. There are those who believe he remains essentially pro-nuclear, as he was earlier...
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/587

Nuclear power decreased by 3.6% in OECD countries last year.
Posted by bananas in Environment/Energy
Sun Jul 20th 2008, 02:20 AM
"Nuclear power plants provided 21.6% of the electricity generated in OECD countries, as compared to 22.9% in 2006." "Total nuclear electricity production was 2172 TWh in 2007, about 3.6% less than the previous year." (Link) Mixed Picture for Nuclear Power in OECD Countries Staff Report 17 July 2008 The picture is mixed for nuclear power in the world´s higher income countries, which collectively account for 85% of the world´s nuclear-generated electricity. While some countries produced record...
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/584

France's environment minister says nuclear will shrink as a proportion of the French energy mix
Posted by bananas in Environment/Energy
Tue Jul 08th 2008, 10:19 PM
(Link) France's Borloo says 2nd EPR 'marginal' for electricity production 07.04.08, 5:03 AM ET PARIS (Thomson Financial) - France's second European pressurised water nuclear power reactor, proposed by President Nicolas Sarkozy on Thursday, would be 'marginal' for electricity production, Jean-Louis Borloo, the environment minister, said on France Inter radio. 'One EPR more or less, it will not fundamentally change French electricity production. It is an idea, but in the end it is fairly margin...
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/578

The 1973 oil crisis is what killed nuclear power in the U.S.
Posted by bananas in Environment/Energy
Tue Jun 17th 2008, 11:47 AM
Al Gore explained it when he appeared before Congress last year: "after the OPEC oil crises of '73 and '79, the projection for electricity demand went from 7% annualized compounded, down to 1%" They started cancelling reactors in 1974, immediately after the 1973 oil crisis. Download NUREG-1350 and look at the dates in Appendix C, "Canceled U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors" (Link)/ Here's a chart of reactor orders - dropped like a rock right after the 1973 oil crisis: (Image) Thanks to P...
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/581

Here's what the nuclear industry says about nuclear prices:
Posted by bananas in Environment/Energy
Sat Jun 07th 2008, 07:52 PM
"Estimates released in recent weeks by experienced nuclear operators — NRG Energy Inc., Progress Energy Inc., Exelon Corp., Southern Co. and FPL Group Inc. — “have blown by our highest estimate” of costs computed just eight months ago, said Jim Hempstead, a senior credit officer at Moody’s Investors Service credit-rating agency in New York." (Link) "Interestingly, when Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding was released, the nuclear industry press chose to either focus o...
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/555

"The solar power business is bracing itself for a collapse in prices"
Posted by bananas in Environment/Energy
Sat Jun 07th 2008, 03:13 PM
(Link) Silver lining in solar power storm clouds By Fiona Harvey in London and Richard Waters in San,Francisco Published: June 2 2008 03:00 | Last updated: June 2 2008 03:00 The solar power business is bracing itself for a collapse in prices that could lead to a shake-out in one of the most promising areas of the renewable energy sector. <snip> According to Dean Cooper, analyst at Ambrian, the global capacity for production of photovoltaic equipment - the biggest section of solar po...
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/554

...

[Indenturedebtor]

27. If the internets is a game - YOU JUST WON!

[wtmusic]

48. And you can prove this is not related to high construction costs

that affect every sector of the construction business?

Still waiting for an answer on that one.

[bananas]

58. I gave an answer the other day

it was in the middle of a long thread so it was easy to miss:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=167109&mesg_id=167411

bananas (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-12-08 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #17

41. There are a number of things
The older rosy estimates are based on a number of overly optimistic assumptions.

The 2003 MIT "Future of Nuclear Energy" page 7 lists the main cost-cutting assumptions:

+ Reduce construction cost 25%
+ Reduce construction time 5 to 4 years
+ Further reduce O&M to 13 mills/kWe-hr
+ Reduce cost of capital to gas/coal

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower /

The 2007 Keystone report discusses these assumptions,
for example, on page 34 they discuss construction time:

Our assumptions are based
on a 5- to 6-year construction schedule from
ground-breaking to commercial operation. While
some studies and Japanese experience support the
possibility of 4-year construction schedules, the
NJFF participants, including industry
representatives currently evaluating nuclear
construction proposals, agreed that 5 to 6 years is a
more realistic construction time over the next 10
years.

http://www.keystone.org/spp/energy07_policymain.html

Nuclear Engineering International Magazine discussed the various cost estimates,
including Keystone:

However, prohibitively high though it may at first appear to be, even the figure for new build costs in The Keystone Center report is considered too low by some observers.

Independent energy consultant and former director of power planning and forecasting at Seattle City Light Jim Harding said he thought the lower figure of the report’s range, ie $3600/kWe, is no longer believable and the upper limit of $4000/kWe “is probably low.”

<snip>

Even more recently, a ‘special comment’ report released by Moody’s Investors Service on 10 October this year, titled New Nuclear Generation in the United States: Keeping Options Open vs Addressing An Inevitable Necessity, estimated the all-in costs of a nuclear plant to be between $5000 and $6000/kWe. The report did however provide a note of caution, stating: “While we acknowledge that our estimate is only marginally better than a guess; it is a more conservative estimate than current market estimates.”

<snip>

The same issues were covered in detail by Lew Hay, chairman and CEO of FPL, in the Biannual General Meeting of the World Association of Nuclear Operators (Wano), held in Chicago, Illinois on September 23-25. Hay told the meeting: “Although suppliers keep quoting overnight costs of $2500 to $3500 per kilowatt, I believe the all-in costs are likely to be much higher – possibly twice as much once you factor in owners’ costs such as land, cooling towers, switchyard, etc, interest during construction and cost escalation due to inflation and cost overruns. And of course we have to have a contingency as well.”

<snip>

http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2047917

[wtmusic]

74. If we follow France's pattern

of using standardized designs there is no reason we can't see costs of under $2000/kWe in the US.

"Construction Cost Over-Runs

There were massive cost overruns for plants built in the USA in the 1970's and 1980's. There were several reasons for these.

* Design Flaws. There were significant design flaws which led to the reactor leak and operator confusion that caused the Three Mile Island accident. After these were exposed, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), undertook an extensive review of Nuclear Plant designs and in many cases ordered changes. These changes were both expensive and time consuming to fix. They led to extensive construction delays at a time of very high interest rates and so significantly increased the cost of the Capital required to build the plant.
* Two hurdle licensing. Up until the mid-1990's developers of nuclear power plants had to obtain both a license to build a Nuclear Power then a subsequent license to operate the plant. This also delayed the start of plant operation which significantly increased the cost of the plant. The worst situation was that of the Shoreham Plant which was completed on Long Island in New York State at a cost of 5 Billion dollars but was never allowed to operate.
* Non-uniform designs. The US Nuclear Power Industry never achieved economies of volume because every reactor design was different. Each developer put in their own tweaks and much of the equipment was custom built for each plant. This compounded the difficulties of obtaining NRC licensing approval since the NRC had to evaluate each individual design.

In contrast the French Nuclear Power program settled on a standard design which satisfied the French Regulatory Commission. Industry was able to achieve economies of volume in the production of plants and to complete construction on time."

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower

One year ago, speaking at Wilmington Conferences’ European Nuclear Power Debate, held in London on 4-5 September 2006, Bill Coley, CEO of British Energy said: “I don’t believe subsidies are needed at all. I think, given some certainty about permitting, planning and licensing – that assures us that we can put standard designs in place – we can do so at a very competitive cost.” While he was referring specifically the UK industry, he added that he was also familiar with the US Energy Policy Act of 2005, and had provided input to the US government’s energy review. But this input did not include asking for subsidies, he said. “I was somewhat surprised when the Energy Policy Act was passed and I saw incentives were in it. I think what you’re seeing is that the nation – the USA – fundamentally believes that nuclear is critically important to the future energy supply and economy of the country and they want to do whatever they can to induce people to make that investment and to restart nuclear build in the USA. But you don’t have to have the subsidies and I would not lobby for those.”

One year on, in its response the UK nuclear consultation, British Energy said: “Nuclear is cost competitive without subsidy, provided the fossil fuel alternatives carry the cost of the carbon emissions associated with their use.”

Others, such as Electricité de France (EdF) subsidiary EDF Energy, took the same line. EDF Energy’s response stated: “Investors such as ourselves are prepared to invest in nuclear without government subsidy,” but called for a long-term guarantee on a minimum carbon price, which, the company claimed, “is not a subsidy for nuclear.”

The same is true in the USA, where more government support is available to new nuclear projects. Even with the incentives in the US Energy Policy Act, it seems unlikely that new nuclear plants will be ordered without a price on carbon emissions. As Lew Hay put it: “Based on our analysis, nuclear power will not be economic without a sustainable carbon price of roughly $30 per ton, or more."

http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2047917

Why can Europeans build safe nuke plants without government subsidies, and we can't? :shrug:

[kristopher]

75. They can't and that's the wrong question anyway.

Track down this paper for good discussion on the costs of bringing nuclear online. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x168471

The second quote you provided says that nuclear can compete *if* carbon costs are included in the formula. That serves the same function as subisides, so it is half a dozen of one or six of the other.

The question isn't whether nuclear can compete with fossil fuels, it is whether we can deploy a nuclear energy infrastructure for less money than we can deploy a renewable energy infrastructure AND what would the the relative benefits and ongoing costs once that infrastructure is in place.

Renewables win hands down.

[bananas]

59. I'll add this great quote posted on the NEI blog by a pro-nuke

right after the Keystone report came out:
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2007/06/keystone-report-on-nuclear-energy.html

<snip>

The fact that the "official" capital cost estimates for new reactors has been going up, oh, about 50% per year for several years now is annoying enough ($1000/kW ~7 years ago, then $1500/kW, then $2000, then $2500, and now I'm even hearing about $3000-$4000). Am I being lied to now or was I being lied to then? Inflation and materials cost escalation is nowhere near enough to explain this. Weren't reactors supposed to be cheaper this time around ("50% fewer valves....", etc..).

June 20, 2007 1:27 AM

[NYC_SKP]

69. Thanks for all the good data...

I was out of town visiting the folks in tornado torn Greensburg, KS--great kids, the town is still pretty thin for buildings but the people are strong.

I appreciate the Keystone materials, as well. I spent a week at their Key Issues conference last summer in Colorado.

Am I wanting to double the number of reactors? No, I just appreciate their contribution to base load and relative simplicity contrasted to coal plants.

I'd love to see declining demand for electricity and decreases in all kinds of consumption.

Earlier this evening I saw a big white Escalade parked at the market, running, nobody in it.

The shoppers didn't want their car to get hot while they shopped.

Isn't that special?

:hi:

[bananas]

72. You're welcome - the Keystone Center has a very good approach

[wtmusic]

73. From your link

"Capping a year-long evaluation of nuclear energy by a diverse group of experts, The Keystone Center today issued a report that details the group’s consensus that U.S. nuclear power plants are safer today with an improved safety culture; that climate change policies will improve nuclear energy’s relative economics, and that options are available today to safely manage used fuel.

The report, a “joint fact-finding on nuclear power,” was undertaken to provide an “assessment” of nuclear energy amid growing discussion – in policy circles and among the general public – of the technology’s appropriate role in the nation’s energy future.

“Nuclear technology is re-emerging as a power generation option in the face of concerns about climate change, energy demand growth, and the relative cost of competing technologies,” the report states."

[NYC_SKP]

77. Yep. Three factors that make nuclear more attractive than in the past.

First, as you point out, the safety issue has been well-addressed.

Second, our understanding of climate change puts nuclear in the "green" column vis a vis greenhouse gases.

Third, wind and solar are intermittent and cannot replace base load day and night generation currently met by nuclear and coal (and natural gas).

So, unless we all start using less, we are going to have to use nuclear or coal for a substantial part of our needs, even with enormous growth in wind and solar.

:hi:

[kristopher]

78. Defining base load power

There are two different ways of defining base load power. 1) the minimum amount of demand that occurs continuously in 24 hours. 2) is a plant that is designed to produce 24 hours a day.

The relationship between 1 and 2 seems causal, in that we have minimum demand that we build enough generation to service. What is less commonly appreciated is the effect of reversing that view of causality. Utilities are businesses that have traditionally operated as cost plus, regulated monopolies. That means that the more demand they can create they more money they can make. It has been in their interest to create as many generating facilities as possible because they get their cost plus profit on every chair, carpet and light fixture they can justify spending money on. This is why demand side management is and always will be such a low priority for the businesses that generate and distribute power.

That perverse incentive - the tendency of the utilities to create reasons inflating costs - was what "deregulation" (more accurately described as "un-bundling") of was supposed to address. It may have actually accomplished that task to a degree, however, the regulatory changes haven't addressed the fact that the more electricity sold, the more profits generated. If you consider the lavish way we use energy to be a problem, then this is another perverse incentive still tied to centrally owned "base load" generation. It is a large part of the explanation as to why we are such energy hogs. It also profoundly affects our ability to envision a system not oriented to the idea of central, mass generation.

I'd suggest that energy efficiency improvements and distributed generation can also apply to the industrial sector. Instead of taking for granted the existence of "black box" energy production, all sectors will become partially responsible for meeting energy needs at a much more involved and detail oriented level. This, of course, requires a fundamental rethinking of how power requirements are met.

No one is proposing to rapidly eliminate the 20% of nuclear generation. In ten years we can replace 75% of petroleum and all of coal without building additional nuclear plants. We would still get 40% of our electricity from nuclear and natural gas plants, but there are ways to mitigate the expected heavier demand for dispatchable peaking type plants. (CAES captures spilled wind and solar to augment biofuel powered peaking plants)

While nuclear has improved, it still hasn't solved its pernicious problems - high cost, nuclear proliferation, and nuclear waste. Those are problems that can continue to be worked on as we get well along the path of deploying renewables. IF the problems with nuclear are solved then perhaps it has a place in our future. But right now, we simply don't need more of what current nuclear technology can deploy.

[phantom power]

19. Are you touring these facilities for some sort of project, or just for fun?

[Indenturedebtor]

26. It's part of his job as an online pro-nuke person :D n/t

[dbonds]

30. An aside:

Love your signature quote :)

[phantom power]

54. It was hard to choose between that or "thoroughbred of sin"

[NYC_SKP]

66. I train groups of teachers to teach about solar energy and conservation...

...and an advanced group of these were invited to tour UC Davis and Diablo Canyon to look at a couple other carbon neutral sources.

If we had any major coal plants, we might visit one for contrast, and we'll probably visit a hydro facility when logistics are worked out.

No source is perfect and all sources have advantages and strengths. I love wind and solar, but they can't do much for base load until we find ways to store and deliver their energy at scale.

We have been studying more about the concepts distributed power, base load, and demand response, concepts without which intelligent conversations about energy are pointless.

:thumbsup:

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our third quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[hunter]

34. GrovelBot has a tiny nuclear power plant inside his chest.

He asks that you not tell his neighbors.

[alan007]

35. aha

aha,i agree with you!

[bananas]

46. "the more advanced design that reuse the fuel" - what do MIT and NAS say about that?

The most important recommendation in the 2003 MIT report "The Future of Nuclear Power":

"Thus our most important recommendation is:
For the next decades, government and industry in the U.S. and elsewhere
should give priority to the deployment of the once-through fuel cycle,
rather than the development of more expensive closed fuel cycle
technology involving reprocessing and new advanced thermal or fast
reactor technologies."
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/index.html


In 2007, the National Academy of Science came to a similar conclusion:

"While all 17 members of the committee concluded that the GNEP R&D program, as currently planned, should not be pursued, 15 of the members said that the less-aggressive reprocessing research program that preceded the current one should be. However, if DOE returns to the earlier program, called the Advance Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI), it should not commit to a major demonstration or deployment of reprocessing unless there is a clear economic, national security, or environmental reason to do so."
http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/10/national_academy_of_science_re.php


So forget about "the more advanced design that reuse the fuel" for the next several decades.

[mayahbird]

57. One little earthquake!!!!!

What should the country do with the more than 40,000 metric tons of nuclear waste it's generated? Bury it in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, if the federal government has its way. The government selected the desert site, which will eventually hold up to 77,000 metric tons, as a permanent repository for the nation’s nuclear waste, despite the objections of both Nevada’s governor and its congressional delegation.
The delegation, led by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), got President Bill Clinton to veto a bill in 2000 that would have accelerated construction of the facility.
No such luck this time.
In February, the Bush administration officially declared Yucca Mountain the country’s nuclear waste storage site. The House of Representatives has already passed a bill to approve the site’s construction. Next up is the Senate, which under federal law has to pass its Yucca Mountain resolution by July 25. The issue has unleashed a multi-million dollar lobbying spree.

Environmentalists are concerned about the location of the site (in an area prone to earthquakes) and question the safety of transporting nuclear waste cross country by rail.

The nuclear power industry insists that Yucca Mountain is safer than housing the waste at dozens of temporary storage sites scattered across the country.

I copied this from Open secrets.org

[wtmusic]

62. Welcome to DU mayahbird

:bounce: :toast: :bounce:

Burying it in Yucca Mountain is far safer than leaving it in the other 123 sites across the country where it is relatively unprotected, and far more prone to reach the water table in the event of natural disaster or sabotage.

Current locations where high-level nuclear waste is stored:

[JohnWxy]

70. I really don't thinkyou can call Nukes carbon neutral. It takes a lot of fossil energy combustion

to refine uranium ore into plutonium that can be useful in a nuclear power-plant to name just one source of carbon dioxide involved in the construction and operation of a nuke.

Plus, I'm afraid you have not considered the problem of sequestering the nuclear waste (for thousands of years) generated by this process over the life of this installation. This is a huge problem to which there is really no feasible answer to.

[Nihil]

71. *snort*

> It takes a lot of fossil energy combustion
> to refine uranium ore into plutonium that can
> be useful in a nuclear power-plant

Do you want to try that one again when you're sober?
:hi:

[wtmusic]

76. delete