Resolved: nuclear power can meet all our energy needs

[Terry in Austin]

Whenever nuclear power is presented as a remedy for CO2 pollution and fossil fuel depletion, it often comes with a claim that it is fully capable of providing all or most of the world's energy in the future. The controversy that follows usually centers on the hazards of nuclear power and whether those are great enough to reject it.

However, let's look at the claim on its own terms. Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that all the issues of safety and waste disposal are addressed to everyone's satisfaction. The vision is a world where nuclear power is the main source of energy.

If such a project were to go ahead today, what would it take? What kind of numbers would we be looking at?

Basic facts to take into account, at a minimum:

• Current annual world energy consumption: 550,000 petajoules
  
• Energy output from a 1 gigawatt plant in a year: 31.5 petajoules
  
• Current industry estimates for constructing a 1 GW plant: $3 billion
  
• Uranium oxide used by a 1 GW plant in a year: 200 metric tons

With these resulting quantities:

• Required number of 1 GW plants: 17,428
  
• Total cost: $52.29 trillion
  
• Uranium oxide for whole fleet: 3,488,741 metric tons per year

And with these starting conditions:

• Current number of nuclear plants worldwide: 440
  
• World GDP (2009): $58.3 Trillion
  
• Uranium oxide estimated reserves (IAEA known recoverable resources): 6,306,300 metric tons

Also, the buildout. To complete the project by, say, mid-century:

• Plants built: 447 per year
  
• Cost: $1.34 trillion per year
  
• Percent of world GDP: 2.3%

So, what we have here is the claim that nuclear power can meet our energy needs in the future.

Discuss.

[FiveGoodMen]

1. "Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that all the issues of safety and waste disposal ...

...are addressed to everyone's satisfaction."

No, let's not.

They aren't.

They won't be.

How many Chernobyls and Fukushimas will it take to make that point?

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. +1 N/T

[Terry in Austin]

5. Exactly right

>> They aren't. They won't be.
>> How many Chernobyls and Fukushimas will it take to make that point?

Just two, it looks like.

It's also reassuring to figure the odds of anybody coughing up that kind of money for any major transition to nuclear power!

[kristopher]

6. There have been a couple of studies looking at this.

The one intro'ed here incorporates your perspective:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nuclear-cannot-solve-climate-change

[wtmusic]

7. One person died at Fukushima - from a heart attack.

Since March 11 about 4,000 Americans have died from the effects of air pollution from coal.

Next... :eyes:

[FiveGoodMen]

8. Yes, I'm sure that will be the only problem when all is said and done.

There are NO words...

[wtmusic]

10. Of course it's not the only problem

but in the last four months more people have died in the US from coal as will die - forever - from Chernobyl. That's according to the World Health Organization.

The fear of irrational antinukes far outweighs their conscience.

[Kolesar]

14. Don't call antinukes "irrational"

Leave the attacks to the guy from NNew Jersey

[wtmusic]

16. NNadir is in absentia and I've been deputized

:D

[Terry in Austin]

23. (Time out)

>>NNadir is in absentia and I've been deputized

Dude!
:7

:toast:

<back into the fray...>

[Tesha]

12. So you're certain that *NO LIVES* will be shortened by exposure to radiation?

There's more to nuclear accidents than prompt deaths.

Tesha

[wtmusic]

15. z-z

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[Tesha]

17. Ahh, so you just presented a propagandistic statement and hoped we'd extrapolate from...

"No one has died" to "no one will lose any of their life"?

That's the only conclusion one can reach if you don't feel
my question to you was a fair one.

Tesha

[meow mix]

35. its statements like these that drive people away from nukes. you wont even recognize dangers

and focus on denial 25/7.

glad to see this "science" (lol) coming to an end.

[wtmusic]

3. Not sure where to start.

* there are 440 reactors, not "plants" in the world.
* you equate the average energy output from a 1GW reactor with capacity
* 1,300 2GW plants could provide more than enough electricity to power the entire world, and if built at the historical max rate would be completed by 2045. If ignorant antinukes got out of the way, much sooner.

But I'm bored. All of your nonsense debunked here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=302491#302939

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=302491#302945

[Terry in Austin]

18. Arithmetic, maybe

2,600 gigawatt-years is only 82,050 PJ.

Your claim lacks support.

[wtmusic]

19. You're lumping all energy together with utility electricity

Nice try. Or maybe you're hiding a solar supertanker somewhere? Hmm?

[Terry in Austin]

21. That's the premise

The vision is an all-nuclear world.

Electricity runs the cars and trains, smelts the iron, cooks the cement, provides the energy inputs for synfuels when fuels are necessary.

[wtmusic]

22. "all uranium reserves have been identified in 2011",

and "the world must be 100% nuclear for CO2 levels to be stabilized" are part of that vision?

Not realistic.

[Terry in Austin]

25. We could discuss that with the advocates

It's the reference scenario, so if pressed, I'm sure they would add the practical touches, as you suggest.

A couple of the more likely ones, I'd guess, would be to negotiate promising sources of additional fuel -- thorium, for instance, or projecting X percent of nuclear power penetration for achieving CO2 stability at Y parts per million.

[liberal N proud]

4. As long as they can stop earth quakes and floods

and human error.

Then we should be just fine!


:sarcasm:

[Tesha]

9. I didn't check your math, but you've proven that we have enough uranium...

...to run the whole shebang for *TWO WHOLE YEARS*?

Wow!

Helluvan investment!

Tesha

[wtmusic]

11. Yours is a flimsy standard of "proof". nt

[Tesha]

13. It wasn't "my" proof. If the original poster's math is wrong, point out the error.

Otherwise, refrain from ad hominem attacks.

Tesha

[Nederland]

27. It's not the math that is wrong, it's the assumption

Assuming that we won't find any more uranium is just stupid. The OP's own link proves it:

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/2010/prn201009.html

Worldwide exploration and mine development expenditures have more than doubled since the publication of the previous edition, Uranium 2007: Resources, Production and Demand. These expenditures have increased despite declining uranium market prices since mid-2007.

The uranium resources presented in this edition, reflecting the situation as of 1 January 2009, show that total identified resources amounted to 6,306,300 tU, an increase of about 15% compared to 2007,

So between 2007 and 2009 proven reserves increased 15% (even though the market for uranium was poor), and we are to assume that we aren't going to find any more even though the market for uranium would go through the roof is such a plan were adopted. This makes sense to you?

[Tesha]

28. Ahh! So instead of two years, we have two years and four months. Golly! (NT)

[kristopher]

33. Declining quality of uranium ore results in rapidly escalating CO2e emissions.

Even with just 1/3 of the global electricity coming from nuclear we would soon be using ore of a quality that pushes full life cycle CO2e emissions for nuclear to a level comparable with natural gas.

[Terry in Austin]

20. Uranium reserves

>>...to run the whole shebang for *TWO WHOLE YEARS*?

It gets even better. If you assume that the plants are put in operation as soon as they're built, then after only about 5,000 of them are done, the 6 million metric tonnes are used up.

[Nederland]

24. Well if Mark Jacobson can propose a 100 trillion dollar plan...

to provide the world with a 100% WWS (wind/water/solar) solution by 2030 I don't see why this isn't worthy of talking about too :)

An interesting side note is that his plan calls for building 3.8 million 5 MW wind turbines--and those have a significantly shorter lifespan than nuclear reactors. I wonder which plan would have a higher maintenance cost?

MZJ paper: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

[Tesha]

29. I wonder which one requires sequestering the after-use wreckage for hundreds of years? (NT)

[kristopher]

30. For once we agree.

And since you appeal to Jacobson, it is prudent to remind you that his other paper accomplishes the comparison of nuclear, wind, solar (PV &THERMAL), coalccs, hydro and biofuels. This cmparison did a resource life cycle assessment out to 100 years.



Mods, this is a single paragraph abstract (see original form below) that I’ve broken apart for ease of reading:

You can download the full article at his webpage here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

Or use this direct download link: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf

You can view the html abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Download slide presentation here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/0902UIllinois.pdf

Results graphed here: http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/RSCpubs.ePlatform.Service.FreeContent.ImageService.svc/ImageService/image/GA?id=B809990C

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

As originally published:
Abstract

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge. Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended. Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended. The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs. The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73 000–144 000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300 000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15 000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020. In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[Terry in Austin]

31. You've got that right

It's certainly worth a similar discussion -- WWS wouldn't stand up to a whole-system energy audit, either, if the premise is to create a 500 EJ energy infrastructure.

[kristopher]

32. That isn't true.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030&page=4

ETA: The far more conservative analysis by the IPCC says the same thing except they take longer because of factoring in real world policy limitiations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/09/ipcc-renewable-energy-power-world

[Terry in Austin]

36. The metaphysics of it, not so much. It's the plausibility.

"Truth," well, that remains to be seen. These are proposals, scenarios, quantiative models.

Taking one or another as gospel doesn't help good analysis, which I find more interesting. YMMV.

I found the SA piece kind of cavalier with the magnitudes involved, and the fact that he never identified a target quantity -- other than a percentage -- didn't inspire a lot of confidence.

Personally, I hope we pull it off. We've gotta dream, we've gotta try stuff. It's what we do. And I do rather like my 200 energy slaves. But talk about dreaming big -- man, oh, man!

[kristopher]

37. Apparently you rejected it before you even read it...

...since he did, in fact, identify a "target quantity".

[Terry in Austin]

39. That wouldn't really matter, would it?

It's for him to make a plausible scenario.

I didn't happen to find it plausible, but I certainly wouldn't expect that to shake your belief in it.

Look, these are just bets -- you put your chips on what convinces you. It looks like you were convinced by something that really didn't do it for me.

As for what the truth is here, we won't really know for quite some time, will we?

[kristopher]

40. The fact that you rejected the content without having read it matters a lot.

If you don't see that...

[Nederland]

38. Agreed

Neither plan is realistic, from an economic, political or even physical standpoint.

[Nederland]

26. Regarding the uranium supply issue

From your link:

Worldwide exploration and mine development expenditures have more than doubled since the publication of the previous edition, Uranium 2007: Resources, Production and Demand. These expenditures have increased despite declining uranium market prices since mid-2007.

The uranium resources presented in this edition, reflecting the situation as of 1 January 2009, show that total identified resources amounted to 6,306,300 tU, an increase of about 15% compared to 2007,

Assuming that we've found all the uranium there is to find is completely unrealistic. Given that proven reserves increased 15% in just two years (during a time when market prices were declining...) it's rather clear that we have just begun to tap what is actually available out there.

If worst comes to worst you can always get the stuff from seawater: http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/energypmp/2009_Tamada.pdf

[Terry in Austin]

34. One of the weaknesses of the scenario

I think you've identified an important one.

For the scenario to be plausible, it assumes at least an order of magnitude beyond present reserve figures, whereas projected increases are fractional, as you point out.

It's likely that the banker is going to want more substantial reassurances before greenlighting the project.

Particularly true if seawater extraction is what is planned for making up the shortfall, on the promise that it will make it out of the lab soon enough.

[SpoonFed]

41. Seawater extraction could be focused...

in and around the coast of Japan from what I've read in the news lately.
:sarcasm: