Nuclear Power

[SHRED]

Along with the Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, in the debate over the use of nuclear power, I rarely if ever here this interesting angle.

An increasing number of former industry and non-industry experts are saying that at best nuclear power releases slightly fewer greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than if the fossil fuels embodied in it had been burned to make electricity directly.

In his 2002 book, Asleep at the Geiger Counter, p. 107-118, Sidney Goodman, (giving the industry the benefit of the doubt on a number of fronts and assuming no serious accidents or terrorism), concludes that the net output of the typical nuclear power plant would be only 4% more than if the fossil fuels embodied in it had been uses directly to produce electricity. This means, best-case scenario, replacing direct fossil fuel generated electricity with nuclear generated electricity will only reduce the carbon dioxide released per unit of electricity produced by 4%. Goodman is a long practicing licensed Professional Engineer with a Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering.

Other experts believe that nuclear power will produce about the same amount of energy as was, is, and will be consumed to create, operate and deal with its aftermath. This case was made in an article published in Pergamon Journals Ltd. Vol.13, No. 1, 1988, P. 139, titled “The Net Energy Yield of Nuclear Power.” In their article the authors concluded that even without including the energy that has or would be consumed to mitigate past or future serious radioactive releases, nuclear power is only “the re-embodiment of the energy that went into creating it.”
In its July/August 2006 edition, The Ecologist Magazine, a respected British publication, featured a16-page analysis of nuclear power. One of the conclusions was that nuclear power does not even produce enough electricity to make up for the fossil fuels consumed just to mine, mill and otherwise process uranium ore into nuclear fuel, much less all the other energy inputs required This is not surprising given that typical U-235 ore concentrations of .01% to .02%, require mining, crushing and processing a ton of ore to end up with 1/2 oz to 1 oz of nuclear reactor fuel.

SOURCE:
http://www.counterpunch.org/bell10242008.html

[madokie]

1. The last thing we need to do is build more nuclear power plants

The overall picture isn't so good with them when you look at the big picture. By pouring time, energy and money into the big hole that is nuclear power other more benign forms of producing our energy is pushed aside and in the end we'll all die due to global warming not because we didn't build nuclear power plants but because they are not the clean source of energy that the nuclear industry would have us believe. Our efforts, time and money should be spent on developing the alternates to nuclear, coal and gas not to rehashing this nuclear boondoggle.
rec

[Pab Sungenis]

2. One way to fuel nuclear reactors without creating much CO2

...dismantle nuclear weapons. Use the cores to fuel the new reactors.

[zipplewrath]

3. Reprocessing

What the original post doesn't discuss, is that the current push for nuclear energy really wants to focus on using more "breeder" technologies, including the reprocessing of "spent" fuel to recover the usable portions. A large amount of "spent" fuel contians useful components, but it is often too close to "weapons grade" for governments to be comfortable with its use and distribution.

I'm not a big proponent, either way really, of nuclear power. I think it is often "over sold" on what it can do, and what it can replace. Alternately, much of the criticism of it is often hyperbolic or just plain wrong. It makes it hard to have any real honest discussion about its role in the future scheme of things.

[SHRED]

4. Would you consider...

...Mr. Bell's arguments "hyperbolic or just plain wrong" as outlined in the article I linked?


---

[zipplewrath]

5. Narrowly focused

There's not real discussion of reprocessing at all, as a strategy to address his concerns. One of the problems we have with "waste" is that we don't allow reprocessing, which is why we have so much of it, and why it is so hard to dispose. We can't really discuss the environmental impact of nuclear power without a discussion, or at least acknowledgement, of the role that reprocessing plays.

[kristopher]

7. Reprocessing IS discussed and it isn't worth the effort.

There are no fuel shortages that make it necessary, and there are associated costs in money, energy, and risks that make the once through fuel cycle the preferred option.


Findings from MIT's 2003 comprehensive study, The Future of Nuclear Power:

Over the next 50 years, unless patterns change dramatically, energy production and use will contribute to global warming through large-scale greenhouse gas emissions — hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power could be one option for reducing carbon emissions. At present, however, this is unlikely: nuclear power faces stagnation and decline.

This study analyzes what would be required to retain nuclear power as a significant option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting growing needs for electricity supply. Our analysis is guided by a global growth scenario that would expand current worldwide nuclear generating capacity almost threefold, to 1000 billion watts,by the year 2050.Such a deployment would avoid 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually from coal plants, about 25% of the increment in carbon emissions otherwise expected in a business-as-usual scenario. This study also recommends changes in government policy and industrial practice needed in the relatively near term to retain an option for such an outcome. (Want to guess what these are? - K)

We did not analyze other options for reducing carbon emissions — renewable energy sources, carbon sequestration,and increased energy efficiency — and therefore reach no conclusions about priorities among these efforts and nuclear power. In our judgment, it would be a mistake to exclude any of these four options at this time.

STUDY FINDINGS
For a large expansion of nuclear power to succeed,four critical problems must be overcome:

Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas.However,plausible reductions by industry in capital cost,operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.

Safety.
Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices”in construction and operation are essential.We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle, beyond reactor operation.

Waste.
Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs. Improvement in the open,once through fuel cycle may offer waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more expensive closed fuel cycles.

Proliferation.
The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.

Key points:
"We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle, beyond reactor operation."
"A convincing case has not been made that the long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs."
" The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks."

[zipplewrath]

8. The original article was about carbon effects

It made the case that carbon release from the open cycle negated the advantages of nuclear power. In a close cycle system, that can be reduced. It may be more expensive, but it would reduce the carbon "foot print" of nuclear power.

[kristopher]

9. Reprocessing requires MORE energy input, not less

[zipplewrath]

10. But it can be electrical

The problem with the open cycle is it is all mined. That means ALOT of carbon fuel based work to dig it up, and crush it, not to mention the transportation costs. Mining probably could be converted to a more electrical base, meaning that they could avoid much of the carbon effects, but I presume that study didn't suggest that.

[DrGregory]

17. However...

The problem with the open cycle is it is all mined. That means ALOT of carbon fuel based work to dig it up, and crush it, not to mention the transportation costs.
-----------------------------------------

Nuclear reactors get their energy from the nuclear force;
one of the fundamental forces in Nature.

The nuclear force is ONE MILLION times more powerful than
the Coulomb force. Pound for pound, nuclear energy gives
you more than a MILLION times the amount of energy as the
equivalent mass of chemical fuel.

That's why a 1 ton conventional explosive bomb which derives
its energy from chemical reactions will destroy a building.

A nuclear bomb that is even lighter will destroy the entire
city.

Because nuclear gives you one million times the energy per
unit mass, as compared to chemical fuel; it is equivalent
to say that for a given amount of energy; one needs
ONE MILLIONTH the amount of fuel as for a chemical fuel.

You get so much energy from so little fuel with nuclear
power that mining and transport carbon emissions are in
the noise compared to chemical fuels.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

14. WRONG AGAIN!!

Reprocessing requires MORE energy input, not less
-------------------------------------------------

Reprocessing doesn't require a lot of energy.

Reprocessing is just doing chemical reactions to
isolate the useful materials from the non-useful
materials. It is NOT like enrichment.

Reprocessing is like sorting your garbage -
there's stuff you can recycle, and stuff you
have to discard. But it certainly doesn't
take a lot of energy to recycle.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

15. Which is why....

" The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks."
=============================================

Which is why the USA should not just copy the Europeans,
but use technology developed in the USA for proliferation
resistant recycling; such as the Integral Fast Reactor
fuel cycle:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

"Q: So it would be very difficult to handle for weapons, would it?

A: It's impossible to handle for weapons, as it stands.

It's highly radioactive. It's highly heat producing. It has all of the
characteristics that make it extremely, well, make it impossible for
someone to make a weapon."

Dr. Greg

[hunter]

6. Gah. Sidney Goodman, fuel cell guy.

Clean burning natural gas!



http://voices.washingtonpost.com/blog-post/2010/09/san_bruno_fire_how_safe_are_ga.html

[Confusious]

11. If you use a CANDU reactor, or a thorium reactor

His theorem is completely off.

CANDU reactors take raw uranium ore with no processing and burn that, the same with thorium.

[NNadir]

12. How come anti-nukes always mention Price Anderson?

I mean, are the agriculture companies insuring the Gulf of Mexico against the dead zone?

How about the insurance on carbonized lung tissue?

When my father died from lung cancer, not one dangerous fossil fuel power company came to offer him a payment.

As is always the case, anti-nukes are typically oblivious to setting standards that their pet forms of energy can't meet.

There are no claims filed under Price Anderson, which is an insurance industry subsidy act..

Nuclear energy doesn't need Price Anderson, but I would say that the companies that fund the anti-nuke industry - that would include, um, BP - do need insurance.

Nuclear power need not be perfect to be vastly superior to everything else. It merely needs to be vastly superior every thing else, to which most educated people, it clearly is.

http://www.searo.who.int/en/Section1243/Section1310/Section1343/Section1344/Section1357_5349.htm">Biofuel Paradise.

According to the World Health Organization, indoor air pollution from solid fuels ranks fourth amongst risks to human health in developing countries and ranks higher still in India (third), just below malnutrition and lack of safe sanitation and drinking water <1>. There is a growing body of literature on the health impacts of indoor air pollution, especially in women and children <2-6>. Studies yield an estimated range of 400 000-2 million premature deaths annually attributable to IAP in India with a majority of deaths occurring in children under five due to acute respiratory infections (pneumonia). There is also strong evidence of impact on women, up to 34 000 deaths resulting from chronic obstructive disorders <7>.

[DrGregory]

16. Some subsidy - no payouts.

There are no claims filed under Price Anderson, which is an insurance industry subsidy act..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basically, what happened back in the '50s is that Congress and the AEC
asked Brookhaven National Lab to estimate the maximum consequences of
a nuclear accident in order for Congress to mandate the proper level
of insurance.

Brookhaven did that study - and to be sure they overestimated the
consequences - they assumed the reactor did NOT have a containment
building.

However, even back then, we had anti-nukes that wanted to kill the
fledgling industry by forcing it to buy insurance with astronomical
limits, which were WAY in EXCESS of anything that could be justified
given the study by Brookhaven.

So to placate that anti-nukes; the Congress devised a 2-tier system
in which the reactor owners had to buy insurance from commercial
underwriters up to limits consistent with Brookhaven's study. Above
that, the Government would step in if claims exceeded the insurance.

However, and this is the part the anti-nukes don't like to tell you;
the Government can collect its outlay from the pooled resources of
all nuclear utilities. They have to pay the Government back.

So the nuclear industry has to pay back the Government. Additionally,
not dollar one has been paid out by the Government under Price-Anderson.

Some "subsidy".

Dr. Greg

[madokie]

18. Why are you always trying to put down Amory Lovins?

I'm shocked you didn't weasel his name in this reply of yours somewhere. You're slipping big guy, whats the deal with that anyway?

Most indoor air pollution in developing countries is caused by the apparatus that the people are cooking their meals on and has nothing to do with generating the power their country runs on. In case you're wondering which I doubt in your Nuclear Energy rage you can see

Have a great day though
I plan too
peace ;-) :hi:

I wish we had a smooch smilie as I'd like to send you a big ol kiss about right now :-)

[DrGregory]

13. That's a CROCK!!!

One of the conclusions was that nuclear power does not even produce enough electricity to make up for the fossil fuels consumed just to mine, mill and otherwise process uranium ore into nuclear fuel, much less all the other energy inputs required
--------------------------------

I've heard this nonsense before. First, the major energy
requirement for producing reactor fuel is for enrichment.

The USA's enrichment facilities are all in the service area
of the TVA - Tennessee Valley Authority. TVA's total output
accounts for about 6-7% of the electric power of the USA.

Nuclear power accounts for about 20% of the USA's output of
electric power. So even if the enrichment plants ate up
100% of TVA's output - the energy you get out of the nuclear
power plants would be 3X the input.

Of course, it's a LOT more than that - because the enrichment
facilities use only a fraction of TVA's capacity. In additon,
there is no reason that the electricity used for enrichment
has to come from fossil fuels. TVA could dedicate nuclear
power to powering the enrichment facilities; and have power
to spare.

Nuclear energy is not a "storage" mechanism for fossil power.
The immense energy derived from fission is due to the fact
that the nuclear force is over a MILLION times more powerful
than the Coulomb force which is responsible for all chemical
reactions

Dr. Greg

[madokie]

19. You see dr greg

enrichment of the fuel is but a small part of the over all picture, scientist my arse

[DrGregory]

20. WRONG!!

enrichment of the fuel is but a small part of the over all picture, scientist my arse
==================================================

Enrichment is VERY energy intensive. The USA uses the
gaseous diffusion process. At each stage of the gaseous
diffusion process the lighter U-235 atoms diffuse faster
through a barrier than the heavier U-238 atoms.

However, at each stage the enrichment factor is very small
so that the process has to be repeated many times in a
"cascade". The output of one stage is gas at low pressure
and the input to the next stage is a gas at high pressure.
So to get the desired pressure, each stage has a 1,000 HP
electric motor to drive the compressor. There's LOTS of
these high power motors in an enrichment plant.

From:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/u-gaseous.htm

"Gaseous diffusion is unlikely to be the preferred technology of a
proliferator due to difficulties associated with making and
maintaining a suitable barrier, large energy consumption..."

The first enrichment plants for the Manhattan project were the
Y-12 plant and the K-25 plant. These plants were located in
Tennessee to take advantage of TVA as a source for the high
demand of electric power for these plants.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/sites/K_25.shtml

"Although producing minute amounts of final product measured in grams,
gaseous diffusion required a massive facility to house the hundreds of
cascades and consumed enormous amounts of electric power..."


K-25 has been shutdown, and Y-12 has an alternate national security
mission. However the USA has ONE enrichment plant at Paducah, Kentucky
and it uses the gaseous diffusion method.

From the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/ur-enrichment.html

"The only gaseous diffusion plant in operation in the United States
is in Paducah, Kentucky. A similar plant is located near in Piketon,
Ohio, but it was shut down in March 2001. Both plants are leased to
the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) from the
U.S. Department of Energy and have been regulated by the NRC since March 4, 1997.

...

No gas centrifuge commercial production plants are currently operating in the United States. "

Dr. Greg