paradigm-change? Frak'g Causes Environmentalists Go Pro-Nuclear?

[EJ]

Re: paradigm-change? Frak'g Causes Environmentalists Go Pro-Nuclear?

How big are uranium (are there other nuclear energy sources available) deposits?
How long shall they last if nuclear becomes mainstream as energy source?

Supply of Uranium

• Uranium is a relatively common metal, found in rocks and seawater. Economic concentrations of it are not uncommon.
• Its availability to supply world energy needs is great both geologically and because of the technology for its use.
• Quantities of mineral resources are greater than commonly perceived.
• The world's known uranium resources increased 15% in two years to 2007 due to increased mineral exploration.

"... the world's present measured resources of uranium (5.3 Mt) in the cost category around present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 80 years."

Are there safe ways to get rid of nuclear waste?

Europe makes big bets on nuclear waste burial

(Reuters) - On a small Finnish island and deep in remote rural France, far from the debates and doubts that followed Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster, the ground work is underway for a commitment to atomic power for the long term - the very long term.

The problem is disposal of nuclear waste, at present mostly done at surface level. Finland, France and Sweden plan to build the world's first permanent storage sites hundreds of meters underground.

Finland has already started to build Onkalo, which is designed to take waste over a period of 100 years and then store it for at least 100,000 years, safe from population, fire, flood and other risks. France plans a similar project in Bure in the country's east.

Can Fukushima, 3 MI, Chernobyl accidents be phased out completely?

Miniature nuclear reactors might be a safe, efficient source of power

By Brian Palmer
Special to The Washington Post
Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Take a mental stroll through the streets of Anytown, U.S.A. City hall is on your left, the movie theater on your right. Smell the delights from the bakery. And in the distance, there's the gentle steam plume billowing from the cooling tower of the miniature nuclear reactor that powers the quaint little burg.

Not your idea of Americana? Wait a decade or two. The government and its private partners are developing reactors that one day might power your home town. more...


Small Reactors Provide Clean, Safe Power and Industrial Process Heat

Small modular nuclear reactors can complement large-scale projects by expanding the level of deployment and application options for carbon-free nuclear energy. Small-scale reactors provide energy companies and others with a diverse array of energy options. more...


The 500MW molten salt nuclear reactor: Safe, half the price of light water, and shipped to order

Nuclear power basically comes down to two issues: Safety and cost. Nobody denies that mass nuclear has the raw production capacity to provide for our energy needs through the remotely foreseeable future, but some argue that doing so would either bankrupt us, sicken us, or both. While this is certainly a disputed interpretation, it’s one that has been gathering support in the wake of the Fukushima disaster and a prolonged PR campaign from coal, natural gas, and certain wings of the environmentalist movement. As a result, the conventional nuclear industry, floundering due to widespread public unease and growing legislative opposition, seems to be begging for a revolution.

MIT and Transatomic’s Russ Wilcox certainly thought so last year, when he told Forbes that the coming years would be “a fabulous time to do a leapfrog move”. It was a strident statement at the time, even for a company boasting the former CTO of the nuclear pioneer Westinghouse, and the head of nuclear engineering at MIT. This week, though, Transatomic finally co-localized its money and its mouth, announcing a potential leapfrog technology that they claim could re-energize the energy industry: they claim to know how to make nuclear reactors smaller. more...

[santafe2]

Re: What is "it" ?

If by "it" you mean reducing Co2 emissions, then you might explain how much Germany has spent to get solar power up to 3% of total power. If these power sources were economic, wouldn't Japan already be using them?

I think it's important to point out that 2011's 3% of total electrical power was 1/20th of 1% 10 years ago and will be over 6% by the end of this year. As for Japan, they should be the largest solar market in the world by the end of 2013. Metrics: Germany installed 7.6GW in 2012, Japan installed 3.8GW in Q1 2013. The run rate is expected to slow somewhat over the year but end substantially higher than Germany's 7.6GW for 2012. Average installation cost for large scale systems in Japan is ~$2.00 a watt. It's typically 20-30% higher in the US which is a much smaller and more diverse market. Since I'd just be talking my own book, I'll let others decide if this makes economic sense.

[lektrode]

Re: What is "it" ?

I think it's important to point out that 2011's 3% of total electrical power was 1/20th of 1% 10 years ago and will be over 6% by the end of this year....

with all due respect, santa - to both your book and the industry - we (all) better hope that rather optimistic goal isnt short-circuited by
the latest news - esp considering The Source... (apparently The Only Source of news, since all the rest of em just keep repeating it)

which, again, considering The Agenda - is - somewhat oddly, actually: fairly old news ???
(in that the sfgate reported this one last dec, but the nyt apparently decided only this past week that it was worthy of its reportage)

and they (the lib-dem authors of The Agenda) just cant unnerstanz why some of us:

[santafe2]

Re: What is "it" ?

[QUOTE=lektrode;260030]with all due respect, santa - to both your book and the industry - we (all) better hope that rather optimistic goal isnt short-circuited by
the latest news - esp considering The Source... (apparently The Only Source of news, since all the rest of em just keep repeating it)

which, again, considering The Agenda - is - somewhat oddly, actually: fairly old news ???
(in that the sfgate reported this one last dec, but the nyt apparently decided only this past week that it was worthy of its reportage)

and they (the lib-dem authors of The Agenda) just cant unnerstanz why some of us.... The defect rate in Chinese panels are well known and unsurprising to those of us working in the industry. As most may have noticed, Chinese companies will sometimes cut corners. Regarding the German goal, it's not optimistic, they were at 4.7% at the end of 2012. As for solar or nuclear for that matter being a political issue, I've never seen it that way. We need, and we want, a lot of energy in the US. Solar is just one of the ways we intend to get it. I'm not sure how that should divide any of us or how my objective statements about solar in Germany are fodder for your agenda. It's just another way of making energy. Let's try to keep this thread on point.

[santafe2]

Re: paradigm-change? Frak'g Causes Environmentalists Go Pro-Nuclear?

Or we abandon the imperative of maintaining our present lifestyles. I have no hope that will happen.

Whatever the rest of us say on this thread, that's the key observation. Humans love to be comfortable and they have no intention of giving it up once they have it. We have to plan for the worst outcome because that's likely what we'll create while we get more comfortable. Maybe we'll moderate our activities and not go petri dish on the earth, but I find that outcome less likely.

[astonas]

Re: paradigm-change? Frak'g Causes Environmentalists Go Pro-Nuclear?

Whatever the rest of us say on this thread, that's the key observation. Humans love to be comfortable and they have no intention of giving it up once they have it. We have to plan for the worst outcome because that's likely what we'll create while we get more comfortable. Maybe we'll moderate our activities and not go petri dish on the earth, but I find that outcome less likely.

You're right of course that such comfort does drive and motivate people. As long as they have a choice, they will (on average) choose comfort. Until they can no longer afford it.

What fascinates me is how people can and do cope with a lower level of comfort when it is thrust upon them without choice. The experiences of people who lived through the Great Depression are fascinating in part because so many describe the times as financially hard, but in other respects the best years of their lives.

That dichotomy puzzled me at first. But perhaps there is something real in the idea of shedding the pretense associated with having or owning things, in favor of the inherent grounding associated with being and doing.

So I agree that the bad times are not likely to be avoided, as you say.

But I'm also not sure that they will necessarily be thought of (or perhaps I mean remembered) as "bad" times. For those that choose not to indulge a spiritual interpretation, there is always the path of plain old rationalization available as well. And for those still holding out, there is always Madison Avenue.

I can already imagine the slogans: "flourishing by finding fundamentals"..."success through simplicity"...

"Back to basics."

Yep, that'll sell.

[Southernguy]

Re: paradigm-change? Frak'g Causes Environmentalists Go Pro-Nuclear?

Supply of Uranium

• Uranium is a relatively common metal, found in rocks and seawater. Economic concentrations of it are not uncommon.
• Its availability to supply world energy needs is great both geologically and because of the technology for its use.
• Quantities of mineral resources are greater than commonly perceived.
• The world's known uranium resources increased 15% in two years to 2007 due to increased mineral exploration.

"... the world's present measured resources of uranium (5.3 Mt) in the cost category around present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 80 years."



Europe makes big bets on nuclear waste burial

(Reuters) - On a small Finnish island and deep in remote rural France, far from the debates and doubts that followed Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster, the ground work is underway for a commitment to atomic power for the long term - the very long term.

The problem is disposal of nuclear waste, at present mostly done at surface level. Finland, France and Sweden plan to build the world's first permanent storage sites hundreds of meters underground.

Finland has already started to build Onkalo, which is designed to take waste over a period of 100 years and then store it for at least 100,000 years, safe from population, fire, flood and other risks. France plans a similar project in Bure in the country's east.



Miniature nuclear reactors might be a safe, efficient source of power

By Brian Palmer
Special to The Washington Post
Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Take a mental stroll through the streets of Anytown, U.S.A. City hall is on your left, the movie theater on your right. Smell the delights from the bakery. And in the distance, there's the gentle steam plume billowing from the cooling tower of the miniature nuclear reactor that powers the quaint little burg.

Not your idea of Americana? Wait a decade or two. The government and its private partners are developing reactors that one day might power your home town. more...


Small Reactors Provide Clean, Safe Power and Industrial Process Heat

Small modular nuclear reactors can complement large-scale projects by expanding the level of deployment and application options for carbon-free nuclear energy. Small-scale reactors provide energy companies and others with a diverse array of energy options. more...


The 500MW molten salt nuclear reactor: Safe, half the price of light water, and shipped to order

Nuclear power basically comes down to two issues: Safety and cost. Nobody denies that mass nuclear has the raw production capacity to provide for our energy needs through the remotely foreseeable future, but some argue that doing so would either bankrupt us, sicken us, or both. While this is certainly a disputed interpretation, it’s one that has been gathering support in the wake of the Fukushima disaster and a prolonged PR campaign from coal, natural gas, and certain wings of the environmentalist movement. As a result, the conventional nuclear industry, floundering due to widespread public unease and growing legislative opposition, seems to be begging for a revolution.

MIT and Transatomic’s Russ Wilcox certainly thought so last year, when he told Forbes that the coming years would be “a fabulous time to do a leapfrog move”. It was a strident statement at the time, even for a company boasting the former CTO of the nuclear pioneer Westinghouse, and the head of nuclear engineering at MIT. This week, though, Transatomic finally co-localized its money and its mouth, announcing a potential leapfrog technology that they claim could re-energize the energy industry: they claim to know how to make nuclear reactors smaller. more...

Maybe nuclear electricity production will expand in the near future.
If you are right we have uranium for 80 years. It seems the calculation is based on nowadays rate of extraction. What if this is multiplied?
Suppose waste disposal can be safely and reasonably economically solved.
The solution for of safety problems seems pretty long way off "Then, there are the costs. Transatomic claims their reactor will be capable of pumping out 500 megawatts for a total initial cost of about $1.7 billion. By comparison, the super-advanced light water Westinghouse AP1000 pumps out a little over 1000 megawatts for an estimated $7 billion. That’s about half the cost per megawatt, at least on paper. The new reactor would also be small enough to be built in a central factory and then shipped to its destination, rather than requiring that the plant’s eventual location be made into an expensive, multi-year construction site.

Transatomic is not hedging its bets: the researchers claim their design is production-ready, and stand behind their numbers. “I wish someone would build this thing,” said one early investor. The project has raised about $1 million, so far."
If such not so small and safe nuclear MSR come to be built at the said cost, then nuclear may be a sensible medium term solution.
Because if they become mainstream uranium resources shall be depleted much sooner than 80 years from now.
I think the long term solution comes to two main points: 1) frugality. Humanity can't, at present have the occidental lifestyle. Keeping such, even for the privileged 10% of the world populace shall be as well unsustainable.2) Renewables including solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, etc.
I doubt very much in 100 years tourism will be widespread as well as individual energy (electric, fossil fuel or such) transportation.
We shall bike, walk, and use even horses.
Well "we" is an expression....our descendants..
Hope the harsh transition transits an orderly ways.

[Penguin]

Re: paradigm-change? Frak'g Causes Environmentalists Go Pro-Nuclear?

"... the world's present measured resources of uranium (5.3 Mt) in the cost category around present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 80 years."

Well, unless there is a lot more uranium that is recoverable for not a lot more effort than that for the 'spot price' things are much worse than I dared believe.

80 years is nothing. How will the capital (of all kinds) be made available to make this transition in a world that will struggle (mightily in my opinion) to adjust to the lower quality/higher price of that oil which we have left? As you might well imagine I am much better versed in the world of oil than for that of nuclear energy. I know I must be missing something here. I'm going to have to go on a data hunt and see if the things I think I know about nuclear costs are correct. I've always supported the industry but have never been convinced it is the answer.

As it stands now nuclear would have to be tossed into that pile of alternative energy sources I've labeled "Won't work". Unfortunately that includes every single one that is proposed to replace oil as a transportation fuel. Maybe the archdruid is right... maybe instead of asking the question of "What can replace our current energy needs when oil runs out?" we need to ask "What energy source(s) can be made to work in a steady state world and what does the economy of such a world look like?"

Will

[BadJuju]

Re: paradigm-change? Frak'g Causes Environmentalists Go Pro-Nuclear?

Uranium is not the only fuel that can be used for nuclear power. There is also thorium, which is far more abundant; however, the cost is higher. In an energy-starved world where prices are higher, it should become much more attractive.

Still, conservation first and then other things.

[lektrode]

Re: What is "it" ?

.... The defect rate in Chinese panels are well known and unsurprising to those of us working in the industry. As most may have noticed, Chinese companies will sometimes cut corners. Regarding the German goal, it's not optimistic, they were at 4.7% at the end of 2012.

ahh so - thot you were meaning that 6% was US - and sorry for sounding confrontational, santa - it wasnt my intention.

As for solar or nuclear for that matter being a political issue, I've never seen it that way. We need, and we want, a lot of energy in the US. Solar is just one of the ways we intend to get it. I'm not sure how that should divide any of us or how my objective statements about solar in Germany are fodder for your agenda. It's just another way of making energy. Let's try to keep this thread on point.

again, didnt mean to 'pick on' you and i apologize for my tone - but this - nuke power - is a political issue, is it not?
from what i've been able to gather over the past 30years, political issues are The Primary Energy Problem in The US and not technological - else we could've avoided nearly all of the environmental problems, to say nothing of the economic problems associated with the geo-politix of oil and fossil fuels in general; ie: had nuke power capabilities been fully developed, The US might never have needed to be blowing TRILLIONS on endless war over oil, nor fouling the biosphere with combustion of dirty coal (or 'clean' coal for that matter) for electric production.

and as much as i am a proponent of renewables on the smaller/individual building scale - PV and solar water/space heating make sense when its on your own house - i just dont see how it could ever make a dent in the macro energy equation = why i dont see much choice but to fully develop nuke power.

nears i can tell, its ALL POLITIX and ideology at this point, that prevents The US from making critical changes in how we keep the lights on and sustainable transportation options - esp transport, as i for one would not want to revert back to the days when only the rich could afford to travel (never mind commute to work)

but again, sorry for my tone earlier - i get a bit carried away at times, esp on the energy/politics issue.

[Penguin]

Re: paradigm-change? Frak'g Causes Environmentalists Go Pro-Nuclear?

I can believe that and thanks for the heads up. I'll add that to the list of things to look into over the weekend.

PCO is almost as terrifying a prospect as plain old Peak Oil. PCO means contraction often enough. It seems like every time we've had one of those since our first brush with resource scarcity back in the 70s (courtesy of our friends in OPEC) our answer has been to toss another slice of the country a rung or two down the economic ladder. Give this process another 20 or 30 years to work and I'm not sure the nation will have the capital necessary to fund this kind of energy transformation.

Will

[Southernguy]

Re: What is "it" ?

I think it's important to point out that 2011's 3% of total electrical power was 1/20th of 1% 10 years ago and will be over 6% by the end of this year. As for Japan, they should be the largest solar market in the world by the end of 2013. Metrics: Germany installed 7.6GW in 2012, Japan installed 3.8GW in Q1 2013. The run rate is expected to slow somewhat over the year but end substantially higher than Germany's 7.6GW for 2012. Average installation cost for large scale systems in Japan is ~$2.00 a watt. It's typically 20-30% higher in the US which is a much smaller and more diverse market. Since I'd just be talking my own book, I'll let others decide if this makes economic sense.

Santa Fe: do you have a citation for the bolded text?
I am asking because I had the idea that the price was more on the order of $3 per peak watt. In a country with average insolation you could expect 1 pw. to be about 1/4 th. in terms of constant output. Then a 500 MW installation would cost about $6bn. If price goes down to $2 for pw. then cost comes down to 4bn.

[Polish_Silver]

what nukes can do

Well, unless there is a lot more uranium that is recoverable for not a lot more effort than that for the 'spot price' things are much worse than I dared believe.

80 years is nothing. How will the capital (of all kinds) be made available to make this transition in a world that will struggle (mightily in my opinion) to adjust to the lower quality/higher price of that oil which we have left? As you might well imagine I am much better versed in the world of oil than for that of nuclear energy. I know I must be missing something here. I'm going to have to go on a data hunt and see if the things I think I know about nuclear costs are correct. I've always supported the industry but have never been convinced it is the answer.

As it stands now nuclear would have to be tossed into that pile of alternative energy sources I've labeled "Won't work". Unfortunately that includes every single one that is proposed to replace oil as a transportation fuel. Maybe the archdruid is right... maybe instead of asking the question of "What can replace our current energy needs when oil runs out?" we need to ask "What energy source(s) can be made to work in a steady state world and what does the economy of such a world look like?"

Will

Nuclear energy will not solve the liquid fuels/transportation dilemma. But, with electric vehicles, it could help a lot.

Freight ships have been, and could be in the future, powered by nuclear reactors.

As for electric power, consider that 80 years is quite a long time. And then there is the use of thorium, lower grade uranium ores, etc. The newer generations of reactors can be much more efficient, even using the spent fuel from current reactors.

For example, all existing reactors use superheated water as coolant. The temperature is typically 250C. It is not practical to go higher because of the pressures. The newer reactors are going to use things like molten salt, liquid sodium, liquid indium. These can be at say 500C. That means the turbine will be much more efficient.

Nuclear power is at the stage internal combustion engines were in 1925 or so. They can be a lot more reliable and efficient than they are.

[astonas]

Re: what nukes can do

Nuclear energy will not solve the liquid fuels/transportation dilemma. But, with electric vehicles, it could help a lot.

Freight ships have been, and could be in the future, powered by nuclear reactors.

As for electric power, consider that 80 years is quite a long time. And then there is the use of thorium, lower grade uranium ores, etc. The newer generations of reactors can be much more efficient, even using the spent fuel from current reactors.

For example, all existing reactors use superheated water as coolant. The temperature is typically 250C. It is not practical to go higher because of the pressures. The newer reactors are going to use things like molten salt, liquid sodium, liquid indium. These can be at say 500C. That means the turbine will be much more efficient.

Nuclear power is at the stage internal combustion engines were in 1925 or so. They can be a lot more reliable and efficient than they are.

While I agree with both your overall point, and most of your arguments, it should be pointed out that running turbines or other heat-exchange processes at very high temperatures also means shorter lifetimes, and a slew of other non-trivial problems. Given scarce availability for large volumes of indium, that is also highly unlikely to be a heat transfer medium. (Even thin films of Indium Tin Oxide are of increasingly dubious economic value for this very reason.) The future does hold some real promise, and there are vastly safer nuclear reactor designs than are installed today, but it is still not a panacea. Some very real investments (and for the US, controversial new reactor builds) will need to be made before some of these ideas can become a reality.

Optimism may well be in order, but exuberance, perhaps not just yet. ;-)

[Prazak]

Re: paradigm-change? Frak'g Causes Environmentalists Go Pro-Nuclear?

Maybe the archdruid is right... maybe instead of asking the question of "What can replace our current energy needs when oil runs out?" we need to ask "What energy source(s) can be made to work in a steady state world and what does the economy of such a world look like?"

I read the archdruid's weekly epistles in a steady state of denial. "Surely this won't come to pass", I keep telling myself.