Nuclear Power: Good, Bad, Ugly?

[NYC_SKP]

Poll question: Nuclear Power: Good, Bad, Ugly?

Which is of greater concern, nuclear waste management or climatic collapse due to continued burning of coal?

This is the question framing this poll. Clearly, solar, wind, and other technologies ought to be ramped up, but this will take time, even with full governmental support.

Burning coal produces about 50% of US electricity.

My work involves meeting with ordinary people and students on the subjects of energy sources and, in particular, solar energy, and I often get an automatic negative reaction to the idea of nuclear energy.

Nuclear power, with all of it's drawbacks, provides greenhouse gas free electricity, but so do solar and wind. Conservation is perhaps the most important factor, but it is not a source of electricity.

This is a very complex matter, but I'd like to know how DUers feel about nuclear energy.

Some numbers: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html

[seemslikeadream]

1. How about a state can built a nuke plant but they have to keep their waste

[NYC_SKP]

2. I'm cool with that--and that's the way it is right now.

Waste is stored on site while we wait to find more permanent solutions, but I support the idea of keeping it in-state.

[seemslikeadream]

3. while we wait to find more permanent solutions?

What does that mean? And a state will evently run out of room, deal with it now or deal with it later

[NYC_SKP]

7. Re: disposal. And, Integral Fast Reactors create less waste.

Generally, until a more permanent solution is found means until Yucca mountain is commissioned, which is counter to your suggestion and which may never happen.
I don't know what other solutions are under consideration and I still agree that waste should be kept in the state where it is created.
Depending upon the storage techniques selected, space available is not likely a barrier to storage for any state in the short (100 year) term.
More likely is that we'll employ reactors that recycle spent fuel so that far less waste is created.

New reactors may be of a design that considerably reduces the amount of waste as well as the possibility of evil use of fissile materials:

snip:
Compared to current light-water reactors with a once-through fuel cycle that uses less than 1% of the energy in the uranium, the IFR has a very efficient (99.5% usage) fuel cycle. The basic scheme used electrolytic separation to remove transuranics and actinides from the wastes and concentrate them. These concentrated fuels were then reformed, on site, into new fuel elements.

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

[bananas]

25. It comes down to cost

Nuclear technology keeps getting more expensive, renewables keep getting cheaper.
From the wikipedia link you gave:

Key disadvantages
Because the current cost of reactor-grade enriched uranium is relatively low compared to the expected cost of large-scale pyroprocessing and electrorefining equipment and the cost of building a secondary coolant loop, the higher fuel costs of a thermal reactor over the expected operating lifetime of the plant are offset by the increased capital cost of an IFR. (Currently in the United States, utilities pay a flat rate of 1/10 of a cent per kilowatt hour for disposal of high level radioactive waste. If this charge were based on the longevity of the waste, then the IFR might become more financially competitive.)
Reprocessing nuclear fuel using pyroprocessing and electrorefining has not yet been demonstrated on a commercial scale. As such, investing in a large IFR plant is considered a higher financial risk than a conventional light water reactor.
The flammability of sodium. Sodium burns easily in air, and will ignite spontaneously on contact with water. The use of an intermediate coolant loop between the reactor and the turbines minimizes the risk of a sodium fire in the reactor core.
Under neutron bombardment, sodium-24 is produced. This is highly radioactive, emitting an energetic gamma ray of 2.7 MeV followed by a beta decay to form magnesium-24. Half life is only 15 hours, so this isotope is not a long-term hazard - indeed it has medical applications. Nevertheless, the presence of sodium-24 further necessitates the use of the intermediate coolant loop between the reactor and the turbines.

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

Here's what the nuclear industry says about nuclear prices:

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.

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman

Interestingly, when Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding was released, the nuclear industry press chose to either focus on other aspects – in particular the ‘finding’ that nuclear is a viable option for dealing with climate change – or ignore the report altogether. Considering the number of organisations involved in the nuclear industry that backed the report, this low level of coverage is anomalous, and suggests a certain amount of discomfort with the findings.
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.

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

NIRS Statement on Cancellation of Idaho Nuclear Reactor

TAKOMA PARK, MARYLAND - January 28 - Today, MidAmerican Nuclear Energy Company announced that it is cancelling its plans to build a new nuclear reactor in Payette County, Idaho.

The company cited the poor economics of nuclear power for its decision, saying that its “due diligence process has led to the conclusion that it does not make economic sense to pursue the project at this time.”

MidAmerican was planning on Warren Buffett’s Berkshire/Hathaway company to provide major financing for the project. Buffett is a major owner of MidAmerican.

Which leads NIRS to the obvious conclusion: if Warren Buffett cannot figure out how to make money from a new nuclear reactor, who can?

“This cancellation is the first of the new nuclear era,” said Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, “but it won’t be the last. Even before any new nuclear construction has begun in the U.S., cost estimates have skyrocketed and are now 300-400% higher than the industry was saying just two or three years ago.”

“The extraordinary costs of nuclear power, coupled with its irresolvable safety and radioactive waste problems, killed the first generation of reactors, and are going to end this second generation as well. But it would be tragedy if the U.S. wasted any money on new reactors, when resources are so desperately needed to implement the safer, cheaper, faster, and sustainable energy sources needed to address the climate crisis,” Mariotte added.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0128-09.htm

[eppur_se_muova]

71. very similar to molten salt reactor:

With continuous reprocessing, a molten-salt-fueled reactor has more than 97% burn-up of fuel. This is very efficient, compared to any system, anywhere. Light water reactors burn up about 2% of fuel on a once-through fuel cycle (current practice, 2007).
***
With fuel reprocessing, the Thorium fuel cycle, so impractical in other types of reactors, produces 0.1% of the long-term high-level radioactive waste of a light-water reactor without reprocessing (all modern reactors in the U.S.).
***
A molten salt reactor's fuel can be continuously reprocessed with a small adjacent chemical plant. Weinberg's groups at Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that a very small reprocessing facility can service a large 1 GW power plant: All the salt has to be reprocessed, but only every ten days. Society's total inventory of expensive, poisonous radioactives is therefore much less than in a conventional light-water-reactor's fuel cycle, which moves entire cores to recycling plants. Also, everything except fuel and waste stays inside the plant. The reprocessing cycle is:
A sparge of fluorine to remove U233 fuel from the salt. This has to be done before the next step.
A 4-meter-tall molten bismuth column separates protactinium from the fuel salt.
A small storage facility to let the protactinium from the bismuth column decay to U233. With a 27 day half life, ten months of storage assures that 99.9% decays to U233 fuel.
A small vapor-phase fluoride-salt distillation system distills the salts. Each salt has a distinct temperature of vaporization. The light carrier salts evaporate at low temperatures, and form the bulk of the salt. The thorium salts must be separated from the fission wastes at higher temperatures. The amounts involved are about 800 kg of waste per year per GW generated, so the equipment is very small. Salts of long-lived transuranic metals go back into the reactor as fuel.
***
more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

This is a very long, well written Wiki entry (as of the last time I looked at it, YMMV ... that's Wiki).

[XemaSab]

90. They're the safest, cleanest, most carbon-friendly form of energy

until they're not. :hide:

[LSparkle]

4. France has many nuclear plants -- what do they do with the waste?

The waste issue is what keeps me from being more supportive ...
but I don't consider France reckless and if they're relying
heavily on nuclear power in the middle of Europe, hopefully
they've got a workable solution for this (otherwise, their
citizens would probably be marching in the streets, activists
that they are).

Another condition for us to even consider nuclear power:
our president has to be able to CORRECTLY PRONOUNCE the
word!

[NYC_SKP]

8. Some of it is buried in abandoned mines.

Near a town named Bure.
Local residents will be paid a sum for their troubles.
I'm not sure where all of it has been going over the years.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12837958

[TheWraith]

5. While not perfect, it's a lot better than the alternative, which is coal.

I'd rather live near a nuclear plant than a coal plant any day. Wind and solar are lovely, conservation is great, but alone none of them offers an alternative capable of displacing a major amount of coal.

[Hydra]

6. We need to stop doing stupid things because they are profitable to SOME people

That includes fossil fuels and nuclear.

Without much support, solar and wave power are making huge gains each year.

[NYC_SKP]

9. I'm with you, especially on solar.

Nothing compares to solar photovoltaic electricity, except maybe plants.

Current industry standard panels are 15-20% efficient at converting free sunlight into electricity, with that number rising.

All solid state, no moving parts, no maintenance. Even wind, hydro, and geothermal need lots of capital and maintenance, and have low efficiencies.

The poll was intended to gauge mostly the emotional response to nuclear.

If Americans could freeze population growth, ramp up public transportation, etc., etc., I'm sure we could all get by on 50% of the electricity we now use with no appreciable decline in our standard of living.

Personally, I'd like for the US to catch up and surpass Germany in solar and to begin decommissioning nuclear and coal plants, coal first.

[Dogmudgeon]

12. Wind and Solar power development are heavily subsidized

They should be, too.

Energy issues are central to our survival, and approaching a critical point. I could quibble with the odd project here or there, but the more money and effort we put into energy, the better off we'll be.

But the idea that they're being shorted and all the money is going to the oil and nuclear industries is just plain wrong. Oil gets its subsidies from titanic tax breaks and selling dear to the US military, and civil nuclear energy shares the pot with other development, including wind, and solar, and tidal ... and ethanol.

--p!

[Hydra]

13. The last part is my gripe

Ethanol and nuclear get a HUGE part of the pot, not even counting handouts for oil.

Meanwhile, in my state, they are mass producing solar film that would produce at about the cost of fossil- and that was back when oil was $60-80 per barrel.

I'm certain given the advances that have occurred while solar was "not feasible" that we could do quite a bit better if we gave it our full attention.

[NYC_SKP]

15. Solar can largely be decentralized.

Which makes it less attractive to many industry investors than other sources.

But the idea that each of us can generated some or all of our own power is very powerful, call it "participatory power generation."

Also, small scale on-site photovoltaics are "Distributed" or decentralized generation and constitute a huge potential component toward flattening, and then reducing, our annual carbon output.

PV costs will drop, while efficiencies rise, and while fossil fuels continue to skyrocket.

[Dogmudgeon]

17. That solar film ...

Who is making the stuff?

The latest news I've seen still puts the per-watt cost of solar PV at several times the market price of electricity. Solar is entirely feasible, it's just very expensive. In a decade, it may be as cheap as Saran wrap.

I know that a lot of effort and money is being put into developing thin-layer solar cells, but they are not on the mass market except for a few early demonstration kits. If I'm wrong about that, please post links!

--p!

[NYC_SKP]

20. Down to $1/watt soon, maybe.

Nanosolar is the company that first comes to mind for thin-film.
They're talking about $1.00/watt down from $3.00/watt soon.
Coal is ~$1.00/watt.
http://www.naturalnews.com/023389.html

This article claims $1.00/watt by 2009.
http://www.semiconductor-today.com/news_items/2008/JUNE/PROM_090608.htm

Of course, rebate programs really trim the homeowner's cost:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1421685/free_electricity_solar_rebates_are_the_real_deal/

[Zachstar]

52. If coal prices continue to rise then by 2010 it is quite possible that Solar will beat coal

Problem right now solar is nasty stuff to make and has been mainly a way for china to sucker more money from us as they dump NASTY TOXIC waste from manufacturing.

So if Nanosolar at enough to power a standard home is lower cost and less polluting as the equivalent clean coal batch of watts then yes maybe....


But I have heard ALOT of crap before. I'm still reeling over the "Solar Paint" fiasco of last decade.

[NYC_SKP]

56. The trouble with comparing solar to coal:

I don't know the answer to this, maybe you do:

Does the environmental impact of solar exceed that of coal?
Well, it depends on how it's measured.

It seems fair to take the impact of solar and compare it to the impact of burning the equivalent of 25 years worth of coal, the effective life of the pv system.

I can't imagine that the impacts of producing a single pv system by modern manufacturing techniques are dirtier than 25 years of burning coal for the same single family residence.

[Zachstar]

64. Many solar cells are produced in China. And by nasty methods.

And instead of going into the air where it atleast mixes with clean air. The waste in countries like china is often dumped wherever. Yes there are good solar companies there but a good amount is all about profit.

Don't forget the amount of fossil fuels goes into manufacturing.

It's possible that with thin film like solar systems manufacturing pollution will drop greatly. But it is very sad to see some people on this very forum rushing to the defense of china when one exposes solar's dirty little secret.

[NYC_SKP]

14. Ethanol, Uggghhh.

Of course I don't need to tell you what a fairy tale that was.
Bush endorsed it, 'nuff said.

Cellulosic ethanol, maybe, and organic waste to fuel, sure.

I was encouraged to see the presentation to Congress the shortly before the state of the union address by USCAP, United States Climate Action Partnership, during which they testified that global warming is real, has a human activities component, and that the government needs to act.
http://www.us-cap.org/
A few of the corporations on that board are clients. BP is a leader in PV production and PG&E has a very low carbon electricity generation mix in California, and both sponsor generous energy education programs for K12 schools.

There is hope.

[Dogmudgeon]

10. Coal is the real radioactive threat

For all practical purposes, anti-nuclear has become pro-coal.

Relax -- that isn't a personal attack. It is, however, the real-world position of energy production.

Solar energy is at least a decade from large-scale deployment; wind is only in its first stages and is growing about half as fast as was promised in 2002-2003, when the Great DU Nuclear War started. Both are primarily used for greenwash at this point, and when the faddish aspect ends, development will take a big hit, the same dumb-ass move that crippled energy research in the 1980s. Only this time, we don't have 20 or 30 years to waste; the feces are hitting the fan now.

It would be fantastic if we had "turn-key" solar and wind installations, but we don't. In spite of the activity behind the 100-500 press releases posted in this forum each month, only a handful have resulted usable energy.

Coal dumps so much radioactive material into the atmosphere that I am puzzled that the anti-nuclear movement isn't focusing on that first. Greenpeace, the 800-pound-gorilla of the anti-nuclear movement, wants to phase out nuclear energy in 12 years, but is willing to allow the burning of coal for another 42 years. (Read their "energy [r]evolution" papers.) The uranium in coal alone would provide more energy burning in a reactor than by plain old combustive burning in a furnace. And thorium fission is cheaper, safer, and more easily scaled than uranium fission. Thorium is also two or three times as plentiful, and it's extremely difficult to build bombs with.

However, demand for energy won't allow us time to wait for new technologies to catch up. The third world will either build nukes, or it will burn coal. There are also plans to convert arable land from food to biofuel production, well under way in Indonesia. And once there serious supply issues develop in the more prosperous nations, the "flavor" of energy generation won't matter. Coal is the cheapest. End of discussion.

The use of mineral phosphate fertilizer in agriculture, even higher in uranium and thorium, is even less publicized than it is in coal. And when was the last time anyone did a news story on the way tobacco concentrates radioactive minerals? For all the panic that breaks out every time someone breaks wind in a nuclear power station, the lion's share of the current and avoidable risks of radioactivity have nothing to do with civil nuclear energy production.

With India and China ramping up coal use dramatically, the discrepancy in the approach of the anti-nuclearists is no longer excusable. We have an active threat to our environment in the use of combustible coal for energy, but it's the anti-reactor "culture war" they insist on fighting. In five years, opposition to nuclear energy may well look like opposition to stem cell medicine; in ten, like opposition to legal contraception.

If we really want to reduce radioactive risks in the environment, we'll eliminate coal ASAP and burn radioactive material for energy, instead of dumping it into the air and soil.

--p!

[NYC_SKP]

11. I'd rec your response if I could.

I appreciate your contribution to the thread.
This really is often a battle between emotional and rational minds.

I was leading a discussion among school teachers a month ago when a middle aged teacher audible gasped at the mere mention of nuclear power.

I had underestimated the effect of years of bad press.

I'm encouraged, so far, by the results of the poll. I expected at least as many "no ways" as "build mores".

[Dogmudgeon]

16. Thanks!

Yeah, I've tried to keep it civil, but anti-nuclearists are extremely ... intense.

And it's not the Repo Man kind of intense, either. People with Lennon and peace sign and Dalai Lama avatars are moved to verbal violence; one fellow who bills himself as a professional peace activist is one of the most rage-prone. A great many of them think that I'm actually getting paid for writing a handful of pro-nuclear opinion posts per month. Only ONE of us pro-nuclearists is consistently harsh and accusatory (and not without reason), but that's the reason given for the rest of the catcalling.

None the less, I've been working quite hard to keep it cool. I believe that this is too big an issue to let turn into a full-on culture war; what we have now at DU is war enough. My hope is that when someone is ready to look at it objectively, they can relate to what I write as informative rather than as "ammunition" in a war of words. Arguing on the Internet is a waste of time and effort; but education never is.

I find that the younger people tend to not be as intensely anti-nuclear as their parents. It seems to be a late-counterculture thing -- the Revenge of the Pepsi Generation, if you will. There are younger anti-nuclearists, but fewer in positions of movement authority. Most of the anti-nuclear "leaders" are pushing 60, like Harvey Wasserman, who has said in at least two interviews that a big part of his motivation is for one more big Summer-of-Love type event before he's too old to enjoy it. (Wasserman actively promotes the fear that terrorists will fly aircraft into nuclear reactors.) And the fact that most anti-nuclear activists, young and old alike, are from affluent backgrounds, tends to make the younger radicals suspicious.

Like I said, in a few years, it will be a moot point -- we will need energy, and need it bad. We will either get NON-clean coal, or nuclear energy, if acceptably green energy isn't available at an affordable price.

It would be nice to get some civil dialog going between the two camps, to discuss issues of common interest (I'm opposed to Yucca Mountain, for instance), but it's been like talking abortion with Bush voters. And we know how well THAT culture war turned out!

--p!

[bananas]

26. Your poll is going to have biased results

We've seen this before, the EE forum isn't representative of DU in this matter.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1399943

[NYC_SKP]

27. Very small sample size, results are still interesting if not representative

Thanks for your point, and it's reasonable that the average DUer is not the same as the frequent visitor to this forum.

Not surprisingly, with an N=29, we see two camps at each end of the issue, with few in the middle.

Sounds about right for a controversial topic, I'm glad that the results, for what they're worth, don't indicate anything like a landslide one way or the other.

[losthills]

29. It's called a "Push Poll." It's a form of propaganda.

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

I recommend not lowering yourself to answer it. It's too transparent......

[NYC_SKP]

30. Wrong. DU members are smarter than that.

I'm just testing the waters to see what kind of idiots pop up.

Thanks for playing.

Push polls are used by campaigns, I don't have a campaign and, in fact, I favor renewables.

What many knee-jerk activist jerks fail to accept is any sort of rational dialogue, discussion, or consideration of compromise.

They (you?) also typically refuse to or fail to offer any realistic options, all we get is bitching and screaming and name-calling, nothing productive.

So, you don't want to take my poll, don't take my poll.

[bananas]

34. On the contrary

Some DU members are incredibly naive.

Odin2005: "The poster NNadir, who is a nuclear engineer, " blah blah blah ignorant nonsense ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2810928&mesg_id=2812854

Bananas: "NNadir is not a nuclear engineer, he's a self-taught hobbyist with no formal training."
"That's why there are serious gaps in his knowledge, for example..."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2810928&mesg_id=2813218

edit to add: Odin2005 is the one who is incredibly naive.
I have to specify this because so many people are *&$%^#! misinformed.
And of course Odin2005 is not the only one who has been fooled by nuclear industry propoganda.

[Dead_Parrot]

36. Naïve? Some are downright dumb...

But let's not go there. I think there's rules against that sort of thing, y'know. :)

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[losthills]

48. You are all too transparent.

Thanks for the entertainment.

[Zachstar]

41. Only to you losthills as you are likely angry that the vast majority of DUers can think.

[Dead_Parrot]

35. Interesting that you should raise that poll...

...given that it was http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=12462&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15">trolled from off-site for antinuclear votes.

Curious, though, that DUer's who spend more time in the environment & energy forum are more inclined to support nuclear energy.

Why is that, do you think?

[bananas]

37. A couple of things

1) The poll didn't shift under garybeck posted in GD,
so the bullshit about "offsite" is just bullshit.
2) The EE forum is full of doomers, it gets like the old y2k forums at times,
people even quote y2ker Kunstler who couldn't understand why his phone still worked.
3) DUers like Odin2005 are naive and think NNadir is a nuclear engineer,
I'm not going to call them idiots but if I did it would be accurate.

[bananas]

42. edit

1) The poll didn't shift until garybeck posted in GD,
so the bullshit about "offsite" is just bullshit.
(edit: "until" instead of "under")

[Zachstar]

55. Please edit your post it is full of flamebait.

[NYC_SKP]

59. As the author of the post

Seriously, I wanted a quick snapshot of where people stood, and I wanted to see some lively mature discussion.

I'm new here, I'm sincere, I'm not spreading propaganda as losthills had suggested.
As I mentioned earlier, I'm surprised at some of the instant reactions against nuclear power, usually from certain demographics.

I expected to find more support for nuclear from readers in this forum than from the general DU public and the general non-DU public because I expect for them to be more well-informed about climate change, nuclear safety, etc.

Also, the "trolled" part of your statement was, I hope, meant for bananas and not for me.

:toast:

[Dead_Parrot]

80. Not meant at you

There was a similar poll last year with went a similar way, but a "please vote against nuclear power" call went out on GD and at least two other websites - The troll in question was already tombstoned on DU.

Don't mind hilly - ranting about evil propaganda is just his way of saying that he loves you.

And a belated welcome to the nuthouse, BTW. :hi:

[depakid]

79. "Why is that, do you think?"

Looking at the numbers and understanding scale, one is hard pressed to rationally come to any other conclusion.

Particularly for the US.

[jpak]

19. Reality check

"wind is only in its first stages and is growing about half as fast as was promised in 2002-2003, when the Great DU Nuclear War started."

**nonsense**

In 2002 - 6,868 MW of new wind capacity were installed worldwide, an increase of 28%...

www.awea.org/pubs/documents/globalmarket2003.pdf

In 2007 - 20,000 MW of new wind capacity were installed worldwide, an increase of 27%...

http://renewenergy.wordpress.com/2008/02/16/global-wind-power-capacity-grows-rapidly-in-2007-but-japan-lags/

Global installed wind turbine capacity exceeded 100 GW this year...

http://empoweringsolar.blogspot.com/2008/04/global-wind-energy-harnessing-pass-100.html

"Solar energy is at least a decade from large-scale deployment"

**more nonsense**

Global PV production *alone* will achieve 10 GW per year in 2008 - a 62% YOY increase from 2007...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=151116

and will increase to 15 to 20 GW per year by 2010...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=153252&mesg_id=153252

In comparison, global nuclear power capacity experienced **negative** growth in 2006...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=88105

and a global decline in nuclear electricity production over the last 5 years...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=122605

:popcorn:

[NYC_SKP]

21. Nobody doesn't love renewable energy.

And I doubt that anyone here argues that we shouldn't do everything in our power to become energy independent and 100% renewable.

The tricky part is how long it will take, even under the best circumstances, and will if be too late if we don't consider replacing coal with nuclear.

Though the purposes of the poll were more to gauge nuclear sensitivity and to provoke lively discussion than to argue one position over another.

Thank you for your insight and links!

[jpak]

22. "Nobody doesn't love renewable energy."

you're new here, huh

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[NYC_SKP]

23. Ya got me! Hi back at ya! nt

[Greyskye]

70. He'll find out.

:rofl:

[NYC_SKP]

72. Right you are!

I'm kinda new here, just got off the bus, but "Nuthin' ventured, Nuthin' gained".

Was it me or did it get "nutty" in here?

[jpak]

77. "Was it me or did it get "nutty" in here?"

best line today....

:rofl:

:hi:

[Dogmudgeon]

87. Your reality check has bounced. (Well, *ours* -- collectively -- has).

(So did my original reply. Where did it go?
My apologies if this one is redundant.
--p!)

You were touting 40%+ growth rates in wind power as recently as a year ago -- and several of your sources were talking about doubling the capacity each year. Growth has been well under that. Wind power contributes maybe 1% of our base electrical power. Better in Denmark, but they are having some big problems with their wind systems. They have reached a problem in scale. The future of wind energy will depend on how (and perhaps whether) they solve it.

Solar energy provides FAR less energy than 1%.

A twenty-megawatt project of any kind is NOT large-scale. It isn't even enough power for a small city in a non-OECD nation. A coal-burning plant or a nuclear reactor puts out about a gigawatt. And their up-time is over 80%, compared to <15% for solar and <30% for inland wind. (Offshore wind is about twice that, but it's still pretty rare outside of Denmark's Vestas installations.)

... a global decline in nuclear electricity production over the last 5 years...

404: File Not Found. But it sounds like a WISE (anti-nuclear) press release I read some months ago. How big WAS this decline, anyway? Even if the numbers were massaged by WISE, it's probably still a tiny reduction. 2%? 5%? Just the loss of the K-K reactor in Japan last summer?

There are 35 reactors or so currently being built, over 90 on order, and over 200 have been authorized. The Nuclear Renaissance lives on, though the press in the USA and Europe wants it to go away.

"Global PV production *alone* will achieve 10 GW per year in 2008 - a 62% YOY increase from 2007..."

"... According to Gaetan Rull, analyst at Yole Developpement ..." (And it's about capacity, not output.).

"and will increase to 15 to 20 GW per year by 2010..."

"... According to Dean Cooper, analyst at Ambrian ..." (and again, it's capacity, not output).

After 2010, the first article says, it's anybody's guess, because these companies are highly secretive. And it's also why solar thermal has been shorted -- this is all about Intellectual Property ownership. If you think Nuclear energy is corporate, check out solar PV. That's what "green" is.

And according to the http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/">Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Review (2006), solar energy in the USA has been growing at well under 10% per year for over a decade. The 2007 report is due soon, so that number could change. But if memory serves, PV was said to be growing rapidly last year, and 2006, and 2005, as well.

"In 2007 - 20,000 MW of new wind capacity were installed worldwide, an increase of 27%..."

20 GW of capacity -- with an average 15% utilization. I'll even double that. It's about the same output from two nuclear, coal, or gas-fired power stations, in a world that has 3500 and needs 50 to 200 more each year. And that isn't even considering transportation needs. Five doublings -- 15 years -- could take us to that initial level, but technical implementation curves are S-shaped, not J-shaped, and we don't know where the slope will level off for "aerokinetic" power technology.

Increases in non-nuclear renewables are all very well and good, but we need to get a whole lot of low-carbon energy in the very near future. We at least know how to build nuclear reactors in two years' time; we have no idea how to produce enough solar or wind energy on a scale that can supplant coal or natural gas or nuclear energy. "Just build more!" is the plan, but we've never built all that much.

What we have is a whole bunch of little companies (or big companies with smallish projects) who want to be "the next Microsoft" and sell everyone a solar panel or a new-breed windmill that will solve all their energy problems as well as ours. But these plans never come through. And when it's pointed out here, the angry denunciations, the ridicule, and the sham outrage begins. "Cheney! Chernobyl! Corporations! Fascism!" Your own retorts, I note, are more civil, usually limited to "Jewels" or Mr. Rofl.

But why "retort" at all? My own criticisms of wind, solar, etc. are those of scale, and scale alone. I know there will be problems, and believe we should take them on and solve them. Yet there are NO plans to grow beyond 30% per year, to about 1/5th of the energy mix -- what I call the "20-20 Plan", to get 20% of our energy from renewables by 2020. And we are already behind. Do we plan to wait until 2015 or 2017 and make up all the slack in the last three to five years?

I'm not demanding answers from YOU -- but WE should be demanding answers from the energy industry.

Building nuclear reactors, too, will present a task of historical proportions. It will be difficult and expensive to build 1500 to 2000 of them in the course of a decade, but we do know how. Even thorium reactors (the ones I favor, besides the CANDU U/D2 models) have tested designs, and at least one is being built, with more approved (all in India, AFAIK).

Think about one of your own topics of merriment -- the Joule. No matter how you may disdain NNadir, we still need to come up with 500 exas of them. By 2020, probably more like 650 EJ. The supply of oil is limited and economic systems are discontinuous, but our needs don't just stop. If nukes are too tough to build, then we're going to get coal. High-efficiency scrubbers and carbon capture and sequestration are largely untested and/or unaffordable. So then, we get a ton of airborne uranium and thorium per year per GW -- and all the other more-abundant garbage like Hg, Pb, sulfur and nitric oxides, etc.

Oh, yes -- I almost forgot. Carbon gases, too.

Do you think it will be any easier to build several million wind turbines, or billion PV panels? It will be far more difficult, even if we get a 40-year lead time. We will run into unknown difficulties in the economies of scale we'll be aiming for. Toxic chemical waste control will become a serious problem just like spent reactor fuel, but on a larger scale. Repurposing half the automobile industry to build wind turbines may be desirable, but nothing remotely like it has ever been done, even in WW2.

You can count on difficulties -- in an era of difficulties. We will arrive at the decision point in a very few years. If we don't have alt-energy ready to go, and we don't want nuclear, then coal it will be. And odious Bob Murray will get to pick the President after Barack Obama is impeached for smoking.

In the course of a year, you post well over 1000 articles promising cheap, abundant solar, wind, and other non-fossil, non-nuclear energy. It all works well in the lab, but maybe only three or four of those efforts reach marketability each year. Basic technology is usually easy to achieve -- its widespread application is what's tough. Yet, the crunch has already started. Only wind energy is making any real market progress, but it still only provides a miniscule proportion of our energy.

If we can start to install 500 GW of non-nuclear, low-carbon, economical energy production systems per year, I'll even buy stock in it. That would be a scant 5% of the annual US needs, based on good efficiency in aerogeneration, but sustained for a decade, it would be real progress. We need to start putting some groups of zeros after our numbers -- and demanding that kind of scale of effort be made. Only nuclear and coal realistically offer this scale in the next two to three decades. If you are alarmed about radiological risks, then as ironic as it may seem, nuclear energy is the safest course.

Why did I say "ours" in the subject line? Because this isn't a football game or an Us-Them fight or an ego struggle for me. I do NOT oppose work and investment in non-nuclear renewable energy. But I strongly oppose our current course of ignoring the scale of our needs and pretending that a series of prototype and small installations will get us anywhere. To industry and to much of the public, "Green" is this year's version of Skate-Punk Rock, or goatees, or Valley Girl talk. ("It's FUN -- it's FLIRTY -- it's GREEN!") ALL energy and environment issues will soon be boring ... tedious ... odious. And will only become more so.

Popcorn -- expensive tastes, huh? What about the poor people, who have to drink their corn as ethanol? :)

--p!

[jpak]

88. What horse shit

I stand by every statement in my previous post.

You were wrong.

Get over it.

[Dogmudgeon]

89. Well, I tried "reasonable".

I guess I "FAIL" ... right?

Rofl, baby, Rofl.

--p!

[bananas]

18. Here's what we *should* do

We should use the fastest and most cost-effective methods of reducing emissions.
So we really need to look at a time-line.
All technologies are going to improve over time.
From what I've seen, at every step of the way, the technologies for efficiency, renewables, and eventually fusion will be cheaper and faster than fission.
So there should be no need for more fission.
By the time the FOAK problems with Gen III reactors are resolved, advances in renewables should make them obsolete.
I don't have a problem with continued research into Gen IV reactors, but they are a few decades away, by the time they're ready renewables will be even cheaper, and we may already have fusion by then.

[losthills]

24. Your question is stupid and propagandistic in nature.

I'm not going to waste my time voting on it.

Nuclear power cannot replace coal in the first place, and wouldn't solve global warming if it could.

Neither of your choices are good for our planet or our civilization, and we all know that there are better choices available to us.

Nice try, though....

[NYC_SKP]

28. Your observation is presumptuous and reactionary. Why the anger? Gee!

I don't think you read or understood the post, which expressed the importance of renewables and conservation.

Personally, I support high regulation and taxation on wasteful consumer goods, population management, and solar energy above all other forms.

I was merely curious about whether or not there would be knee-jerk reactions to the topic from readers, and to see how the opinions balanced.

Thanks for your comments, they constitute useful anecdotal data.

PS: When you trash an OP with comments like, "neither of your choices are good...", you might at least offer your "good" solutions and make it a discussion. Otherwise you're just shouting.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zachstar]

39. AMEN!!!

[NYC_SKP]

33. I'll just put you down for answer #1, then. Thank you for participating. nt

[Zachstar]

40. losthills up to this point the topic was going pretty smoothly. Leave it up to you to try to derail

Take a hike Losthills. If you got a view to make you can do it without all your usual crap involved.

[Zachstar]

38. Get more reactors online. Lets get through this transition period

Afterwords we use neutrons from DT tuned reactions in fusion (Specially built plants) to burn away the decades of waste.

But for now we need more reactors but thanks to idiotic decisions not nearly enough will be built in time. (A reactor takes close to 10 years from drawing to grid)

[bananas]

44. No, get more windmills online

For the next several years, wind is the fastest and most cost effective energy source.
After a few years, it will be solar.
Nuclear is an expensive boondoggle.

[Zachstar]

45. Has wind stopped the growth of coal?

And no I am not saying Nuc will. But building windmills and other alt sources alone is stupid.

Power the small areas with those things but Nuc is what we need for grid pressure.

[kristopher]

46. Do you know anything about the grid???

It is hard to believe you do.

[Zachstar]

47. Kris I grow tired of your crap.. Shall I just add you to ignore and be done with it?

[kristopher]

58. Your complaint reminds me of a story about Truman

During the 1948 presidential campaign, the story goes, he was giving a speech when someone shouted it from the crowd. Truman supposedly responded, "I don't give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell."

The 'crap' is your idiotic criticisms of renewables. You don't know WTF you're talking about and it pisses you off when you're called on it.

[NYC_SKP]

49. Wind may have taken down coal a notch or two

Witness the huge growth in wind capacity, especially in Texas.

Another point: increasingly, coal is met with nearly as much resistance as nuclear, thus making renewables like wind more attractive.

And, of course, as the cost of fossil fuels rises and cost of renewables drops, we'll see more of the latter.

My fascination is with the emotion around nuclear and with the changing attitudes by many environmentalists (professional and amateur) toward nuclear.

[Zachstar]

50. May is one thing Has is another.

For instance China is building a new plant almost every week.

In some nations coal use has grown greatly as boilers go to 100 percent.

[NYC_SKP]

53. I meant domestically. China and India are a whole different problem.

And it's frightening.

[NYC_SKP]

51. The Grid...Peak Demand...visual graphic here for California

From the California Independent System Operator, managing organization of the electrical grid for California:
http://www.caiso.com/outlook/outlook.html

Daily Energy Outlook (snapshot from 5 minutes ago):



One reason that solar is so important to California is that it's a grid tied, real time electrical generation component at the most critical times, hot summer afternoons.
Plus, installations take a burden off the distribution infrastructure.

[Zachstar]

54. That is why I support solar and wind for small communities.

Small communities are MUCH easier to completely remove themselves from the power grid because communities are tight knit and can share tips and resources easily.

So you got a Mayor asking help from the community to get load down enough to go on say a group of windmills.

They collaborate to get massive orders of energy saving bulbs in.

They collaborate on ways to help insulate houses better and improve the efficiency of AC and heater units.

[kristopher]

57. This post proves you don't understand the grid - at all.

[Zachstar]

60. I know plenty about the grid thank you. However, I have No will to continue listening to your crap

Your idiotic past posts proves you have no standing to post such libel about me. To the ignore list with you.

[kristopher]

62. Running with your tail between your legs.

If you knew what you were talking about you'd defend you positions. Actually if you knew what you were talking about you'd never adopt those positions in the first place.

[NYC_SKP]

61. The Grid is our friend.

Not "completely remove", unless you mean that the community invests in a huge bank of batteries.

Grid tied systems allow users to create surplus energy during the day, thus helping reduce peak demand, and then return energy to the community at night.

The grid is like a big rechargeable battery in that sense.

[kristopher]

63. Thank you. nt

[Zachstar]

65. Of course I mean batteries as well.

The grid is NOT your friend BTW. It is old and fragile and damage to it can affect local businesses.


What do you think keeps the grid balanced? Shacks of lead-acid batteries. It is now almost to the point where they can replace those with Li-Ions or even EEstor batteries.

Get the community COMPLETELY off the grid. Rely on local power and away from big energy companies.

[oldhippie]

66. Oh Lordy!

"What do you think keeps the grid balanced? Shacks of lead-acid batteries. "

ROTFLMAO! Yep, you're the grid expert all right.

Oh, my sides hurt. :-)

[NYC_SKP]

67. It's actually hamsters in squirrel cage generators.

Let's see, I've been to the CA ISO for two tours, but never asked them about the issue.

I know that we've got small emergency natural gas fired generators that can be brought on line in emergency demand periods.

I'll look into the "balance" thing and get back to you all, unless someone has credible information with a link.

California ISO:

http://www.caiso.com

[Zachstar]

74. Then educate us oh wise one.

Tell us how thy coal or oil power plant is able to respond instantly to ALL changes in the grid!

[oldhippie]

75. Get a Book ........

These three are particularly good:

The Grid: A Journey Through the Heart of Our Electrified World by Phillip F. Schewe

Infrastructure: A Field Guide to the Industrial Landscape by Brian Hayes

The Works: Anatomy of a City by Kate Ascher


The first one, "The Grid" will answer your particular question in good detail. The other two are fairly easy reading (for a geek) about how the grid actually works. They are all available at Amazon.

And no, there are no banks of lead acid batteries "balancing" the grid. It's a little more complicated than that. I'm not going to try to explain the concept. Read the book, I did.

Also, no community leader in his right mind is going to want to be isolated from the grid. The folks on critical life support systems would be most unhappy, as would elevator passengers, just for a couple of examples.

[NYC_SKP]

76. They don't.

the short answer is, "They don't."

More information is available if you search the term "Demand Response".

I've got a couple calls into friends at the ISO and PUC for answers specific to California because I'm curious.

Generally, base load is provided by large coal-fired and nuclear power stations. They may take days to fire up, and their output does not vary.

Peak load, the variable part of the electrical supply and demand, is provided by more responsive and smaller plants whose output can be quickly ramped up and down or that can even be quickly turned on and off.

I know that in CA we have many natural gas turbines and diesel generators for peak demand, and are building more.

Again, grid-tied solar is a fabulous contributor to peak load for obvious reasons.

I'm not sure, but I believe that some variablity in actual online voltage serves as a bit of a "sponge".

Of course, one of the most important functions of the ISO is predicting demand days and months ahead and having the correct capacity online in real time, minute by minute.

[kristopher]

82. You can find information on energy mix by state at this link

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/

And California specifically:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=CA#Datum

[NYC_SKP]

83. Thanks, kristopher! n/t

[eppur_se_muova]

73. I think you want 'grid neutrality', not 'off the grid'.

The former means that the grid is there for emergencies, or even regular shortfalls/excesses, but is not your main power source. The ability to sell surplus power when it is available in one location while there is a shortfall elsewhere is a major factor in limiting costs, particularly capital costs. Off the grid, you must have sufficient capacity to meet your *maximum* demands, even if this is excess capacity most of the time. Grid-neutral, you only need sufficient capacity to meet your *average* demand (plus a little slack for good luck), which means smaller capital investment. When you have maximum demand, you import the power from elsewhere.

Obviously, there are limits to this: solar plants, for example, will all be down during the night over one side of the planet, which makes it hard to find a neighbor with extra power for sale. Wind power suffers some of the same limitations, since day/night cycles are a major factor in determining winds, and winds will be similar over a fairly large geographical area.

I would think the bast capacity to balance load would come when areas with disparate energy needs are nearby on the grid -- factories and businesses (other than 24/7) would have max demands during business hours, while homes have increasing demand after hours. So solar/wind generators on factory/home roofs could be exporting power much of the time, then providing immediately local power during high demand hours. Overall, even *close* to neutral demand would cut costs greatly.

[oldhippie]

68. Do you think it's a good idea ......

... for communities to remove themselves from the grid? Why?

[NYC_SKP]

69. I see no benefit to leaving the grid.

and know of no examples of any community that's become energy independent AND taken itself off the grid.

There are certainly some alternative living groups that are green and energy independent, but I think we're talking about mainstream neighborhoods or communities or villages or towns or cities.

Many of these have established independent utility districts and create all the electricity they need, but they are still tied to the grid and are able to buy and sell energy as they are able.

The idea, while noble, of a community going off the grid is not realistic at any scale anytime soon, and independence and grid-tied are not mutually exclusive concepts.

And, even if a group of homeowners wanted to isolate from the grid by buying banks of batteries, it wouldn't happen until EVERYONE was on board, which makes it way less likely to ever happen.

However, if individuals installed grid tied systems one-by-one, they could still get off the grid once everyone had them.

I just don't see the advantage of not staying with the grid, as a matter of economy and security.

[oldhippie]

81. Totally agree .....

I was trying to figure out why the Z-star wants to get communities off the grid. Not that it matters. He doesn't understand how the grid works, or the scale involved.

[diane in sf]

78. Ugly, dirty and too expensive to the point of undoability.

[NNadir]

85. Unlike dangerous fossil fuels, eh?

If you don't know what you're talking about, make stuff up.

You could, of course, drive your fucking car out to see Diablo Canyon, but I'm going to guess that you're a paranoid and think you might get hit in the head with a neutron.

You could also ride a bike out to Diablo Canyon.

I used to drive my car past San Onofre all the time. The surfers loved it because the water was warm from the reactor. I always loved those reactors, producing enough light to power cities on a few acres of land.

Of course, you would never dream of calling a coal plant ugly dirty or expensive because you couldn't care less.

Neither would you call a battery recycling facility in China dirty, ugly and expensive, although I'll bet that while you whine and whine and whine and whine about your "someday" solar system you never even bother to think about battery plants.

[bhikkhu]

84. OTHER

I don't know enough about nuclear power to give a strong "we should" to any of the replies. I helped my uncle build a house down-wind from Rancho Seco plant and worried about the ever-present steam plume, and watched Three Mile Island in the news, and read about Chernobyl...but it has been so long since any plants have been built that I have never really had to form a strong opinion.

I'd say now, it depends on what we need it for. I prefer solar, myself, as a long term solution, but one of the tests of a sustainable energy source is whether you can use the power produced to build new production. Can we build solar plants using solar power? Or wind plants using wind power? I think they are ideal as decentralized sources, but efficient production of the components for wind and solar generation on any scale would require a huge power source. Hydro is good, but fully utilized. Outside of that, there are bad sources and nuclear. So if that is what we could use it for I'd be in favor, even given the difficulties and dangers.

But then again we might avoid nuclear if solar and wind combined with battery technology and conservation could be ramped up, as fossil fuel use is ramped down.

Too many possible scenarios...and it is odd that everyone is so fully invested in one camp or another, when there is a great deal yet to be learned about how these things will work out.

[NYC_SKP]

86. Thanks for your "OTHER" response.

Clearly, you read and understood the poll!

You are also one of few to admit to a lack of full understanding, while still having insightful ideas to offer.

I think you hit the nail on the head with your final sentence.

Thanks!