Nuclear Energy: A Zero Sum Gain?

[SHRED]

I had a hunch it was:

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.

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

[NYC_SKP]

1. Any manner of power generation that uses fuel of any type is a losing proposition.

Tesla understood this 100 years ago.

""No matter what we attempt to do, no matter to what fields we turn our efforts, we are dependent on power. We have to evolve means of obtaining energy from stores which are forever inexhaustible, to perfect methods which do not imply consumption and waste of any material whatever. If we use fuel to get our power, we are living on our capital and exhausting it rapidly. This method is barbarous and wantonly wasteful and will have to be stopped in the interest of coming generations."

http://biznaturally.ca/Tesla150/

[txlibdem]

2. I had a hunch this was just another anti-nuke hit piece

And I was definitely right.

So the Forsmark Plant produces 93 times more energy than it consumes. Or put another way, the non-nuclear energy investment required to generate electricity for 40 years is repaid in 5 months. Normalized to 1 GigaWatt electrical capacity, the energy required to construct and decommission the plant, which amounts to 4 Peta-Joules (PJ), which is repaid in 1.5 months. The energy required to dispose of the waste is also 4 PJ and repaid in 1.5 months. In total this is less than 0.8% of the all the electrical energy produced by the plant.

The calculations of the operating energy costs include the energy required to mine and mill the Uranium.

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power

As far as the energy balance of nuclear power:

The calculations of the operating energy costs include the energy required to mine and mill the Uranium. In the case of the Forsmark power plant some of the Uranium is sourced from the Olympic Dam mine in South Australia. This mine has a rather low Uranium concentration (0.05% by weight). A detailed and audited environmental description of the Olympic Dam mine is available here. A succinct description of the energy inputs of the mine is here. These data show that the Olympic Dam mine supplies enough Uranium for the generation of 26 GigaWatt-years of electricity each year (including the Uranium needed to run the power plants for enrichment). The energy consumed by the the mine is equivalent to 22% of a GigaWatt-Year. The energy gain is over a factor of 100. The Olympic Dam mine energy cost includes the energy required for mining and smelting it's huge Copper production.

Another Uranium source for Forsmark is the Rossing Mine in Namibia. A description of the operations of the mine is available here. The Rossing mine produced 3037 tonnes of Uranium in 2004, which is sufficient for 15 GigaWatt-years of electricity with current reactors. The energy used to mine and mill this Uranium was about 3% of a GigaWatt-year. Thus the energy produced is about 500 times more than the energy required to operate the mine.

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power

[midnight armadillo]

3. hey you beat me to it.

Another option is to re-process nuclear waste from reactors and feed it back through, and re-use it a couple of times. The energy cost of reprocessing is surely less than the extraction from ore, making it even more of an energy win.

[kristopher]

4. Nuclear is a poor choice for either climate change or economic needs

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


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

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

Mark Z. Jacobson

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

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

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

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

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

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[txlibdem]

5. Wrong about nuclear power opportunity costs

A wise man once said 'You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.'

The opportunity cost of business as usual in America is far, far greater than anything we could imagine as storms are fueled by global climate change and become more frequent and stronger and far more dangerous. The dollar value caused by storms, floods, etc., is only beginning to add up. Talk to me in 10 years and remember how you fought your hardest to stop nuclear power. I hope you don't live in the approximately 40% of Florida that will disappear under the sea, nor on Manhattan, nor any of the other thousand miles of coast line that is at risk. I hope you don't live anywhere near where the floods will begin to happen, floods that never happened in that area before.

The opportunity cost of nuclear power is highly desirable. The existing plants are all outliving their projected lifetimes and even the ones with the worst loan interest rates have long ago paid off. Nuclear power is profitable power. Nuclear power is clean power.

[bananas]

6. Nuclear energy is a waste of time and money.

None of the major environmental organizations support it as a solution to global warming.
Nuclear energy will only be at most a small part of addressing global warming, it's not needed at all, and causes unnecessary problems.
Opposition has been muted because it's been seen as a bargaining chip with Republicans and conservatives to get climate legislation passed. Now that we know you can't negotiate with Republicans, there's no point in following that strategy any longer.

Some examples:

Joe Romm, "The full solution to global warming", one of the most reality-based analyses:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x191961

<snip>

Note to all: Do I want to build all those nuclear plants. No. Do I think we could do it without all those nuclear plants. Definitely. Therefore, should I be quoted as saying we “must” build all those nuclear plants, as the Drudge Report has, or even that I propose building all those plants? No. Do I think we will have to swallow a bunch of nuclear plants as part of the grand bargain to make this all possible and that other countries will build most of these? I have no doubt. So it stays in “the solution” for now.

The Sierra Club:

http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/nuc-power.aspx

The Sierra Club opposes the licensing, construction and operation of new nuclear reactors utilizing the fission process ...

Al Gore:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=72346&mesg_id=72492

<snip>

Mr Gore played down the role on nuclear power in fighting climate change.

"I have never been a reflexive opponent of it," he said. "But I am sceptical that it will play more than a minor role in most countries around the world because, let's face it, there are a lot of problems.

"Even if you wish away the long-term storage of the waste or the possibility of a reactor operator error. You still have economics and the costs of these things are very high.They only come in one size: extra large. It takes a long time. It costs a lot of money."

<snip>

[kristopher]

7. That is very poor analysis

The question isn't whether climate change is happening, the question is whether nuclear power is the proper carbon free solution for us to pursue. To that end the appropriate comparison is to other noncarbon energy alternatives. The paper linked does a comprehensive comparison that shows unequivocally that nuclear power is a very poor choice. Every dollar spent on nuclear power buys us SIGNIFICANTLY LESS carbon reduction than spending the same dollar on renewable energy and efficiency.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


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

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

Mark Z. Jacobson

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

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

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

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

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

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered.

The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security.

Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[Dead_Parrot]

8. Gosh, really?

Incidentally, folks, I've had some Jacobson mugs made up: I figure if we all get one, we'll all be perpetually reminded of Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, thereby saving Kris the embarrassment of being the only dude in town who wears out the V key on his keyboard every 6 weeks.



PM me for orders.

[kristopher]

9. I guess when you can't argue the facts, you resort to personal attacks...

The reasoned response would be to admit that you have been wrong about the relative benefits of nuclear power and stop acting like this is a sports event where you are cheering for your favorite team.

[GliderGuider]

11. Cutting and pasting the exact same excerpt twice in the same thread...

Amounts to setting yourself up as a target for derision. I liked it better when you were at least argumentative using your own words.

[Dead_Parrot]

16. Hmmm

No, reasoned responses - like "Why is he using wind industry figures, rather than independent ones?" and "How can the build time for every wind & solar installation be identical?" were covered when you first posted it in '08.

Two years and 121 threads later, we're down to pointing at you and laughing.

[FBaggins]

18. Now now... pointing is rude.

The laughing may be unavoidable.

[Dead_Parrot]

19. Fair comment: I hereby withdraw my finger. nt. (lolwut?)

[wtmusic]

12. If those are dishwasher-safe, I'll swap you for a St. Mark figurine

Stick him on the dashboard to remind you you could be driving a wind-powered car instead.

Don't know who the kid is.

[Dead_Parrot]

17. Must be Kris. nt

[bananas]

10. "even the ones with the worst loan interest rates have long ago paid off" WHOOPS!!!!

You start out saying, "A wise man once said 'You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.'"
Then you get your facts WAY off!
:rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=147162&mesg_id=147243

6. Whoops! WPPSS "customers will continue paying for those uncompleted plants through 2021"

Here's just one example:

Whoops

Slang for the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS), which made the record books with the largest municipal bond default in history.

During the 1970s and 80s, the WPPSS financed the construction of five nuclear power plants through the issuance of billions of dollars worth of municipal bonds. In 1983, due to extremely poor project management, construction on a couple of plants was canceled, and the completion of construction on the remaining plants seemed unlikely. Consequently, the take-or-pay arrangements that had been backing the municipal bonds were ruled void by the Washington Supreme Court. As a result, the WPPSS had the largest municipal debt default in history.... Whoops!

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/whoops.asp

Whoops! WPPSS "customers will continue paying for those uncompleted plants through 2021"
What a boondoggle.

<snip>

WPPSS itself may have receded into the dim recesses of the region's consciousness, but WPPSS payments continue to show up every month on the region's electric bills. The Bonneville Power Administration had guaranteed nearly all the bonds sold to finance the first three plants. BPA customers will continue paying for those uncompleted plants through 2021. Currently, the annual debt service tab runs to roughly $311 million.

<snip>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x143316

[txlibdem]

13. I'm glad you and I agree on this

You are right. It WAS very foolish to cancel the construction of those nuclear power plants. But I get the feeling you are trying to use these uncompleted plants as an argument against my statement that all the plants that were actually built have been paid off. Whoops. Apples vs Oranges. With no power production these plants could not have paid off their debts. The same would hold for a coal plant with the same contractual arrangement. Blame the officials who signed such a one-sided contract in the first place. Also blame the well-meaning but short sighted folk who protested against these plants going to completion.

Any person who hinders the construction of a nuclear power plant is directly responsible for the construction of one or two additional coal plants. Coal plants spew tons of radioactive material into the atmosphere each and every year they are in operation. Year after year. More and more tons and tons of radioactive material. How can such well-meaning and presumably intelligent people be so ignorant as to cause the very thing they purport to want ended, that being the release of radioactive material into the environment.

[bananas]

14. You are so misinformed I don't know where to start.

It's like you're just repeating talking points from the nuclear industry.

[Kolesar]

15. Any person who hinders the construction of a nuclear power plant is directly responsible ...

... for the construction of one or two additional coal plants.

Whoa! Heavy trip!!