Is nuclear energy "green" energy?

ok... i was KIDDING about nuclear waste disposal. we all know that it really cant be put anywhere unless its cased in several inches of lead. sitting in several feet of water would be nice as well.

i think we all are greatly underestimating the impact and growth of wind. many communities have become tired of waiting for a national policy and have taken on their own wind projects.

community wind projects are something new that i think will take off very fast and do so from the inside out.

many new trends have been born on the coasts, but community wind synergy will have its roots in Minnesota, Iowa, and Wyoming. here there is plenty of land, no real close natural resources like large water supplies, etc. also with locally produced power, less need to be connected to the main grid which can be a huge benefit especially for the more remote areas of the country.

https://research.ameritrade.com/wwws/stocks/news/story.asp?docKey=100-320p7542-1

one company, based in a small town, working on power for small towns. now remember, time is critical. here is a project, started this month, will be finished in 6 months. small ya, but how about getting a few dozen of these small projects going, in 6 months, we got half a Gig

 

The issue to me is that instead of doing *something* - such as reprocess the spent bundles - we have done *nothing*

Nothing at all.

So the spent bundles sit in swimming pools, glowing away. Though it is a pretty glow ....

So what do we do with the current inventory of spent fuel bundles? At least the French are doing something with it. We just leave it in situ, paralyzed to even consider options

That's only part of it. People in third world and developing world economies have nothing to lose and everything to gain by trying to approach our standard of living

The estimated global population is around 6.8 billion persons. North America makes up about 5% of that

The Asian continent (India and China, Indonesia, Russia, Pakistan, Mid East, etc) combined make up about 60% of the global population

In the example of India and China, only a very small proportion of their population can live like the average person can here in North America. The "average" person in India or China leads a fairly primitive existence

Now, let's assume those governments are trying their best to provide as many of their citizens as possible with as high a standard of living as possible. That will take energy expenditures light years beyond anything we see here

For example, China is commissioning a new coal fired power plant at least every 2 weeks. Think about it: every two WEEKS they have to bring online another coal power plant. The Chinese currently get around 65% of their total electricity from coal power

Are we to become arrogant enough to tell people in China and India, Africa, South America: "no more!"

I don't think so. If push came to shove, that could result in a war, a war that we would handily lose.

Instead, we have to look into how to allow the developing nations to approach our standard of living, with the least impact possible on the environment. I see nothing wrong with China using CANDU technology, as they already have a nuclear weapons program. They can also afford to pay outright for the reactors

With in-situ reprocessing, the Chinese could use natural uranium fuel stocks for decades. But they will have to do something very soon

All we have done with all this hot air - pardon the pun - about "green" this and "recycle" that, is to export our problems to developing nations. Want to know why our air and water are cleaner? All the "dirty" industries are now overseas!

Which is why I want all those PV's made in China or India. Many toxic substances are involved in the semiconductor industry. So it's even more hypocritical for us to demand more PV rollout here, without taking the toxic residuals into account

 

[

So what do the French do with their waste? If I understand right they are reprocessing their spent fuel and that reduces waste by 80%?

 

If that were true, we would still have 20% to deal with!

Icarus

 

I've been saying that for about 10-12 years. It was one of the major reasons I saw for us to start cutting our own emissions. Doing so would have given us leverage for getting others to bring lower emitting sources online.

Conservatives used the lame excuse that Kyoto didn't include the Chinese, etc. While this was understood actually moving in the right direction would have given us negotiating leverage against China later.

What can we do now other then try to get our own use in check? Conservatives and Dubya gave up our negotiating power and have converted us into a debtor nation economically dependent on China for much of our manufactured goods. And in the process they have made us even more energy dependent rather than independent.

So when the U.S. finally gets serious about CO2 we will end up negotiating against the Chinese from a position that is far weaker than it was a decade ago. If I was picking which side had the better hand I would take the Chinese. As such the Chinese position will likely be that they have the right to emit just as much per capita as the U.S. They provide our goods and they hold a lot of our foreign debt (they are our lendors.)

So from China's standpoint, they could easily claim we had to get down to their emissions level before they would agree to undertake their own emissions reductions efforts. In 2003 the U.S. used nearly 7 times as much energy per capita as China. I don't have figures for the present, but the ratio is probably closer to 4-5 now.

 

I completely agree there is more long term economic benefit in investing in solar, wind and conservation than nuclear, BUT...

I want to believe in nuclear energy....no carbon emissions, "too cheap to meter (remember that?) and no imported fuel.

We need to stay invested in nuclear research because:

1) We have 100+/- operating plants that supply 20% of our electricity.
How are we going to deal with the waste from those plants?

2) Climate change could greatly increase the costs of fossil fuels and sometime in the future, nuclear could be cheaper.

3) Reprocessed fuel bundles could greatly extend the usefulness of the current plants. My understanding is the reprocessed fuel greatly increases the danger of the waste but also greatly decreases the volume.

4) Both Canada (past) and France (present) have succeeded in standardizing nuclear plants to reduce construction/startup costs and increase safety. Is safe nuclear energy possible? Will we ever know if we don't continue to research and support a limited neclear program?

How much money How many people have died from nuclear energy compared to coal fired energy? How does France deal with waste and security issues?

Another topic but how much money is spent on nuclear research compared to renewable research compared to conservation. Which has the biggest potential payback???

 

How about wind and solar on a global grid? Would that help to smooth the gaps between production and demand?

I still personally prefer the renewable energy option over nuclear.
Power too cheap to meter? Propaganda so you will accept nuclear.

 

What would "smooth out" the gaps between production and demand, is counter intuitively, EVs and plug in hybrids. We build/buy ~15 million cars in the US every year. If half of these were plug ins, (~7.5Mil) after ten years you would have ~75 million batteries, all plugged into the grid 23/7 with the capacity to send energy in both directions. With such a large battery bank, you have solved (or gone a long way to solve) the problem of storage of wind and solar.

If it is raining in Phoenix, it might be sunny in El Paso, sot that on balance there would become a precise predictability of Pv/Wind on a real time basis. These same cars can buy back power at times of low demand so that the load and the production spikes are both evened out, but most importantly come much closer into sync so that the waste/emissions of idling capacity would be greatly reduced.

Icarus

 

Correct, initial reprocessing has reduced the waste volume. Work being done with TRUEX (Argonne National Labs), DIAMEX (Areva, and SANEX (Areva)

So we should do nothing instead?

 

Jay,

I am not now, nor have I ever proposed "doing nothing"! As you probably know from my posts, I am a huge advocate of conservation first, followed by RE in all forms. What I have said all along is, any technology that poses significant potential harm for future generations must not be used UNTIL it can made acceptably safe. (I understand that we can argue until the cows come home what constitutes "acceptably" but current technologies don't cut it. As I have said,,,continue R&D on ALL RE technologies as it is clear that the technology we have now (fossil fuel) presents significant harm to future generations, but let's not just jump on any given band wagon JUST because it is carbon neutral.

Let's look at comparatively simple technologies like PV and wind, and move into more exotics, but lets keep our eye on the goal. I could even support clean coal if you could convince me that carbon sequestration is both effective, and safe in the long term. (Personally I don't think it is,, but I'm willing to see what develops.

The French have a system to reprocess Nuke waste to make it safer to store long term underground. That is fine as far as it goes. As I have also said all along, unless you can make it safe from the human element (See wing nut whackos) it isn't really safe.

Icarus

 

If have a limited-range vehicle I'm not going to take the chance that it's not going to be fully-charged.

I'm not going to put my expensive car battery through regular charge-discharge cycles when I'm not using the car.

I would happily have it linked to a smart charging system so it charges at times of low demand when I can anticipate not needing it for a specific length of time.

I would only use it as an emergency backup in case of power cuts.

Instead add more battery banks as part of the grid. They're like the BEV batteries except for the fact they can be more efficient, dependable capacity and selected location. Oh and they will probably be upgraded more readily with improved technology.

 

What you misunderstand is the integration of the technology, the car,the grid etc.

For example, using simple, currently available technology (ies) (grid tie inverters, Auto computer ECU/CPUs, "smart" utility meters etc) you can make it work quite well.

Let's use this for an example. Let's say you drive 20 miles to work at ~7am. When you park the car at night when you get home you could program the car like this. " I will sell power to the grid at peak demand when the grid will pay me $.15/kwh. I will buy power back, at times of low demand when the grid will charge me say $.07/kwh, The overriding failsafe is that I require my car to have enough available power to drive the 20 miles to work by 7am. (With some reserve of course)

There are a few facts about US cars that should be highlighted. ~90% of the cars on the road drive under 40 miles per day. Cars sit parked way more than they drive. All the time they are sitting they could be charging or selling, all controlled by the user and the users needs.

Following our example another step. Once I get to work, I program the car such that it know it will sit until 4:30pm. Once again, it can sell to the grid at a higher price, buy back at a lower price, and leave enough power to get home. This interface and programing could have a number of default setting such that you wouldn't have to even think about it. When you plugged in at home on Monday, the car would "know" which charge/discharge mode to follow. Same as when you get to work.

One more example. On friday night, you come home, and you need enough power to drive 100 miles to visit your family. Program the car and bingo. There is no reason (within the limits of battery technology) why this can't work, and work well. The car can carry the metering and the billing information, allowing it to plug in virtually anywhere. Instead of having to worry about if you are "stealing" your hosts or your bosses electricity, the car can pay for what ever it uses where ever it buys it, much the same as an EZ pass does on the toll road.

The net result of this is that everyone in the cycle wins. The utility wins by being able to manage it's grid more efficiently, and by not having to have as much idle spinning capacity waiting for peak loads. You win because your cost of transport is proportionally less, and the rest of us win because in toto we are significantly reducing carbon released from transport AND power generation.

You have suggested that you wouldn't subject your battery to charge and discharge cycles when you are not using it. Fair enough, but consider this. Assume for a minute that battery management systems are like the Prius, that is they never allow too much discharge nor too much recharge. (For those that don't know, the Prius HV battery system only charges to about 65% and discharges to about 45%, never fully charging, never fully discharging). Prius batteries are know to run into the several hundred thousand mile marks without fail.

Second, let's assume for the moment that your net cost of energy to drive yourself around is less than zero because you can take advantage of peak time selling, low cost buying. Over the lifetime of the battery you may have actually gotten PAID to drive (net/net). Would you then consider partial battery replacement in the same way that we consider gasoline "replacement"?

Now, I wouldn't think that in the real world one would get paid to drive, or even drive for free, as there are other considerations to make especially how our roads are funded today, AND by creating a demand for slack time power consumption, the price swings would even out, just as the peak demand would.

I am under no illusion that this would come at no cost. The reality is that the energy we use now for transportation is used very inefficiently, is very expensive AND, it comes at a huge environmental cost that we are not now paying! If we put 75 million EVs on the road in the next ten years, with the technology that I suggest, there will indeed be some increase needed in the grid supply of electricity, but it will be way more than offset by the reduction of gasoline/diesel burned first by the demonstrable efficiency increases of EVs AND by our smarter use of that grid, by those EVs, PV solar, wind etc.

I cannot see a downside.

Icarus

PS To our edit:

"Instead add more battery banks as part of the grid. They're like the BEV batteries except for the fact they can be more efficient, dependable capacity and selected location. Oh and they will probably be upgraded more readily with improved technology."

Why would you add batteries to the grid when (if as I suggest) we might have 75 million added via EVs? I make my living designing and building small off grid Pv solar systems. Adding a battery to an PV system roughly doubles the cost AND reduces it's efficiency by about half making the net/net KWH cost about 4 times greater.

As you have suggested, batteries do have a finite life span, so adding them to the grid just to absorb excess solar capacity and to feed peak loads is far too expensive and a very inefficient use of resources. Using EV batteries that are bought and paid for and are used PRIMARILY for other purposes makes much better sense. Even if there is SOME diminishment of EV battery life due to buying/selling the trade off should be worth it.

 

Ok, perhaps I should rephrase my comments:

"What do you propose we do with the current inventory of spent nuclear fuel?

I mentioned chemical processes that are in R&D, to initial use. I also mentioned initial reprocessing/reburning. Much more has to be done with the resultant actinides - eg transmutation - especially with transuranic elements, to reach any sort of plausible long-term goal

For example:

http://www.nea.fr/html/ndd/reports/2002/3109/nea3109annexE.pdf

http://www.icenes2007.org/icenes_proceedings/manuscripts.pdf/Session 7A/TRANSMUTATION OF MINOR.pdf

http://www.nea.fr/html/trw/docs/janssen/janssen.pdf

http://www.nea.fr/html/pt/iempt10/presentation/SS07Dyck.pdf

Although AECL of Canada initially had ground-breaking work in the field of transmutation of nuclear waste, the politics changed and funding dried up. The French are - I believe - making a good honest effort to deal with the issue, but they are also forced to reinvent the wheel

For political reasons, its easier to "pass along" problems to the next government, or the next administration. If you don't achknowledge there is a problem, there ISN'T a problem! The swimming pools filled with spent fuel bundles is a good example of this mindset

It's academic to discuss the technology as being unfit, as the technology has already been in use. Even if every civillian nuclear power plant was closed tomorrow, there would still be the issue of all those fuel bundles

I feel it's also simplistic to discuss PV as being a panacea to anticipated global electricity demand. To supply enough PV's to make a radical difference, one must take into account the toxic waste streams that are endemic with the large-scale production of semiconductors

There is a good reason why almost all semiconductors are manufactured in the Asian continent. A lot of folks simply don't realize what a dangerous process that semiconductor manufacturing is

It's good for discussion to determine to *what extent* we "allow" developing and undeveloped nations/peoples access to our standard of living

Assuming that one agrees those in the developing and undeveloped nations *deserve* access to the same standard of living that we have, one must then determine the most cost effective and environmentally friendly solution

If we do nothing, the developing and undeveloped nations will turn to whatever *short term* solution they can. Eg: China opening an average of one new coal fired power plant at least every two weeks.

In the context and perspective of China, long-term they would be far better off generating their massive electricity need from nuclear, instead of coal. Rather than say "no you can't" we should instead say "how can we assist you in meeting your long-term needs?"

Otherwise, to simply state that only 5% of the global population should be allowed access to our standard of living just comes across as whining from spoiled children

I encountered the same mindset when I was still providing consulting to the wastewater and potable water industry. These industries are almost exclusively public owned, yet suffer from such damaged long-term thinking and planning that their infrastructure is quite literally rusting out in-situ

I had no problem explaining the chemistry behind current treatment methods, and proposed long-term treatment methods that would result in much fewer disinfection byproducts, safer water, safer waterways, etc

Instead, the critics refused to hear any input whatsoever. It was ALL bad in their eye. They're rather see every home with a shithouse in the backyard, and a small well in the front yard

Scary

I had a sneaking suspicion that if there was a revolution and those folks suddenly assumed power, folks like me would be thrown up against the wall and shot. These people don't even want to know how technology works, they just want anybody with an even very remote connection to technology, rounded up and "disappeared"

 

Jay,

I'm not suggesting that we "do nothing" regarding existing waste. I am suggesting that until we solve the waste issue to some demonstrable level of safety for it's dangerous life, I don't think we should create any more waste.


You clearly have a better understanding of the technical side of the issue. The problem is that is only 1/2 the battle. The human element is probably harder to solve.

As for PV being a panacea, I agree that "just installing more PV" isn't the simple answer, but just as the technology you support may solve your Nuke waste issue, there certainly is an argument that we can solve the by product issue of PV. That said one of the largest manufacturers of PV is just outside of Boston. As with most, if not all our energy choices, we have to begin to pay the "real costs"

Icarus

 

Innumeracy is a terrible thing:
The nuclear waste disposal problem is literally a billion times smaller than the fossil fuel waste disposal problem. All of the high level power reactor waste ever created, even without reprocessing, would fit inside a football stadium. The same volume of coal wouldn't run one power plant for a week. Reprocess and put what's left into an old mine, or even store it on site. In a hundred years it's no more dangerous than the original ore.

It is past time to get over old-school antinuke hysteria. Environmetal and economic justice both require every available non-fossil energy source.

 

Richard,

IMHO, you have two issues. The first is the waste from existing facilities and the second is the potential to generator new waste. I don't think that in 100 years that nuke waste is "no more dangerous than the original ore". Please give me some details to back that up.

Second, as I have often said, it is not the technology that I distrust, but the human side,,, can you say "terrorist?" (That said, I am not a right wing nut job that sees a "terrorist" behind every bush, but I think there is a huge potential that over the course of the 1/2 life of nuke waste some religious/nationalist/ whateverist nut job would find the idea of a dirty bomb made from Nuke waste, an irresistible target).

Icarus

 

This thread has been interesting to read. As a general comment, stepping away from which energy source is the best, greenest, most efficient, etc., I suspect it won't matter much anyway. My guess is that we are entering into an era where we are going to have to tap every energy source we can get to keep civilization from coming apart at the seams. We will probably need fission energy as a bridge to some more sustainable long term solution.

Tom

 

Icarus, my apologies. Even with reprocessing some wastes remain dangerous for thousands of years. An overview and a reference:
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing]Nuclear reprocessing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Radioactive Wastes - Myths and Realities : World Nuclear Association

Yes, I can say "terrorist". I wish all terrorists would handle high-level nuclear waste because they cannot turn it into a weapon and they would most likely kill themselves in the attempt.

The point is, this stuff is not magically evil or impossibly dangerous. The small masses and volumes involved make it much easier and cheaper to deal with than fossil fuel wastes. (And that really is a factor of a billion: tens of tonnes of high-level nuclear waste per year versus 30 billion tonnes of fossil-derived CO2 per year). Refusing to use nuclear power because we are afraid of it would be foolish.

 

Richard,

I'm not arguing that a "terrorist" is going to try to make Nuke waste into a weapon ala (no pun intended) Iran/Pakistan. What I am arguin is that strapping a box of Nuke waste to a suicide bomb, or packing it in a bus and blowing it up in down town any where IS not out of the realm of possibility. Not too hard to do, IF you can get your hands on it, and my argument is that given enough resources ANYONE can get it. Look what has happened in the former USSR. Less than a generation after they were built, no one can fully account for all the nuke bombs, much less the nuke waste. Does anyone really think that Joe the Nuke guard wouldn't sell his soul for a few bucks?

Icarus

 

Agreed. However, with the exception of the French who have made token efforts along these lines, nobody else has tried seriously to reduce the volume of spent fuel and transuranic waste. To me, that is kooky

I have a healthy suspicion and mistrust of human beings

Certainly we can. But I find it very odd that little to no mention of the toxic manufacturing streams related to semiconductors has been mentioned for PV.

I agree we'll soon have to pay the "real" cost of our manufacturing. Currently, we sidestep the issue by literally dumping the problem on the laps of developing nations. Eg: not only "dirty" manufacturing, but our naive "green" recycling of electronics and other items

Not quite, but if you carefully study those nasty, technically complex articles I cited, proper reprocessing and reburn of the original spent bundles and associated transuranic waste, the problem is MUCH reduced in scale and complexity

Keep in mind that the really nasty stuff, with the longest half-life and toxicity, represents a small fraction of total spent fuel bundle volume

The articles I cited are rather involved and technical. It's not so much a once-through reburn run, but the concept of doing *continuous* reburn to transmutate the actinides and transuranic elements to safer isotopes.

Indeed, CANDU was envisioned to use natural uranium only for the initial fueling cycle, with thorium for all subsequent fuel cycles. Politically, this was DOA as, at the time, uranium mining was mostly a Crown Corp in Canada, with jobs and income created. Thorium substitution would have taken away from that

The naturally occurring form of thorium, Th-232, has an estimated half life of about 14 billion years. The isotopes from a CANDU combined breeding cycle would have half lives ranging from about 75,000 years (Un-reprocessed) to 2 years (Most common thorium isotope from breeding reactor cycles)

The one advantage of the intensely radioactive waste, the only stuff useful for a "dirty" bomb, is that you need industrial-scale technology to safely handle it. You're not going to just put on some gloves and reach into a power plant swimming pool to retrieve a chunk of fuel bundle

Touching a spent fuel bundle, the exposure is at least 10,000 rem. There have been documented cases of such exposure in the US and Canada, fortunately very rare. Even with immediate medical care, the person expired after 36 hours. In hindsight, immediate painless euthanasia would be preferable

Exposure to such radiation levels has almost immediate neurological effects. Almost immediately, the person will become nauseous and start vomiting. Within a few minutes, bowel and bladder control is lost. Vision will probably be gone within an hour

So, the very nature of high level radioactive waste make it a poor candidate for a dirty bomb. Of course, the terrorist could just hijack a fully fueled airliner, and crash it into the building used to house the spend fuel bundles

As only 5% of the global population can live like we do, that is correct. Unless we continue to force the other 95% of humans to live a pre-industrial lifestyle, its inevitable that we are going to face an energy crunch

Entirely within the realm of probability, but see my comments above

The USSR has proven that Russians can't be trusted with anything more complicated than a can opener. There have been many documented large-scale radiation accidents that make Chernobyl pale in comparison

WashingtonPost.com: Cold War Report

What is all the more amazing is that Russians aren't dropping like flies