where does nuclear power fit

I'd like to have another option in the poll. The first option is a bit too smug, but fission power is one of the best options for the short to medium term.

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Feb 12 2007, 02:54 PM) [snapback]388996[/snapback]</div>

From what I have read and researched about nuclear power, it appears safe. The problems I have with it is the mining of uranium which can be of some detriment to the environment, and of course the current waste storage nonsolution (which I think can be dealt with reasonably well with a competent Nuc. Reg. Com.). I think nuclear power could be a part of the solution, but less attractive then solar, wind, and greater end user efficiencies. I say, we could expand it a little, but not focus on it as a primary source of action.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkMN @ Feb 12 2007, 11:00 AM) [snapback]389003[/snapback]</div>

I believe that is the general consensus.

One who would argue this is James Lovelock who believes we should be dumping fossil fuel use immediately and jacking up nuclear power to avoid further escalation of global warming. See his book "The Revenge of Gaia" -2006 for more info on his opinions.

I believe the biggest REAL obstacles for nuclear power is the lack of uranium resources and the degredation involved with extracting it AND its use in creating nulcear weapons. It becomes very difficult to regulate nulcear arms production when a country can claim to be using its uranium resources for power production.

It was mentioned in another thread that nuclear power is not very profitable either but in light of our rediculous expenditures on other grabage I'm sure some budget cuts can be made somewhere to fund the plants.

 

Uranium mining certainly has a pretty bad legacy. That can be overcome to a large part with a change in attitude. We can't do much about the distribution problem but we could possibly mitigate it through improvements to the technology.

I'm going to take a look at Pebble Bed Reactors as I've heard some buzz about them. I haven't read much of the above link but I thought I'd post it here for others to look at as well.

I'm definitely pro-diverse energy mix. I think that nuke-u-ler can play a part in that especially since it can provide for base load quite well (since it already does in many areas).

 

Well, there's nuclear fission, which we use now and has some pretty nasty bi-products that need to be disposed of. And the occasional accident.

And they're still working on nuclear fusion, which is still 10-15 years away after what? 20 years? 30 years? And who knows what nastier bi-products will have to be disposed of and even nastier accidents.

I'd like to do away with it completely. But that isn't practical either.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Feb 12 2007, 12:10 PM) [snapback]389051[/snapback]</div>

Isn't it amazing how for 3million or so years of evolution we figured out how to live without fences yet in as little as 200 years we have created so many fences that it takes incredible amounts of energy and thinking to figure out how to live within those fences? If our "selfish gene" could speak I wonder what he would say to us.

 

I like heat in the winter and lights after dark.

How about you?

 

I'm not a fan of going nuclear. The fuel is toxic and easily converted to weapons, the plants make great terrorist targets, and we don't know what to do with the waste.

Unless of course you're talking fusion; we've had a power plant at a relatively safe distance for quite some time now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Feb 12 2007, 12:43 PM) [snapback]389072[/snapback]</div>

Too simplistic of an arguement. You think we are in the mess we are in because of heating and simple housing lighting? Come now Godiva, I think I know you better than that.

 

It’s really sad how Canada has shouldered more than its share of the nuclear nightmare. As an example, Great Bear Lake in the NWT is contaminated. Many folks don’t know that the first large scale uranium mine was Port Radium on the shore of Great Bear Lake. Uranium City, Saskatchewan – located in the northern region of Saskatchewan – was another large scale Canadian uranium operation, with similar tales of contamination.

The CANDU nuclear reactor is among the most efficient in the world, it’s also a “breeder.†Similar designs that were “donated†to India only needed uranium dioxide for the first fueling cycle; after that, thorium could be used.

http://ccnr.org/nuclear_primer.html

Many of the promises from the Golden Age of the Nuclear Energy Era turned out to be absolute lies, wishful thinking, or fud. For example, it never was “too cheap to meter.†The long-term storage problem is iffy at best. The “risk†is rarely talked about, and even then the replies are vague.

Consider what happened to the former Ontario Hydro, which committed to having most of the power needs of Ontario met by CANDU reactors. All those rosy promises of low cost, low maintenance, worry-free turned out BS. When the Enron thing finally happened to Ontario Hydro, the “stranded†debt was over $60 billion.

That’s what taxpayers are for, I suppose.

Will Nuclear be part of our future? Without doubt, but it will come with a high price. Unless the industry manages to once again stick us with the REAL cost of nuclear power. It worked before, and it will work again.

 

There are no new orders for fission nuclear power plants because they are not cost effective. Utilities and the government have a defacto refusal to deal with fission waste - that requires 500,000 years of stewardship. Centralized power plants (coal, fission, hydro) are "old style" that represents short-term, "least cost, first use" extraction thinking.

This has been discussed in detail, http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid1151.php, RMI's position on nuclear power is that:

It's too expensive. Nuclear power has proved much more costly than projected—and more to the point, more costly than most other ways of generating or saving electricity. If utilities and governments are serious about markets, rather than propping up pet technologies at the expense of ratepayers, they should pursue the best buys first.

Nuclear power plants are not only expensive, they're also financially extremely risky because of their long lead times, cost overruns, and open-ended liabilities.

Contrary to an argument nuclear apologists have recently taken to making, nuclear power isn't a good way to curb climate change. True, nukes don't produce carbon dioxide—but the power they produce is so expensive that the same money invested in efficiency or even natural-gas-fired power plants would offset much more climate change.

And of course nuclear power poses significant problems of radioactive waste disposal and the proliferation of potential nuclear weapons material. (However, RMI tends to stress the economic arguments foremost because they carry more weight with decision-makers.)

There are increasing orders for fusion nuclear power plants (photovoltaic) that are decentralized and are appearing on the roofs of homes, schools, churches and businesses. PV is cost effective and many are able to run their meters backward. No massive amounts of water needed for cooling, no massive amounts of fission waste that requires long-term care. No adverse affects on air quality, adjacent properties, people and ecosystems. PV power can be moved and easily upgraded. PV, wind, hydro and conservation is renewable.

Just as hybrids and PHEVs decrease our dependency on big oil; PV, wind, hydro and conservation decrease our dependency on big oil - and we have more control as individuals. The precautionary principle, http://www.takingprecaution.org/, says "a gram of prevention is worth three kilograms of cure". It's uncommon sense. The precautionary principle guides us to take action now, as individuals and as a society, to think and act long term for sustainability.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ Feb 12 2007, 07:06 PM) [snapback]389263[/snapback]</div>

Uh, PV isn't dispatchable without batteries, compressed air, or pumped storage. Natural gas is already under strong upward price pressure so replacing our current coal fired production capacity with NG is absurd.

Efficiency and conservation, granted have to be part of the solution and they should be.

Base load is the tricky part. Geothermal can provide it. I think CSP can do it fairly cheaply as well (compared to CSP with no storage that is), if you have a month of no sunshine then there are probably going to be problems. Hydro as well, but I wonder how much more scalable it is. I've seen a few wind proposals that include compressed air (stored in geologic structures) for dispatchablility.

The best way, I think, would be to put a progressive tariff on energy use (plus a carbon tariff). The more you use the more expensive it gets (exponentially would be nice ). This way lower income folks don't get nailed with ridiculously high energy bills. This would really help with curtailing waste and encouraging efficiency. That's really the best way to get started, in my opinion.

From there it gets more difficult. Say we put a moratorium on new coal plants and create a decommissioning schedule for the ancient plants that we're still using. So how do we replace the base load those plants provide? Geothermal can be ramped up to provide some. CSP some too. Maybe tidal energy could be harnessed. It seems predictable enough that you could use it for base load.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ Feb 12 2007, 03:58 PM) [snapback]389000[/snapback]</div>

I voted "other" because of the smugness of the first selection. It is time we accepted the risk/benefit of nuclear power. Nuclear is coming....we are just putting off the inevitable.

On a side note, I think we should also look heavily into smaller, more independant poser production. If a single homeowner or farmer can supply their energy needs via water/wind/solar...they should do it and get off the grid.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Feb 13 2007, 10:46 AM) [snapback]389544[/snapback]</div>

I agree except the off grid part. There are some real benefits to being on the grid. Not just for the individual but for everybody else as well. If user A is producing more energy than they're using (say they're on vacation) then others can consume that energy. User A makes a chunk of change for the surplus energy they are able to sell back to the utility.

 

there is nothing wrong with nuclear power. there are a TON of good things about nuclear power.

now we say its dangerous?? well if that is the case, lets look at other ways of making power.

well we have safe, clean, coal...so thats ummm. 3 people killed in nuclear power accidents in the us verses the approximately 75,000 killed in coal mining accidents. (we are of course, not counting the 5,000 innocent civilian bystanders killed as a direct result of coal mining company carelessness)

we could look at how much death and destruction has occurred while using other forms of power. but the GW is something that i hope is no longer a debate over why its happening or what our contribution is to its accelerated onset.

nuclear power for all its potential downfall, is still clean. sure it has waste that needs to be dealt with, but i much rather figure out what to do with several thousand tons of waste a year than to sit back and watch the effects of several hundred million tons of GH gases being pumped into our atmosphere EVERY SINGLE DAY

 

David

I will agree, especially if the CANDU reactor system is used.

However the nuclear industry has pushed a lot of outright lies and BS to further their cause. The part about electricity being "too cheap to meter" is always good for a laugh.

I expect transparancy from the nuclear industry and so far I haven't seen it

j

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ Feb 12 2007, 06:06 PM) [snapback]389263[/snapback]</div>

You really don't have to contemplate storage on those terms (see here). In fact, it is probably advisable not to for a number of reasons as noted in the article.

 

well the Nuclear industry is pretty closed-mouthed and this "trust me, i know what im doing" attitude just makes it seem like they have something to hide. couple that with a runaway NRC who has simply gone crazy and we have a HUGE uphill red tape mess that will take decades to do anything unless sweeping changes are instituted.

i still say, we are running scared from our own shadows... its like we still havent gotten over the boogeyman stories our daddies told us at bedtime

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA @ Feb 15 2007, 02:11 PM) [snapback]390955[/snapback]</div>

Yes I agree. I also agree that we're going to have to accept some cold hard facts about our energy situation. Now if only the NRC came clean on the "facts" about the "true" cost of energy production - no stranded costs or bait-n-switch - we would all feel a lot better about it