Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Politics => General Discussion => Topic started by: kimmy on March 17, 2019, 12:51:56 pm
-
Remember Hans Blix? He was the international nuclear expert tasked with inspecting Iraq facilities for evidence that weapons of mass distruction were being created, and concluded there weren't any.
Anyway, Hans wrote this editorial last week, calling for nuclear power to be part of our plans for meeting energy needs while addressing CO2 emissions.
http://time.com/5547063/hans-blix-nuclear-energy-environment/
It's pollution-free and CO2-free. Blix argues that we have much less to fear from the waste of nuclear plants than from the waste of conventional power plants:
Frankly, it is not the waste from existing or expanded use of nuclear power that threatens our planet. One might even say that the nuclear waste is one of the greatest assets of nuclear power, as it is so small in volume that it can be — and is — safely taken care of in its entirety. On the other hand, the waste of fossil fuels, especially carbon dioxide, is so huge that (despite much experimenting) we do not know how to handle it.
We should not be shutting down nuclear plants to make way for
Some people claim we can manage the world’s great and increasing hunger for energy by using wind and solar power. The call for “renewable energy sources” excludes fossil fuels, but it also excludes nuclear power, which is based on non-renewable uranium resources. It has been a smart but facile message, and we should be grateful that the world’s two most populous countries — China and India — are fast expanding their use of nuclear power as well as of renewables. Solar and wind power are great in many places and have gone down in cost. However, getting rid of technically sound carbon dioxide-free nuclear power plants, to replace them with carbon dioxide-free wind and solar plants, does not make environmental sense. And to reject nuclear power because uranium is not renewable is silly. With modern technology the global resources of uranium and thorium could fuel thousands of years of expanded use of nuclear power. Is it not enough that they are sustainable?
New technologies could make nuclear even better. Thorium, for example, could become a viable fuel as technology develops. Thorium is far more plentiful than uranium, and safer to mine and work with, doesn't need to go through an enrichment process, and it can't be turned into weapons. New reactor designs are meltdown-proof and designed to make events like Chernobyl and Fukushima impossible.
I was reading this company's spiel for their emerging technology--
https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/technology/versatile/
using sealed cores with molten salt rather than heavy water as the heat exchange medium. They promise "walk away safe", and the ability to integrate with renewable systems. Molten salt is one of the energy storage mechanisms being studied as a way of storing excess power generated from wind and solar plants, so being able to integrate with a molten salt heat storage system could unite nuclear alongside wind and solar.
Imagine the possibilities-- pollution-free power that could last thousands of years! It's time to say "Yes!" to nuclear power!
-k
-
I would totally agree with that. From what I have read we have come a long way with the technology and have learned lessons such as not putting a reactor on a fault line near an ocean with the standby generators in the basement (Fukushima) And of course there was Chernobyl. Hopefully we can put all that behind us and start getting the carcinogenic coal smoke out of the air.
-
Remember Hans Blix? He was the international nuclear expert tasked with inspecting Iraq facilities for evidence that weapons of mass distruction were being created, and concluded there weren't any.
He was the one who was killed, when Kim Jong-Il fed Blix to his Sharks in Team America World Police.
-
If we are really serious about drastically reducing CO2 emissions, I don't think nuclear can be ignored.
-
We need safe nuclear power, built underground or whatnot (i'm no nuclear scientist). I'm sure technology has improved immensely. The only concern at all I have is from terror attacks. But certain fail-safes should be thought of by now, right?
If we can be assured to be safe even if ie: a plane crashes into a nuke plant via a terrorist, we should be full steam ahead on nuclear! (pun intended).
We've been in the nuclear age for, what, almost 80 years now? Let's do this. At least until some other form of renewable energy is invented or perfected (and made cheaper) in the coming decades.
-
we should get to work on that, it takes from 4-5 years to build a plant.
-
Rick Perry is on it!
(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/96/37/41/96374136a0d4fa78e329b16eebeced66--memes-trump-donald-trump.jpg)
-
Imagine the possibilities-- pollution-free power that could last thousands of years! It's time to say "Yes!" to nuclear power!
I've oft touted the IV generation holy grail pursuits... mentioning a prominent early adopter/advocate, James Hansen. As much as the polarizing figure he is, his name drew attention to the possibilities of "safe(r)" nuclear design - and that sustainable bridge away from fossil-fuel. This article highlights some of his "short-comings" in this regard as well as framing more realistic expectations and the timeline therein:
(https://reneweconomy.com.au/james-hansens-generation-iv-nuclear-fallacies-and-fantasies-70309/)
Moreover, the assumption that mass production of Generation IV reactors might begin in or around 2030 is unrealistic. A report by a French government authority, the Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, states: “There is still much R&D to be done to develop the Generation IV nuclear reactors, as well as for the fuel cycle and the associated waste management which depends on the system chosen.”
Likewise, a US Government Accountability Office report on the status of small modular reactors (SMRs) and other ‘advanced’ reactor concepts in the US concluded:
“Both light water SMRs and advanced reactors face additional challenges related to the time, cost, and uncertainty associated with developing, certifying or licensing, and deploying new reactor technology, with advanced reactor designs generally facing greater challenges than light water SMR designs. It is a multi-decade process …”
An analysis recently published in the peer-reviewed literature found that the US government has wasted billions of dollars on Generation IV R&D with little to show for it.
originally from MIT Technology Review (but pay-walled there), I found an alternate publication of same: The new, safer nuclear reactors that might help stop climate change (https://sightlineu3o8.com/2019/02/the-new-safer-nuclear-reactors-that-might-help-stop-climate-change/)
-
“Pollution free”
Hahahahahaha
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/05/the-60-year-downfall-of-nuclear-power-in-the-us-has-left-a-huge-mess/560945/
Sprawling across 600 square miles of sagebrush semidesert, Hanford is a $100 billion cleanup burden, full of accidents waiting to happen. It is the biggest headache, but very far from being the only one, emerging in what increasingly look like the final years of America’s nuclear age.
It is 60 years since America’s first commercial nuclear power station was opened by President Dwight D. Eisenhower at Shippingport, near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on May 26, 1958. But the hopes of a nuclear future with power “too cheap to meter” are now all but over. All that is left is the trillion-dollar cleanup.
—————————
Shutdown is only the beginning of the end. Final closure and clearance of the sites can take decades, and the waste crisis created by decommissioning cannot be dodged. Lethal radioactive material is accumulating at dozens of power plants, military facilities, and interim stores across the country.
Some, like the train cars buried at Hanford, is evidently in a precarious situation. Much more needs urgent attention. Cleaning up and safely disposing of the residues of the nuclear adventure—much of it waste with a half-life measured in tens of thousands of years—is turning into a trillion-dollar nightmare for the nation.
-
We need safe nuclear power, built underground or whatnot (i'm no nuclear scientist). I'm sure technology has improved immensely. The only concern at all I have is from terror attacks. But certain fail-safes should be thought of by now, right?
If we can be assured to be safe even if ie: a plane crashes into a nuke plant via a terrorist, we should be full steam ahead on nuclear! (pun intended).
We've been in the nuclear age for, what, almost 80 years now? Let's do this. At least until some other form of renewable energy is invented or perfected (and made cheaper) in the coming decades.
Plants are closing. New plants are not economically viable. The cleanup of nuclear waste in the USA will cost a trillion dollars.
-
...calling for nuclear power to be part of our plans for meeting energy needs while addressing CO2 emissions.
...
It's pollution-free and CO2-free...
Not even remotely true, in either case. There is plenty of pollution and C02 associated with nuclear power. The fact that the process of nuclear fission doesn't generate any C02 ignores all the issues with the supply chain, plant commissioning and decommissioning, etc.
I believe we need to look closely at nuclear power because there is a lot of potential to be gained, but making blanket statements like being pollution free and GHG free is ignoring the total picture.
-
The fact that the process of nuclear fission doesn't generate any C02 ignores all the issues with the supply chain, plant commissioning and decommissioning, etc.
The exact same problem exists with wind, solar, hydro, and EV battery tech. That is one of the reasons why reducing CO2 emissions is futile exercise.
-
The exact same problem exists with wind, solar, hydro, and EV battery tech. That is one of the reasons why reducing CO2 emissions is futile exercise.
Yes, they all have their issues. I don't think that reducing C02 (all GHGs) is futile, we just need to look at the big picture. What is the environmental cost of acquiring the raw material, refining them, and disposing of the byproducts. We should also look at required infrastructure, especially concrete because it has many environmental consequences. Nuclear and hydro generally have a large concrete requirement, wind does as well and it should be compared on tones per kWh generated over its lifetime, solar generally has a low concrete footprint. Also technology is quickly changing, so we should not get locked into models from 30 years ago.
-
Yes, they all have their issues. I don't think that reducing C02 (all GHGs) is futile, we just need to look at the big picture. What is the environmental cost of acquiring the raw material, refining them, and disposing of the byproducts. We should also look at required infrastructure, especially concrete because it has many environmental consequences. Nuclear and hydro generally have a large concrete requirement, wind does as well and it should be compared on tones per kWh generated over its lifetime, solar generally has a low concrete footprint. Also technology is quickly changing, so we should not get locked into models from 30 years ago.
Wind, solar and EV batteries require massive quantities of rare earths and mining them causes environmental degradation comparable to uranium mining except it needs to be done at a much larger scale (hence the environmental degradation will be much worse for wind, solar and EVs).
The concrete argument is silly. To produce as much power as 1GW nuclear facility you would need 1000+ of the biggest wind turbines which need concrete pads plus you need concrete for all of the extra transmission lines. I really doubt the concrete needed for a nuclear facility is that much larger than the equivalent wind or solar installation.
-
Yes, they all have their issues. I don't think that reducing C02 (all GHGs) is futile, we just need to look at the big picture. What is the environmental cost of acquiring the raw material, refining them, and disposing of the byproducts. We should also look at required infrastructure, especially concrete because it has many environmental consequences. Nuclear and hydro generally have a large concrete requirement, wind does as well and it should be compared on tones per kWh generated over its lifetime, solar generally has a low concrete footprint. Also technology is quickly changing, so we should not get locked into models from 30 years ago.
Yes they all have their issues but when you look at the life cycle approach of various forms of electrical generation, and then compare emissions per Kwh, nuclear has a much less carbon footprint than fossil fuels.
-
Yup, lots of concrete required for large wind turbine footings.
https://www.forconstructionpros.com/concrete/article/10886050/ohios-first-largescale-wind-farm-uses-lafarge-cement-for-turbine-concrete-foundations
-
Imagine the possibilities-- pollution-free power that could last thousands of years! It's time to say "Yes!" to nuclear power!
-k
It certainly sound's hopeful. I'll get behind it when I see an institution of accountability that virtually guarantees government officials and corporate operators are unable to corrupt the regulation of the nuclear industry and especially where it comes to handling it's waste. I'm afraid I can't say yes until that day. There is still way too much slack in our system as evidenced by current affairs.
-
Wind, solar and EV batteries require massive quantities of rare earths
...
The concrete argument is silly
Ignoring the rapidly changing battery chemistry is silly.
Calling the concrete argument silly is silly. Here are some facts:
Largest windmill - 395 cubic yards concrete - 2.3 MW
Hover dam - 4,360,000 cubic yards concrete - 2000 MW
-
Ignoring the rapidly changing battery chemistry is silly. Calling the concrete argument silly is silly.
Sorry, I talk about the technology as it is. Not as it might be. Maybe by 2030 we will have economic fusion power. That does not mean we should talk about today as if it is a reality.
As I said: plenty of concrete needed to install those big wind turbines. When you multiply that out by the huge number of turbines it takes to match the output of a nuclear plant you will find that the differentials in concrete needed are much smaller than you assume. On top of that you have the concrete needed for the natural gas plants needed to provide backup to the wind power which would likely eliminate any differential left.
The fact that you jumped on the concrete argument without taking the time to think about how much concrete is really needed for alternatives is what makes it silly. It makes it seem like you looking for excuses to dismiss nuclear power rather than acknowledging that it is best solution currently available if reducing CO2 emissions is an objective.
-
As I said: plenty of concrete needed to install those big wind turbines.
Yes it is, and I updated the post above with those facts. The point is that plenty, plenty, plenty more is needed for hydro and nuclear. I am trying to get complete numbers for nuclear plants, so far have only found numbers for upgrades.
-
Building power lines requires concrete regardless of how the power they carry is produced. So does the building of nuclear plants, as does the production of windmills. During their entire life cycle nuke plants and windmills produce equivelant amounts of CO2. The good news the nuke provides power 24 hours a day, regardless of the wind.
-
During their entire life cycle nuke plants and windmills produce equivelant amounts of CO2.
What facts is that statement based on?
-
Yes it is, and I updated the post above with those facts. The point is that plenty, plenty, plenty more is needed for hydro and nuclear. I am trying to get complete numbers for nuclear plants, so far have only found numbers for upgrades.
Well if you can find numbers lets see them.
Note that to match a 1GW nuclear plant you would need 2.5GW of wind to account for the differences in capacity factor (that is erring in favor of wind power).
You would also need at least one 500MW-1GW gas turbine plant to provide backup when the wind drops to near zero.
So the concrete requirements for wind power must include the concrete needed for those backup plants.
If we do the calculations with hydro which has a lower capacity factor we find that:
1000 2.3MW wind 395,000 cu yds + backup power so the comparison looks good for hydro - but you picked a very old design using old techniques.
Data from a new dam like Site C would be more useful.
Note that hydro provides base load without the need for natural gas backup power which makes it superior than wind when it comes to GHGs emissions.
-
Building power lines requires concrete regardless of how the power they carry is produced.
Not exactly true. Nuclear can be built close to where the power is consumed. Wind power has to be built where geography co-operates. This means wind power, on average, requires significantly more transmission line capacity than nuclear.
-
What facts is that statement based on?
The World Nuclear Association carried out a review of over twenty studies assessing the greenhouse gas emissions produced by different forms of electricity generation. The results summarised in the chart below show that generating electricity from fossil fuels results in greenhouse gas emissions far higher than when using nuclear or renewable generation.
Greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation
http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/greenhouse-gas-emissions-avoided.aspx
-
Not exactly true. Nuclear can be built close to where the power is consumed. Wind power has to be built where geography co-operates. This means wind power, on average, requires significantly more transmission line capacity than nuclear.
Well it is pretty much true because it's not likely we would build a nuclear plant downtown in each community it is meant to serve. There will be central locations and the power will be streamed to the consumers. However we already have a pretty well established grid system so re-attaching the wires to a different type of plant wouldn't be all that big a deal. Of course growing population will require expansion.
-
Wind is built where the wind blows the most consistent
Nuclear is built away from larger population centers, which are usually the biggest consumers
Hydro is built where the water flows
Solar is built where the sun shines
Gas is built away from children's hospitals
Coal is built in Trump's back yard
-
Ignoring the rapidly changing battery chemistry is silly.
Calling the concrete argument silly is silly. Here are some facts:
Largest windmill - 395 cubic yards concrete - 2.3 MW
Hover dam - 4,360,000 cubic yards concrete - 2000 MW
Depends on the dam. The Hoover dam is an extreme example of a concrete dam. The WAC Bennet dam is an earth filled dam that uses comparatively little concrete and produces 2900 MW. Besides, the comparison here is between wind and nuclear, not hydro.
-
Besides, the comparison here is between wind and nuclear, not hydro.
The comparison should be, as I originally stated, the net environmental impact of all technologies. Again, let me repeat for the umpteenth time, I support examining nuclear technology as it does have some advantages. Why, why, why, does everyone argue that we should accept it blindly?