Nuclear Energy. History, Ecology, Economy.

[Alias72]

The discussion on solar power has evolved into a topic on nuclear energy. Because this is off topic I thought it might be a good idea to continue the discussion here.

[goncaloeaguiar]

The History says nuclear power is unrealible. However history does not consider the fact of safety improvements made via scientific method.

The ecologic footprint is worse than any other electricity generating source of energy. We have two big deadzones (Chernobyl and Fukushima) in less than 60 years.

Economically is probably the best if you speak about ROI. The drawback is that a nuke plant is very initial investment hungry.

[GeneralVeers]

The ecologic footprint is worse than any other electricity generating source of energy. We have two big deadzones (Chernobyl and Fukushima) in less than 60 years.

Compared to what??

The fancy term for this, folks, is the "semi-attached figure". It's a figure/number/statistic that doesn't mean anything by itself. Sure, it sounds big......wow, two city-sized deadzones!!

....on an entire planet. "Two city-sized deadzones" is meaningless if you don't compare it to the amount of damage done by every other method of power generation (Saddam Hussein still holds the dubious honor of creating the largest deadzone AND the largest oil spill in history, which did a lot more environmental damage than Chernobyl). And then we get into the rather nebulous area of comparing the "amount of damage" done by various environmental incidents--most of which can't be measured in dollars. An extinct species doesn't have a measurable dollar value, and the amount of damage done by, say, coal and oil is impossible to measure accurately.

Further, there have been so few nuclear accidents that we can't make a reliable comparison. In a city where, for example, there hasn't been a murder in ten years, when that first murder happens it's a huge news event that draws a lot of attention and makes it appear like the city has a problem--when it doesn't. In a field where thing X hardly ever happens, you can't use one incident of X as the defining example of how that field operates.

But what we do know for certain is that nuclear power plants don't generate greenhouse gases. Yeah, nuclear waste is nasty. Though, again, we get into more of that "sounds worse than it is" business, because the nuclear waste generated in a year by the entire American nuclear power industry weighs around 2,000 tons and would fit in your garage. And yeah, nuclear meltdowns are nasty. But then, few people in here would contest the claim that greenhouse gases are also nasty.

It gets right down to a question of "which problem are you willing to put up with in order to avoid the other" because there's no way to avoid both. Solar panels aren't going to cut it, for various reasons. If you want to get rid of CO2 emissions, it's nuclear power or global warming. Pick one.

[Hcube]

The ecologic footprint is worse than any other electricity generating source of energy.

[Citation needed]

This is complete nonsense.

A nuclear power plant is safe when properly used. Chernobyl disaster happened because of human stupidity and careless experiments, and regarding Fukushima, the plant probably shouldn't have even been built there in the first place.

Nuclear waste dangerosity and negative effects on wildlife and human body are *vastly* exaggerated and represent only a fraction of the damage caused by oil and coal powerplants when you take into account the harvesting of the oil/coal and associated disasters.

Nuclear Fusion FTW !

(Go ITER ! ) (Go LMJ !) (Go Z-machine !)

[Guest]

This thread got me to researching some more about LFTR and nuclear power in general. The more I study and read and research the more I realize that we are still a LONG, LONG way away from a safe reliable reactor that can replace coal as a long term base load generation source. I'll get really excited from watching one particular video or reading one particular blog only to get just as disappointed from reading another blog or watching another video. It is extremely complicated with numerous factors involved, including startup costs, waste management, and the inevitable shut down and disposal costs. We still have to invest in the research of new materials that can improve the function and safety of the reactors as well as the research into the designs of new reactors. There are advantages and disadvantages. So, in summary, its way above my pay-grade. But, I don't think we should give up nor exclude any one particular idea. In order to continue the standard of living that we have set for ourselves, we are going to have to explore all of the energy sources that we can, including solar, wind, nuclear, fossil fuel, and other stuff I don't even know about, as well as my personal favorite, conservation and efficiency. You don't have to produce what you don't use. Also, this great thing we have now called the internet allows all of us to gather and talk about it and share ideas. That may be one of the most important things of all.

[wumpus]

One huge issue with nuclear power is that you essentially pay nearly all the money for your electricity up front, and then get your electricity over the course of 40 years or so. A bean counter might describe it as a redonkulous-sized energy option.

The price of solar-panel generated power is steadily dropping (and since it is powered by semiconductors this drop might appear inevitable). The price of wind-generated electricity has also dropped for awhile (I was quite impressed when the difference between coal-generated and wind-generated power was negligible compared to the assorted overheads that appeared on my electricity bill. This must have been 10 years ago at least). While these don't directly compete with nuclear (nuclear is considered a "base" load), it would be hard to argue building a huge and expensive nuclear plant to generate power more expensively than can otherwise be had. I don't expect anyone to commit to funding a nuclear plant unless they are certain that they won't be stuck with a white elephant that can't generate sufficiently expensive power to cover its own investment. This won't happen until the price of solar panels bottoms out (and with sufficiently obvious reasons it won't start going down again).

You might call this a case where the best is the enemy of the good. A better idea might be an inherently slow moving tech (which can only evolve as fast as nuke plants are built) being surpassed by a quick moving tech than can evolve as fast as solar panels are built. Nukes might still "win", but I wouldn't go near them until the solar panels have "failed".

[ZetaX]

One huge issue with nuclear power is that you essentially pay nearly all the money for your electricity up front, and then get your electricity over the course of 40 years or so. A bean counter might describe it as a redonkulous-sized energy option.

The price of solar-panel generated power is steadily dropping (and since it is powered by semiconductors this drop might appear inevitable). The price of wind-generated electricity has also dropped for awhile (I was quite impressed when the difference between coal-generated and wind-generated power was negligible compared to the assorted overheads that appeared on my electricity bill. This must have been 10 years ago at least). While these don't directly compete with nuclear (nuclear is considered a "base" load), it would be hard to argue building a huge and expensive nuclear plant to generate power more expensively than can otherwise be had. I don't expect anyone to commit to funding a nuclear plant unless they are certain that they won't be stuck with a white elephant that can't generate sufficiently expensive power to cover its own investment. This won't happen until the price of solar panels bottoms out (and with sufficiently obvious reasons it won't start going down again).

You might call this a case where the best is the enemy of the good. A better idea might be an inherently slow moving tech (which can only evolve as fast as nuke plants are built) being surpassed by a quick moving tech than can evolve as fast as solar panels are built. Nukes might still "win", but I wouldn't go near them until the solar panels have "failed".

There is no foreseeable future where solar or wind will be the base load. Thus this business will be open for quite some time to come. Pricing electricity is not just "give me 1KWh, I give you $0.10"; instead, the price varies extremely throughout the day and the year (it goes as far as there even being negative prices for short times). So your nuclear power plant will probably not bring much money during a sunny day of summer, but you can be quite sure that it will pay off during a cloudy day in winter.

[Nuke]

The History says nuclear power is unrealible. However history does not consider the fact of safety improvements made via scientific method.

The ecologic footprint is worse than any other electricity generating source of energy. We have two big deadzones (Chernobyl and Fukushima) in less than 60 years.

Economically is probably the best if you speak about ROI. The drawback is that a nuke plant is very initial investment hungry.

chernobyl has a thriving ecosystem around it. fukushima will too in time. i like to think of nuclear disasters as learning experiences. sort of like how planes get safer every time one crashes.

[manaiaK]

The History says nuclear power is unrealible. However history does not consider the fact of safety improvements made via scientific method.

The ecologic footprint is worse than any other electricity generating source of energy. We have two big deadzones (Chernobyl and Fukushima) in less than 60 years.

I used to believe these things, too. Then I started looking for some statistics and facts about how these things work. The ecological footprint of coal power is much worse than that of once-through fission. The description "mountain-top removal" is applied to coal mining operations for a reason. Although the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents were very bad, they are not huge compared to what the coal industry does every year on purpose.

In health terms, a gigawatt coal plant and its associated mines and waste ash dumps will kill more people in a year of perfect operation (through particulate emissions, noxious gas emissions and emissions of radioactive material) than the Fukishima failure will do in a century. That's right, coal plants kill more people when they are working properly than worst-case nuclear meltdowns do. Even ignoring deaths from accidents involving coal and waste transportation, and mining accidents.

Economically is probably the best if you speak about ROI. The drawback is that a nuke plant is very initial investment hungry.

Nuclear has terrible ROI, because it takes so long to build the plants. That's why nearly all new non-renewable power plants being built in the West are natural gas powered -- they can be generating revenue inside half a year of breaking ground on the construction site. Nothing else comes close to that. Now, if we required our power plants to last for five hundred years, it might be a different story... Edited November 11, 2015 by manaiaK
clarifications.

[Bill Phil]

Nuclear reactors are the safest and are the most efficient ( in terms of energy per nuclear reaction) power generation devices.

But they require large structures, and lots of time.

Are they better? Economically, no. Environmentally, yes.

[ZetaX]

... the safest and are the most efficient ( in terms of energy per nuclear reaction) ...

I am quite sure you wanted to say something else there. Otherwise I offer that coal plants are the safest and most efficient in terms of energy per burning a piece of coal, or solar ones in terms of converting sunlight

[Bill Phil]

I am quite sure you wanted to say something else there. Otherwise I offer that coal plants are the safest and most efficient in terms of energy per burning a piece of coal, or solar ones in terms of converting sunlight

Per unit of nuclear fuel used, a lot of power can be and is produced.

I meant only the most efficient in terms of energy per reaction.

Coal plants are pretty dirty. They do vaporize the coal as much as possible, but they are still have soot show up, and they release much more harmful gases to the environment.

Safety is pretty good for coal plants, but there are casualties, and the environmental harm too.

Then, nuclear reactors have so much planning and control that they're very safe, and only water is released into the atmosphere.

Comparatively, nuclear reactors are the safest and most efficient.

I probably got some stuff wrong, but I implore you to provide sources. I know I haven't, either, but it would seem to take more convincing to prove that coal plants are safer. Nuclear plants are so tightly controlled and carefully planned...

EDIT:

In this source, it is said that for every trillion kilowatt hours, only 90 people have died for nuclear's average, compared to coal's average of 170,000.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Edited November 11, 2015 by Bill Phil

[ZetaX]

If you reread my previous post(s) you will see that I nowhere disagreed with your actual conclusion. But:

I meant only the most efficient in terms of energy per reaction.

This is a bad way of measuring things and/or of saying what you intended. It is arbitrary as there is no reason that "energy per reaction" is in any way related to desirability. Hence the non-serious examples from my last post.

[Bill Phil]

If you reread my previous post(s) you will see that I nowhere disagreed with your actual conclusion. But:

This is a bad way of measuring things and/or of saying what you intended. It is arbitrary as there is no reason that "energy per reaction" is in any way related to desirability. Hence the non-serious examples from my last post.

It provides the most energy per reaction. That's pretty simple. This then translates to more energy per reaction means less reactions for the desired energy.

It's pretty simply. energy per mass unit is more general, but is dependent on design, energy per reaction is more about the potential.

[ZetaX]

It provides the most energy per reaction. That's pretty simple. This then translates to more energy per reaction means less reactions for the desired energy.

It's pretty simply. energy per mass unit is more general, but is dependent on design, energy per reaction is more about the potential.

You are repeating yourself. Again.

As I already said: that simply means nothing. It is an arbitrary measure you introduced that is, at least not by what has been stated, related to anything we are interested in. If you want to give it meaning, you will have to explain why we should care about it.

[Bill Phil]

You are repeating yourself. Again.

As I already said: that simply means nothing. It is an arbitrary measure you introduced that is, at least not by what has been stated, related to anything we are interested in. If you want to give it meaning, you will have to explain why we should care about it.

Because it means that it has the highest potential as an energy source.

How am I repeating myself?

[ZetaX]

Because it means that it has the highest potential as an energy source.

How am I repeating myself?

By again and again and again stating the same (obviously true) thing: that nuclear power creates the most energy from the least mass/atoms/reactions. And every time you didn't even try to explain why this is relevant.

[Bill Phil]

By again and again and again stating the same (obviously true) thing: that nuclear power creates the most energy from the least mass/atoms/reactions. And every time you didn't even try to explain why this is relevant.

It's a measure of potential.

For every mole, more energy is released. That means that more potential can be gained. But the actual efficiency depends on the design. This is extremely simple. It's relevant because it means that nuclear is the most promising in terms of maximum attainable energy.

[ZetaX]

Ok, I give up. If you really want to keep iterating the same triviality, then do so. But it still won't carry any weight or meaning. You could as well state that the sky is blue, therefore nuclear power is best.

[NuclearNut]

Nuclear energy, overall, is a good energy source. Reactors can provide large amounts of usable energy from comparatively small amounts of material for construction and fueling, they do not emit carbon dioxide or other damaging materials into the environment outside of the facility, they run 24-7 making it possible to use them without coal and oil for baseload, and they are comparatively safe.

In the entire history of civilian nuclar energy there has been a total of two accidents in it's >50 year history that had major civilian impacts, one, according to WHO estimates, caused the deaths of around 2 000 people using the LNT model, and the other killed precisely 0 people not working at the plant, also according to the WHO, and using the LNT model. To put that number in perspective, the WHO estimates approx. 1 million die of air pollution related causes. Now, of course the older designs are... less than good, having been designed over 40 years ago now, but just as CRAY-1 does not reflect on the capabilities of newer computers, the older reactors do not reflect on the capabilities of newer ones. Thus from a safety standpoint, nuclear is acceptable.

From a cost standpoint, it is definitely better than wind and solar, both of which, while travelling down the price curve, are still quite expensive and need batteries as backup, a technology that is already quite mature making it improbable that we will see massive price reductions. Wind and solar, being very unreliable, require energy storage, thus batteries are definitely a major portion of any grid involving the use of such energy sources. Another "fun" thing to note regarding wind and solar is that as the climate changes due to the mess we caused with fossil fuels, the optimal locations for both will change, thus making them even more unpredictable. Nuclear energy on the other hand runs day and night and operates on demand, with current reactors getting a 90-92% capacity factor (installed capacity/average power output), compared to the <30% capacity factors of wind and solar.

And lastly, the waste. Nuclear waste is actually one of the more "cool" things about nuclear energy. The quantity produced is absolutely puny, for fission products, the material actually produced as waste from the reaction, you would get (assuming the products have approximately the same density of uranium) about 1 cubic meter per year per 1000 MWe nuclear reactor assuming a 30% heat to electrical energy conversion efficiency. To put that in perspective, the amount of batteries (assuming a 20 year lifetime and 1 day of battery backup and the energy consumption of a US citizen) needed and the waste produced by their use would be over 3 000 000 cubic meters. While you can afford to store a cubic meter of nuclear waste deep underground in it's own special containment structure and with multiple redundant barriers, you cannot say that much about 3 000 000 cubic meters of battery waste. Even assuming you recycle as much as possible within reason, you will still be left with huge amounts of waste and wasted energy taking apart each unit.

[Firwen]

And lastly, the waste. Nuclear waste is actually one of the more "cool" things about nuclear energy. The quantity produced is absolutely puny, for fission products, the material actually produced as waste from the reaction, you would get (assuming the products have approximately the same density of uranium) about 1 cubic meter per year per 1000 MWe nuclear reactor assuming a 30% heat to electrical energy conversion efficiency.

Nuclear waste has nothing cool, and it would be nice to be honest in your argumentation.

Nuclear waste is the biggest problem of nuclear energy currently. It is a a problem to store, it is a problem to retreat. Some nuclear waste, like plutonium that the current generation of reactor produces, stay dangerous for period up to 200 000 years, meaning far more than the duration of any human civilisation in History.

Without even speaking of the danger that represent the spreading of such waste... nuclear proliferation, risk of "dirty" bombs for terrorist act, contamination of environments....

The main problem of nuclear energy are :

- The safety, because yes, current generation of reactor are nothing else than "The most dangerous way to boil water"

- The waste, which is today a major sources of problem for nuclear energy, and which cost an awful amount of money to retreat.

In my opinion, Nuclear energy is a domain where the research simply failed. They failed in 40 years to create production inherently safe sub-critical reactors. They failed to create nuclear reactor than can be miniaturized and used outside of the military / power plant domain for civil application. They failed to create reactor able to transmute they own waste ( and please don't talk about these sodium powered madness named sur-generator ).

Nuclear is still today, unfortunately, a beautiful concept on paper, and a terrible concept in reality.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Firwen

[Hcube]

Nuclear waste has nothing cool, and it would be nice to not honest in your argumentation.

Nuclear waste is the biggest problem of nuclear energy currently. It is a a problem to store, it is a problem to retreat. Some nuclear waste, like plutonium that the current generation of reactor produce, stay dangerous for period up to 200 000 years, meaning far more than the duration of any human civilisation in History.

Without even speaking of the danger that represent the spreading of such waste... nuclear proliferation, risk of "dirty" bombs for terrorist act, contamination of environments....

The main problem of nuclear energy are :

- The safety, because yes, current generation of reactor are nothing else than "The most dangerous way to boil water"

- The waste, which is today a major sources of problem for nuclear energy, and which cost an awful amount of money to retreat.

In my opinion, Nuclear energy is a domain where the research simply failed. They failed in 40 years to create production inherently safe sub-critical reactors. They failed to create nuclear reactor than can be miniaturized and used outside of the military / power plant domain for civil application. They failed to create reactor able to transmute they own waste ( and please don't talk about these sodium powered madness named sur-generator ).

Nuclear is still today, unfortunatly, a beautiful concept on paper, and a terrible concept in reality.

What if i told you a modern nuclear reactor *is* safe when handled properly ? Just, how is a nuclear power plant not safe ? Chernobyl ? Don't blame the reactor. Fukushima ? Shouldn't have been built there. And that's it...

Funny little true story (that also illustrates how exaggerated the dangerosity of a nuclear plant is sometimes) :

1979, There mile island, there was a level 6 accident in the reactor. (Level 6 is pretty immensely bad) The thing was so well contained that there were absolutely zero human irradiation and the only people that died were civilians that panicked and drove away so fast that they had a car accident. (Yep, as ridiculous as that).

By the way, do you know what were the causes of this third great civilian nuclear accident in history ? Again, imprudent manipulation and human error, inadapted input into the reactor. Not as stupid as Chernobyl but pretty close

EDIT : but i agree in saying that nuclear waste isn't "cool" at all, since it costs a fortune to store in deactivation pools and it can quickly turn into a nightmare if such pools aren't maintained properly

Edited November 11, 2015 by Hcube

[Firwen]

What if i told you a modern nuclear reactor *is* safe when handled properly ? Just, how is a nuclear power plant not safe ? Chernobyl ? Don't blame the reactor. Fukushima ? Shouldn't have been built there. And that's it...

They are not. All current nuclear reactor are *unsafe by nature*. All current reactors ( with the exceptions of ADS prototypes and molten core prototypes ) are over-critical and consequently can run out of control (melt or explode) if their cooling system goes down. This is a reality, period.

Now, yes they all have a bunch of security systems to avoid that, but everyone that has done a bit of engineering in his life know that if a thing *can* physically happen, it *will* happen. And it's just a matter of time before we get an other Three Miles Island, Chernobyl or Fukushima-style problem. Yes it happens due to human mistake, but fact is that it still happens anyway.... and even in "rich" modern countries.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Firwen

[Wesreidau]

Obvious solution; build nuclear reactors on the ocean where accidents won't be noticed. Maybe in a boat, or some sort of boat that goes under the water. We'll probably never notice the accidents there. We'll even put teenagers and twenty-somethings in charge. But I bet there are accidents. Oh boy, probably hundreds of thousands of nuclear accidents happen.

Since its inception in 1948, the U.S. Navy nuclear program has developed 27 different plant designs, installed them in 210 nuclear-powered ships, taken 500 reactor cores into operation, and accumulated over 5,400 reactor years of operation and 128,000,000 miles safely steamed. Additionally, 98 nuclear submarines and six nuclear cruisers have been recycled. The U.S. Navy has never experienced a reactor accident.

[ElJugador]

Firwen: *facepalm*

Wesreidau: Actually, water is one of the best radiation shielding materials there are..