BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: folk1e
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:49 AM

Thanks bruce.
Thaught I was on my own there!
Foolstroup does have a good point though! The answer is that which ever solution(s) we instigate they must be GLOBAL!

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Janie
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 11:42 AM

While the solutions do need to be global. If the world waits for everyone to get on the same page before anything is changed, then nothing changes (for the better) and we expire as a species, having taken a lot of other species along with us.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:50 PM

Which, depending on one's viewpoint, may or may not be A GOOD THING!

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:35 PM

not taking sides for nuclear necessarily, but a recent Scientific
American article discussed the new generation of fast neutron reactors which - are far more efficient (as they use up much more, something like 98percent of the fuel) and the waste is only radioactive for something like 500 years and no danger of making weapons from the waste.)

I highly recommend, Paul Roberts End Of Oil which discusses very well
all the issues surrounding energy today, including global warming,
the politics of oil and the petro-states, alternatives including one often overlooked alternative - namely conservation.

WHen VP Dick CHeney gave (the Toronto) speech early on in the Bush administration,
and said that the US is in the midst of an energy crisis, that alternative energy and conservation had their place but Americans needed a secure supply, most energy experts were surprised at how little this administration understood about energy.
Cheney talked about California, and didnt understand that Californians
solved the problem of rolling blackouts, overnight by cutting back.
(A problem that was partially created by his friends at Enron)

And when looked at from a purely business standpoint of 'efficiency' and getting more bang for the buck, conservation makes better business sense (such as using lights that are energy efficient, or efficient furnaces etc..)

Now, after Bushs state of the union speech - when he said America is addicted to Oil and suggesting other alternatives such as alcohol additives be pursued, they are only beginning to see that trying to secure that supply through Iraq (and breaking OPEC) in the process is just not working.

In an ironic twist, it may be that a steady $70/barrel, thanks to Iraq, may push the alternatives ahead. Wind is definitely becoming very competitive to other power generation - all we need is some kind of carbon tax, or cap& trade system that will add a cost to using hydrocarbon based energy..
But it wont be this administration.

Each week when I read the business paper here in Vancouver, theres some alternative, be it bio-fuel from woodwaste and farmwaste, or
micro-hydro, or wind or solar power, coming online.

as for cars- plug-in hybrids that you can re-charge over night or at work -

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Janie
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:23 PM

I'll check Paul Roberts out, petr. Thanks for the resource.

Thread drift, perhaps, but related: I listened to a piece on NPR a couple of weekends ago about a photographic exhibit of the San Francisco earthquake and the aftermath. Comments were made contrasting the difference between the photographs of people in the tent cities that arose in the aftermath of the earthquake to what we saw and see in photgraphs and video in the aftermath of Katrina.
    I kept waiting for one of the commentators to note the difference in the two places in pre-disaster living. In 1906 people did still chop wood and carry water routinely. They were aclimated to heat and humidity. The were used to living with and enduring the bugs. Their lives were much more low-tech and less dependent on public infrastructure. I don't mean to say they didn't suffer. But they were more likely to have the skills to create some basic comfort for themselves within the context of the living conditions of the times.
I don't know that they actually 'walked lighter on the earth' but being less dependent of public energy sources certainly helped them out of that catastrophy and made it less psychologically distressful.
    My point being, sort of, that conservation needs to occur right down to the basic ways that we live in the 1st world. I fear that few people will be willing to give up some comfort for independence and sustainability of the planet.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: robomatic
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 01:50 AM

These points may have been made earlier but I'll take the chance of pointing out:

Nuclear Plants create waste heat, but do not create greenhouse gases.
All fuel plants create waste heat AND greenhouse gases.

There are ways to process and store nuclear fuel byproducts, there are simply no 'perfect' ways to do so.

Many countries are well along the nuclear path, France chief among them. This is out of necessity.

The one sure way to foster energy conservation is to make energy expensive. This is happening naturally, but in the light of global warming, it might be a good idea for a global energy tax ("Yeah, right!" says China).

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 01:55 AM

good point Janie,
the whole idea of a successful Economy as one that is constantly growing - needs to be re-examined.

(one only has to look at the history of Easter Island to see where that leads)

some nations are also looking at dropping the GDP as a measuring device, but rather looking at quality of life as a more accurate assesment..
because every time theres a car crash or a house burns down or someone gets killed the GDP goes up..

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: MarkS
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 03:35 PM

Folk1e
I suspect getting a consensus will be difficult if not impossible. But, at least the debate will be going in a different direction than it is going now.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: autolycus
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 06:23 PM

How about nuking fossils?


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 01:43 AM

Eh? Fuking Nossils?

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: folk1e
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:45 AM

A concensus does not have to be unanimous!

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:54 AM

But a consensus does have to be spelt right.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Janie
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:43 PM

Or spelled right. I believe spelt is a grain:^)

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: MMario
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:47 PM

according to Meriam-Webster

spelt: past and past participle of SPELL

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Janie
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:58 PM

*blush*

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: MMario
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 01:01 PM

but it is also a grain, whose name is derived from the old word for "split" - because spelt is a two row form of wheat, thus the head appears to be split.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Janie
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 01:22 PM

Oh good! I was on topic after all. We were taling, in part about 'spelting' atoms:>)

J

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Janie
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 01:23 PM

Well--talking--although there may be a tale or two involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 02:43 PM

re :"Foolestroupe - PM
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:23 AM


Found a reference for you...

"Thorium-232 is fissionable, so could conceivably be used as a nuclear fuel."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fission.html#c4

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 02:45 PM

and who says Nuke isn't natural?

"Nature's Nuclear Fission Reactor
In what is now Gabon in west Africa in 1972, French researchers found a deposit of uranium which had only 0.44% U-235 compared to the normal 0.72%. This indicated that some of the U-235 had undergone spontaneous nuclear fission at some point in the past. Also, fission-produced isotopes of neodynium and samarium were found. Some samples were found with a U-235 concentration as low as 0.29%. Models of the process suggested sustained fission reactions over a period of about a million years during a time period about two billion years ago.

The age estimate from cores in the reactor zones suggest a time frame between 1.7 and 1.9 billion years ago. For U-235 (halflife 700 million years) and U-238 (halflife 4.5 billion years), this would give a concentration of about 3% for the U-235 at the time of the reaction. It is presumed that ground water seeping through the ore served as a natural moderator to slow down the fission neutrons. One of the interesting observations was that the bulk of the fission products seemed to be still in place in their geologic depository after nearly 2 billion years. This could be taken as a suggestion that geologic storage of radioactive waste is feasible. "

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 02:58 PM

"Although it does not occur naturally, uranium-233 is also a fissionable material that can be used as a fuel in nuclear reactors. To produce uranium-233, atoms of thorium-232 are exposed to neutrons. Thorium-233 forms when thorium-232 absorbs a neutron. Thorium-233 has a half-life of about 22 minutes and decays into protactinium-233 through beta decay. Protactinium-233 has a half-life of about 27 days and decays into uranium-233, also through beta decay. "

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 08:23 PM

We found our natural nuclear reactors a long time before that, BB. The stars.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 08:51 PM

Those are fusion, NOT fission. Differnt reactions. We DON'T have fusion ( yet).

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 08:57 PM

... except in the brains of war mongering politicans...

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 09:10 PM

Foolestroupe,

Could you enlighten me as to the value of your last comment in regards to energy production cost-benefit discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 09:38 PM

We waste a lot of energy on war, mate! We wouldn't need to expend so much energy making war munitions, which would put less CO2 in the air, and we wouldn't be using up the fossil energy so fast, so we wouldn't need to fight wars over the lack of energy etc... and THAT would be a big cost benefit.

Live in peace man!

(I don't know how to do the peace sign in html...)

OK, a LITTLE bit of thread drift, but still a reasonable point in a discussion which has so much political overtones...

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: folk1e
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 03:31 AM

I juast heared on the radio(not sure which) that the UK will be home to a NEW COAL MINE with a COAL FIRED POWER STATION! Apparently this will be a "green" one!

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 08:05 AM

The SE US has seen the recent re-opening of at least three fairly large coal mines. All of the mines were existing ones that were closed down when extraction became "unprofitable" a few decades ago.

While part of the reason that they're being opened up is that rising oil prices make coal competitive again, a secondary reason is that there simply isn't enough oil to meet energy demand "at current production costs." Note that "isn't enough" here has nothing to do with the size of the fields the oil comes from. It's the rate at which petro products can be produced by existing refineries and other processing facilities.

There have been virtually no new refineries and no new petro or coal fueled power generating plants built in the US in several decades, just as there have been no new nuclear generating plants, for the simple reason that the economics of producing the products, fuels or energy, with any available method doesn't matter, since the process costs/benefits cannot override the staggering costs of complying with all the varied regulations imposed on new installations of either kind.

A certain level of regulation on design and operation of these kinds of facilities is needed; but as long as anyone with a pencil can file repeated new demands for revision of "impact statements," and as long as legislatures accept the NIMBY objections of every possible constituent, there will be no technological progress in providing new and more "environment friendly" energy resources - or in providing existing energy levels with lower environmental impact.

I wish the Brits luck with their new coal mine and generating plant, but the last significant new power station announced in the US started submitting compliance statements about 8 years ago, and expects an additional 12 - 14 years before getting an approval to start construction.

Note that I'm not necessarily advocating lots of new refineries and/or new coal or nuke generators. I'm merely observing that most of the ideas expounded here for cleaner energy at anything approaching current usage ain't gonna happen because the necessary plants can't be built (in the US).

The power that comes out of the tap to charge the batteries in your new "electro-commuter" vehicle does not get there by magic. Producing a large fleet of "rechargeable" vehicles represents a transfer from local consumption of petro-fuel to consumption of generating plant fuel, and the generating plants do not have the capacity to make a major transfer of the magnitude needed to have a significant effect.

Kansas alone already has 17 - 20 ethanol plants, making bio-fuel. Recent model vehicles can burn fuels with 20% ethanol, and there is currently enough bio-process capacity to supply nearly that much to the adjacent few states. Plants here, however, have already begun to run into the same sort of regulatory swamp that engulfs other fuel and energy processes, and it's reasonable to question whether "politics" will permit significant additional expansion - if/when higher percentages of biofuel can be used.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 11:54 AM

"and as he passed each window bar
he called to the people inside'
"All right, so far!"

My notion is that unless and until we have a way of storing/reusing/defusing spent rods and other materiel we have no business creating them.

But wait! I have the perfect solution:

Grind up the parts, mix them in a slurry with concrete or fibreglass or other neutral material, form them into cubes and pillars and other forms, encase them in laminate; sink them into the coastlines around the world. This will increase each country's land mass, suitable for building thereon.

This will make the oceans smaller but deeper. So create submerged cities with jobs and lifestyles therein. (Heat them with the inevitable seepage of "Radioact Cubes".) Technology will step into the breach- it won't be long before there is regular commerce between the air and water communities.

Yep.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 12:56 PM

a recent Scientific American article discussed plug-in hybrids, which are starting to be made, and some companies are converting existing hybrids by adding more batteries etc.
It was touted as a better alternative to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (since there doesnt need to be a new infrastructure of hydrogen stations, and you can recharge at night when there is less power demand
and the utilities would be happy (as well as the expense of the fuel cell - which requires platinum)

yes its true that much of the existing electrical power generation in north america and elsewhere is coal burning plants that are major co2 producers - and much of these are old (and long ago paid for by the utilities) so theyre not keen to change. Carbon sequestering is an idea
but its expensive. So there needs to be political will to tax carbon or have some kind of cap and trade system to encourage alternatives.

Wind power stations are costly to build, but unlike a coal power station you dont have to keep bringing in the coal.
COmbined with electrolyzers to make hydrogen (as they are doing now in Spain) the unused wind power can be stored.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: folk1e
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 04:30 AM

Gordon Brown has stated that amongst other things "Micro Generation plants" are to be tax exempt!

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 07:46 AM

Ah JohnInKansas

you mean we won't be suffocated by CO2, but strangled by red tape?
:-)



"This will increase each country's land mass, suitable for building thereon. This will make the oceans smaller but deeper."

Ah.... the mass of the volume of the water displaced will be equal to the mas of the blocks, so the water level will be higher - no need to sink them, the water will rise and swallow the coastlines faster than it is doing now.... And I think the energy cost of moving blocks big enough that the waves will not affect them might be rather large...


BTW, I have heard that animals and birds, having discovered the lack of human predators on the land near Chernobyl, are flocking there and turning into a sort of wildlife park - for the moment - dunno how long the critters can breed...