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

Subject: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Janie
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 11:20 PM

On another thread about nuclear warfare, Ernest posed a question about nuclear vs. fossil fuel generation of electricity. I have been wondering about this myself recently, and then, this month National Geographic did an article on the anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster. The article noted that a small number of environmentalists are beginning to consider that nuclear power may be a lesser evil than fossil fuel generated power given the serious consequences of global warning.

As awful as Chernobyl was, it has apparently been much less damaging over time (at least to date)than what most theorists had thought would be the case. The implication is that the risk to our ecosystem and living beings from nuclear accidents or from the storage of spent nuclear fuel may be less than the risks from global warming.

As the aftermath of Chernobyl is being studied, data from this unintended in vivo experiment is being gathered and analyzed that will soon, or perhaps even now, enable some serious cost/benefit analyses to be done of the environmental risks from either means of production.

World demand for electrical power continues to grow at a phenomenal rate as China and other countries become increasingly industrialized.
Not only does more of the world plug in--the plugged-in world plugs in more and more.

Thoughts, info., explorations?

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 11:59 PM

All work results from the conversion of energy - with some going into heat. Release enough heat fast enough from any source, and the earth cannot radiate sufficient of it away fast enough, so gets 'warmer'.

End of Story.

Too many peopl using too much enery.

Big Bada Boom!

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Janie
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 12:19 AM

I know that. In the best case scenario

1. Total energy consumption would be significantly reduced. This would require not just more efficiency and conservation, but a significant change in the lifestyles and consumer values of first and second world countries. In other words, societies would have to opt for a lower standard of living. That would require a radical paradigm shift where longevity of the planet and current species, including our own, are more valued than immediate comfort and gratification.
2.   Big government dollars going into the development of solar and wind generated electricity (sounds like a good idea to me) to bring down the costs of those technologies to a point where most of us working chumps could afford them.
   
I don't think either of those things are going to happen. I think the more likely path will be to slow our speed down the path of planet destruction.

So one question is, does one method of production of electricity produce significantly less heat per unit of electricity generated than the other?

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 12:38 AM

Depends whether you take into account during the useful life of the 'gadget' the total cost (environmental too) of manufacturing the 'gadget', and the cost of 'disposing or recycling' the dangerous things inside some of these 'gadgets'...

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:08 AM

Janie, we're still looking for a mountain to bury the waste under, that in it's self is enough a cost factor to make it not a cost effective choice. I'd still want to be safe rather than sorry, maybe we don't know enough but I'd still stay with being cautious. My own take is that it's a danger not to be taken lightly. As long as it's manufactured the energy company/government can extort it's public, if it's from wind, sun, waves, tidal current, water flowing or pigs farting they will lose money & power & that's not gonna happen if they can help it.
Barry
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:25 AM

Nuclear is a lot less inclined to cause global warming. The issue is not the heat expended to do the work. The issue is the CO2 that goes up into the upper atmosphere and traps the heat from the sun. The little bit of heat from the work will probably radiate into space anyway if there aren't green house gasses to trap it. and the green hose gasses produced to make the energy to do the work can continue to trap the heat of the sun and the heat realeased by other work for hundreds of years.

Storing Nuclear waste is not an environmental problem it is a political. I'll bet that sooner of later we'll just be shipping it off to Siberia or the high arctic. or some other desolate wasteland for a fee.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:30 AM

Ya, a poor nations' back yard.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:27 AM

If you propose nuclear energy as a solution for CO2 emission, you're proposing it for everybody. That means America, UK, Ireland, Sweden, Germany, Russia, China, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Mexico, Venezuela, Croatia, Serbia, Libya, Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan, Togo, Rwanda, Congo, etc. etc.

Nuclear power is per se dangerous but, with good engineers, controllable. The world has fewer good engineers than it needs. The waste is dangerous, and has to be stored a very long time, because some of the products are both very long- lasting, and can be converted to weapons, either explosive or for contamination.

The nuclear reactor program was never purely for power- in most countries which currently possess reactors, the primary (but secret) purpose was to produce weapons- grade material, much easier using a reactor than by refining the raw uranium.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Janie
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 08:53 AM

Good point, Paul.

Both methods of large scale electricity production carry substantial risks. That is a given. But I think the issue of which one carries less environmental risk has got to be examined with an open mind, given what we are learning both about greenhouse gases and long term effects of radiation disasters.

Barry, I think many people in our generation have an anti-nuclear bias. I know I do. What would one expect from a generation that grew up in the aftermath of Hiroshima and during the Cold War and the Cuban missile crisis. This issue should and will come under increasing discussion and exploration. I think it is important that we try to wiegh costs and benefits objectively. Paul's observation and the very serious concerns about nuclear waste certainly would go onto the cost side of the nuclear power analysis. But the costs/risks of nuclear power may or may not out weigh the risks of continued fossil fuel generation of power. We are just beginning to have enough data to begin to explore the equation. I think we have to explore this with an open mind.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:23 AM

The USA went the Uranium path because the output contains fissionable material - i.e., you can make bombs. The Thorium path doesn't allow that, the waste is radioactive for hundreds, not hundreds of thousands of years, and it is not 'self starting', but needs an 'igniter', either a uranium/thorium mis, or a particle accelerator, which when switched off shuts it all down, i.e., no runaway, no meltdown.

On tonight's Catalyst, but sadly not on their web page currently, was a report about this.

It talked about localised 50 megawatt plants, being suitable for communities, or desalination plants. The plants also can burn all teh current warhead material, removing it from the reach of terrorists, and warmongers.

Australia has much of the world's thorium, BTW... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:33 AM

Build fusion reactors. They can use the current supply of spent rods and convert it into non-dangerous waste. Fusion also produces more energy. And no, I'm not joking.

Take the current waste, pulversize it, mix it with concrete, pour the concrete into cubes about 3 meters on a side, and put them in the desert surrounded by a guarded and fenced perimeter. Let them sit there. I sort of suspect that someday humanity might well want radioactives for energy production.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:55 AM

Yeah, we Aussies invented 'Syn-Rock', Rap...

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:52 PM

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

The USA went the Uranium path because the output contains fissionable material - i.e., you can make bombs. The Thorium path doesn't allow that, the waste is radioactive for hundreds, not hundreds of thousands of years, and it is not 'self starting', but needs an 'igniter', either a uranium/thorium mis, or a particle accelerator, which when switched off shuts it all down, i.e., no runaway, no meltdown.

On tonight's Catalyst, but sadly not on their web page currently, was a report about this.

It talked about localised 50 megawatt plants, being suitable for communities, or desalination plants. The plants also can burn all teh current warhead material, removing it from the reach of terrorists, and warmongers.

Australia has much of the world's thorium, BTW... :-) "




Just one problem- Thorium breeder reactors DO produce fissionable material, ( U234) which can be chemically seperated. So, they actually increase the amount of bomb-grade material available.

Sorry if the facts have gotten in the way again....

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:21 PM

btw,

" The Thorium path doesn't allow that, the waste is radioactive for hundreds, not hundreds of thousands of years,"

Not always good. The significant factor is the radiation released, not the half-life.

" and it is not 'self starting', but needs an 'igniter', either a uranium/thorium mis, or a particle accelerator, which when switched off shuts it all down, i.e., no runaway, no meltdown."

This may be true ( haven't checked) BUT the power produced will exceed the amount used to keep it going ONLY if there is fission occuring. No fission, net power loss. ANY reactor can be designed to avoid runaway- meltdown is caused by overheating, which can happen even to a thorium reactor- In both cases, the amount of fisionable material will determine if the mass will continue to produce heat, and creat a "China syndrome"

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:40 PM

We cannot do a cost/benefit balance for either Nuclear or Fossil Fuel power generation, as we can't fully quantify the risks from climate change, or nuclear waste.

What we can say is that a large proportion of the risks of Nuclear waste come from what people might do with it, either as Goverments or terrorists, and that isn't an engineering problem.

I feel that the problems with nuclear power are more easily soluble than fossil fuels.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:52 PM

The world is searching for 1) energy sources and, 2) water. Both of these are critical to "progress" and "development." Find clean, cheap, and sustainable energy and find clean, cheap and sustainable water and you will go a very long way towards solving many of the world's problems.

As it is, there is an imbalance in both.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:00 PM

"Take the current waste, pulversize it, mix it with concrete, pour the concrete into cubes about 3 meters on a side, and put them in the desert surrounded by a guarded and fenced perimeter. Let them sit there.".....for 30,000 years? In an OPEN desert, where it is a potential target for even simple explosive missles? ummmm...no, thanks. And even if some 'experts' think it's a good idea, try selling it to Utah or Nevada or Arizona...

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 06:22 PM

I worked in the nuclear field for quite a few years. The building and safe operation of fission reactors be they PWR, gas cooled or heavy water is not the problem if the designs are good and the people well trained.

The main problem is the waste. This is not just the actual uranium which can to a certain extent be re-cycled but also the material in contact with it. When a nuclear power plant is decomissioned all the primary pipework needs to be disposed of in a safe manner as it is highly irradiated.

Simple enough but there is far more of this material than actual spent fissile material and that produces the problem of volume and size. The pipework would need to be cut into manageable sizes for burial/disposal.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 01:12 AM

Well, guys, are you trying to tell me that a Science Program on TV would get the scientific facts wrong?

I'm shocked!

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: folk1e
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 10:49 AM

PROBLEM SOLVED!!
Sell All the waste to GWB. Let him pulverise it mix it into concrete blocks and place it on the border with Mexico and voila, no more refugees!
Hey, if someone does blow it up it is the perfect excuse to bomb/ invade them! (not that it is realy needed). He could even get the "chain gangs" to put the blocks in place (no more prisoners)!!!
Wonder if I can do this on commision?


All ideas expressed above are NOT SERIOUS!!
Just in case someone seriously reads them!!

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 11:06 AM

Someone up there mentioned water. Water is one of the two main problems with going nuke.

Humans need water, and a lot of it, to survive. Not have a "lifestyle". Survive.

There may be a time when the generation of nuclear energy isn't in primitive stages that it's in today. Perhaps it can be made safe and efficient, but we aren't there yet.

The problems associated with use of a huge amount of water to generate energy with nukes is never discussed, just like what happens if the waste storage leaks into your water supply is never discussed.

And when your water supply is contaminated, you is fucked.

That's what makes the true cost of nuclear energy far too high.

And by the way, another correction as to what getting energy addiction under control means: a DIFFERENT standard of living, not a LOWERED standard of living.

I for one am looking forward to the day when the consumer addiction to cheap plastic crap is no longer sustainable. Ditto the need for new white sneakers every few months.

There will be many solutions, not just one. But the major paradigm shift will come when we are forced to create small, localized energy generating solutions. Which, BTW, will hopefully lock out the current energy industry as "owners" of our energy, under the bogus guise of "managing" our energy for us.

See, just like democracy, where the price of our freedom is daily citizenship, energy generation will always be about who will chop the wood and carry the water. Because we flabby assed Americans don't want to chop our own wood and carry our own water, we've sold our freedom and our souls for what we think is our human right to be lazy and let someone else do for us what we should be doing for ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 12:24 PM

Fossil fuel stations also use lots of water, Guest.

In Britian, we solved this problem by siting all of our power/weapons materiel reactors on the coast.

Shanghai Celtic, had you seen one of the proposed approaches to the waste? Reprocess the fuel, and for the high level waste, you simply leave it in situ for the time being. You build the replacement reactor next to it, as the site has the infrastructure alrerady, and is clearly suitable. You have the same security round the decomissioned and live reactors, both against terrorists and to moniter the enviromental containment. All you have to do is maintain the building, and you should have experts on site.

You contain contain the stuff you can't deal with easily until we find a way to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 12:34 PM

Righteee-o there Bunnahabhain. But I didn't come into the thread to argue that reliance upon fossil fuels isn't as fucked up as reliance upon nuclear fuel.

The point is, relying upon both of those primitive technologies has gotten us into the fine mess the earth and it's citizens is in.

Neither fossil fuels or nukes are viable alternatives for future energy generation because of their scale and costs. That is what makes them UNsustainable.

But I expect much human suffering will take place before most folks get on board with the fact that we are on the brink of extinction ourselves because of our addiction to current large scale, centralized energy generation.

Another thing most folks never look at is why do we NEED to generate such huge amounts of energy?

The main reason is poor energy design of buildings and structures. I mean, it takes a bit of energy to live in an urban world of glass, concrete and steel, eh? A bit more say, than millions of nice super-insulated, energy efficient, small and human scale inter-dependent hamlets, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 12:51 PM

And what happens, BTW, when "in situ for the time being" goes south on ya?

Answer: it contaminates your water supply, and you is fucked.

Oh, and another thing. When you need a whole god damn ocean to generate energy, and so "site all of our power/weapons materiel reactors on the coast" don't you think you might have a rather inefficient energy generating system?

I mean, think about that for a minute. We need non-polluted ocean water, just like we need non-polluted fresh water to sustain ourselves on this planet. Just what paradigm does a mind live in that thinks of oceans as perpetually pollutable sources of water for energy production and weapons manufacturing?

Idiots think like that, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: MarkS
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 06:35 PM

I heard that the specific radioactivity of power plant waste is high for a short time, but will soon degrade to a radioactive level below that of the ore which the fuel comes from. So a long half life means the specific level of radioactivity is low. I think I would rather live with the additional radioactivity of spent nuclear fuel than the chemical waste products which result in the burning of fossil fuel to generate electricity. You get plenty of chemcial carcinogens from the fossil fuel smokestack, and their half life is infinity.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 06:53 PM

In actual fact, there can be far more radiation released by a conventional ( oil/coal) plant, as that is totally unregulated- even though there are significant impurities in the fuel. Given the amount of coal being burnt, even a low level of radiation adds up to greater than the nuclear plant will release ( when both plants are in normal operation.) The waste problem at end of lfe is the major problem, as nuclear is far cleaner in most aspects during operation.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 08:15 PM

I'd rather live with neither on the scale we are living with today.

And frankly, none of you guys are scientists exactly, so I think I'll trust my opinions to those who know what they are talking about.

Everybody loves nukes until TMI or Chernobyl happens in THEIR backyard.

Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 09:29 PM

NIMBY! NIMBY! NIMBY!

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 09:34 PM

"And frankly, none of you guys are scientists exactly, so I think I'll trust my opinions to those who know what they are talking about."

And none of us are politicians, or diplomats, or generals, either. I guess we have to stop most of these threads...

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 11:37 PM

When it comes to opinion, I have no problem with people speaking their minds.

But when it comes to the scientific ignorance and misinformation in this thread, I do have a problem with people speaking out their asses. So I wouldn't mind threads like this one going away.

People seem to think they "know" shit they clearly don't, and then try and pass off their opinions as fact.

The scariest part of that is, other people begin believing it, because so and so said so...

And before you know it, people start thinking and believing there must only be ONE sane, rational choice, as has been done in this thread. The originator didn't ask what are some of the best practices we should be looking at to end our addiction to fossil fuels and nukes. Oh no. The proposition here is which is most cost effective and beneficial, nukes or fossil fuels.

It's that sort of irrational, single, narrow paradigm thinking that truly frightens me about the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Janie
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 11:55 PM

Thanks for the link, guest. You're right. Most of us are not scientists. But as the lead story in your link proves, science doesn't make the decisions. But an informed and vocal populace can strongly influence choices over time. If we don't start asking questions among ourselves, and weighing what might be acheivable, realistic goals geopolitically, then the science will always take a complete back seat to the politics and power brokers. Many of us baby boomers have strong anti-nuclear biases that certainly made sense given our experiences and what was known and theorized about radiation dangers at the time we formed those biases. There are new issues, now, and new information emerging and it would behoove us to begin anew forming our opinions and biases about those incomplete and partial remedies and solutions that may actually be attainable outcomes on a large scale.

That smaller scale that you speak of (assuming it is the same guest) will occur at the point, probably inevitable, when earth's resources simply will no longer be sufficient to sustain us. The walls WILL come crashing down. As that point is approached, the increasing scarcity of resources will lead to wars that destroy infrastructure and return societies and cultures throughout the world to pretty primative, but sustainable levels for those few people left standing.

Oops. I really drifted here. It is all tied up together though. That day can be delayed, though, and thoughtful people who realize it is time to reeducate ourselves can help wit that.

Janie

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Janie
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 12:03 AM

Your last post went up, Guest, while I was typing mine. I am very mindful of what you are saying. I agree with you. I can do my best at a personal level to live sustainably, and can say that my family moves further in that direction every year. Other people ahead of me on the curve have inspired me to do that, and I can hope that we will inspire more. But on a larger scale, change occurs in very small increments.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 09:04 AM

Janie, the world is already at the point of having wars over resources. Some, like the wars for oil are obvious, as in Iraq. Others, like in Nigeria, aren't.

The same is true for wars over water. Water is being used in the war between Israeli's and Palestinians. Between red states and blue states in the US. But how many people know about the water wars?

I am very cynical about change in this regard. I just don't have any hope for the developed world changing in time to prevent catastrophic and possibly cataclysmic chains of events related to global warming and energy abuse.

I just don't think people are willing to chop wood and carry water for themselves, any more than they are willing to do their duties as citizens to defend their democratic freedoms.

And I'm not talking about a need to create utopias. I'm talking survival. It gets might fucking cold in Minnesota in winter, so I think about energy problems all the time, especially every month when the Xcel Energy bill arrives.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:10 AM

And frankly, none of you guys are scientists exactly, How sure are you about that? Or would you like us to post our CVs before we give an opinion on something?

Everybody loves nukes until TMI or Chernobyl happens in THEIR backyard.

Chernobyl was an unsafe design, that was built to produce plutonium for weapons. The authorites in charge conducted an experiment of turning off all the saftey devices, to see what would happen, and when something did, they delyed any response, for political reasons.
Would you go looking for a gas leak with a cigarette lighter, and then not call an ambulence for a few days, in case you look silly?

Three Mile Island was a tiny incident, scientifically. There was an increase in cancer rates in the area afterwards. They increased most in the areas where it was most heavily reported, not the areas which recieved the greatest dose of radiation. Most of the people worried they had been contaminated were recieving more radiation from their television or microwave than the leak.

(From Edinburgh University Procees Engineering( the people who run reactors) course , lectures, case notes, etc covering saftey and pollution)

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:19 AM

Yes, and my mother in law and sister in law are two of the casualties from TMI.

So Bunnahabhain, that means that nuclear power isn't safe, doesn't it? It doesn't matter what lame ass excuses you use to justify the accidents, the pollution, the health problems associated with the technology. The reality is, radioactive materials are some of the most poisonous substances known to exist, and there is nothing even remotely close to universal agreement that we should use it anyway and sacrifice the people who live in communities where this technology is located.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:59 AM

Guest 11.19 AM, I'll answer any points you make if you give yourself a name. When you post, just use the box, and you'll become Guest NO NUKES. It's only being polite, and allows people to tell one guest from another.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Janie
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 06:36 PM

Guest 15 Apr 06 9:04 a.m.

    You are entirely right. I am no scientist, no specialist on environmental issues, and not particularly well informed about an awful lot of important issues. I started this thread because of the coincidental occurrence that I had just read the National Geographic article and soon after some one on another thread about nuclear war tossed out a similar inquiry, but that was not the place to discuss it.

    It was not, and is not my intent to suggest that coal or nuclear energy are the only options that need to be considered. The introduction to the thread was not perfect and certainly not all inclusive. But it still succeeded in drawing your attention and your thoughts, which I am glad to hear and hope that others will be also.

These are scary times in which we live, eh?

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: podman
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 01:25 PM

I recall a rock song broadcast on California pop radio in late '74. It sounded like it was a famous rock singer (sorta like Jackson Browne) and it went something like:
"My guitar burns a lot of power....."

and the chorus was:

"Give nuclear power one more chance

It sounded either serious, or seriously tongue in cheek.
Haven't heard it since.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: GUEST,clogger
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 03:26 AM

Power stations "use" water in a closed loop system. The steam you see rising from them will condense back to water and end up (roughly) where it started!
Nuke' power stations will slightly increase the ambient temperiture of the sea round them! This is NOT the problem with eather type.
Decontamination of places like Winscale are made worse by the fact that thy were built as prototypes, and as such experiments were made with materials and techniques.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: folk1e
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 05:50 AM

When I was an apprentice there was a goverment edict that 20% of all U.K. ellectricity was to be generated by non fossil fuels. Nuclear was seen as the main contender as it would be cheap and clean! We were lied to! The cost of generating electricity by Nuclear has turned out to be the most expensive of all mainline generation types and we are nowhere near 20%! Forgetting about the finances for a moment we are left with a choice of disposing of radioactive waste OR acid rain.
Personaly I do not want eather!!
At the moment the other "mainline" choice is Wind Turbines but here in the U.K. we seem to be suffering from a bad case of nimbyism! There are other alternatives, but they are being starved of finance.
How about sinking underwater turbines into the gulfstream in the Irish sea (relativly shallow) or a barrage of "ducks" accros a major estuary or two? Now I am getting warmed up what about more Small Hydro plants. I have heard about the Norwegens (I think) drilling 4km down to tap their geothermal plants into an area where water becomes a superliquid (10 times the power output).
Don'y forget the cost/benefit is NOT JUST FINANCIAL

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 06:48 AM

"How about sinking underwater turbines into the gulfstream"

Once the system tips, the Gulf Stream will stop flowing, for a while - probably an eternity compared to the human life span.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: MarkS
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 11:23 AM

There is a larger point we need to make. What is the most environmentally benign way to produce the amount of electricity we need, whatever that number may be?
Once we reach a consensus on how much power we need to support our society, then the debate can be about the safest way to produce it. I suspect the amount of power we rely on will be surprisingly high, and in order to get it, nuke powered generators may be the best of all the alternatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: folk1e
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 12:09 PM

"Once the system tips, the Gulf Stream will stop flowing, for a while -"
Call me a sad overoptomistic git..... but this is to stop the Gulfstream stopping!!
If we let that happen then we are REALY in the "brown & smelly"
MarkS.... how do we get a concensus on how much we need untill we know the cost?
If we live in a capitalistic ecconomic world (and we do) the obvious way foreward is to give guaranteed sales of "Green Power" and to instigate a steadily increasing cost (tax) to the poluters!
Or we can sit round with our heads in the sand untill our arses get burned!
Your move....

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 12:44 PM

I work in the UK power industry and Wind turbines DO NOT,CAN NOT & WILL NOT produce enough power for the UK's needs. Without inside information watch your electric bills rise and do you notice more Power cuts than you used too,thats called load shedding, spread it about people wil not relise.The UK power industry is close to collapse and nearly has done more than once recently.It is a very complicated mechanisim but spend some time to find out you may well be shocked no pun intended.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: folk1e
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 01:48 PM

I have "worked" in the UK power supply industry for 30 years now! Wind turbines can HELP but they are, I concede not the whole answer. If they can not work why is there so mutch "red tape" to stop them? Even if they are of low value they could help to prevent brown outs! If you are looking at "load shedding" you must look at the supply networks as well!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 04:30 PM

There are more sensible renewable power sources we can use, but they cannot be the whole answer. If they are not reliable, then we should not rely on them.

In the UK, Hydroeltricy has some potential, both as some major dams, and micro-power installations, as other countries do. In various areas, such as the S.W USA, where the sun does shine, almost all the time, and there is the space, solar power makes sense.

The standard answer should be Nuclear though. It's not good, but it's less bad than more Fossil fuels.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: Kaleea
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 04:52 PM

nuke or fossil? no. the answer is blowin in the wind, the sun, the rain, . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 08:18 PM

""Once the system tips, the Gulf Stream will stop flowing, for a while -"
Call me a sad overoptomistic git..... but this is to stop the Gulfstream stopping!!"

The problem is that the difference in temperature between the north and south ends of the gulfstream is lessening due to the poles warming up thus the energy to drive it is lessening too (ok - that's VERY SIMPLE language) - taking MORE energy out of the gulfstream will help in what way?

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 09:40 PM

The use of alternate energy sources would slow down the global warming ( in theory), so the temperature difference would be larger.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:17 AM

Not if any of the energy is taken out along the US East coast, where it is not far offshore!

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...