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

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: 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: 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: 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: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 09:29 PM

NIMBY! NIMBY! NIMBY!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:23 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:08 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: 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: 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: 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: 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