This has a nice ring to it: "… Fresh policies to keep their ENDANGERED [Nuclear] reactors operating." (Emphasis mine)
The real cost of nuclear power is hidden in plain sight around Chernobyl, Fukushima and the tons of indestructible nuclear waste festering around the world. Accidents happen, people make mistakes and all situations cannot be foreseen. We don't need a thermonuclear war. The bombs have been dropped all around the world. Timothy Cook
2
I've long been hesitant about the idea that renewables would replace coal and other carbon fuels by 2050. I think it's more realistically 2100. Even when fusion becomes a reality, which is always 20 years away, it's going to be relatively expensive initially and probably take 20 years to become widespread. At the same time, I suspect carbon capturing in the form of sucking C02 out of the air to take a bit to become widespread as well. Further, a lot of the studies I read often don't seem to take into account the one true rule about energy consumption, we seem to always gobble up what we have plus what we discover/invent. Sure we'll have solar, wind, etc.. but our energy needs will increase not just due to China, India & Africa but because society advances continue. A good example, though sour to a point is that the rich seem to be advent guards in new consumption trends (a good discussion by Patrick Sheary of technology in the gilded age brings this to light: https://www.c-span.org/video/?318491-1/american-history-tv-technology-gi.... Clinton's home server is a good example. I too have a server that I recently installed. I suspect servers will grow in homes just as laptops etc. Supercomputers may be just around the corner for consumer usage who prefer not to upload their stuff to the cloud. Energy not just in the developing but also the developed world will increase. I suspect coal with or without Trump will see an increase in demand before the century is over.
We need a more complete understanding of nuclear power issues. I can guarantee it is quite uninformed (aside from the industry not being transparent). For emergent solutions and more complete assessment of issues with nuclear power see http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/1521ac_73578623cbf14d219c70772592abecdd.pdf and http://ufsolution.wixsite.com/unifiedfieldsolution/proven-tech .
1
This article looks as if written by a lobbyist for the Nuclear Power Industry and is not up to the standards I expect of the New York Times or any responsible News Outlet.
1- Nuclear Power is not carbon neutral. The construction of the plants uses massive amounts of concrete and cement that release CO2. About 10% of worldwide releases of CO2 come from Cement and Concrete.
( https://www.marketplace.org/2014/10/21/sustainability/surprising-contrib... ). The processes involved in Uranium mining, processing, handling and storage all are carbon intensive. Finally, the containment vessels for spent waste use have a significant carbon footprint. So while the operation of a Nuclear Plant does not directly release CO2, the entire cycle of the fuel and plant are quite intensive.
So much for carbon neutral.
2- Hazards related to Nuclear Plants. Fukushima and Chernobyl should forever be the trump card to anyone who wants to tout Nuclear Power as safe. Beyond the operation of the plants, there is the issue of waste disposal. Not one county in these United States will accept a Nuclear Waste Disposal facility. Not one. NIMBY in the extreme. Diablo Canyon in California sits a mile from one (Shoreline) and three miles from another (Hosgri) fault- not exactly a safe place for a Nuke Plant.
3 - Third Way is not Centrist. It is Republicanism without the Evangelical baggage masquerading as a moderate outfit. They are only centrist if you are on the radical right.
1- Nuclear Power is not carbon neutral. The construction of the plants uses massive amounts of concrete and cement that release CO2. About 10% of worldwide releases of CO2 come from Cement and Concrete.
( https://www.marketplace.org/2014/10/21/sustainability/surprising-contrib... ). The processes involved in Uranium mining, processing, handling and storage all are carbon intensive. Finally, the containment vessels for spent waste use have a significant carbon footprint. So while the operation of a Nuclear Plant does not directly release CO2, the entire cycle of the fuel and plant are quite intensive.
So much for carbon neutral.
2- Hazards related to Nuclear Plants. Fukushima and Chernobyl should forever be the trump card to anyone who wants to tout Nuclear Power as safe. Beyond the operation of the plants, there is the issue of waste disposal. Not one county in these United States will accept a Nuclear Waste Disposal facility. Not one. NIMBY in the extreme. Diablo Canyon in California sits a mile from one (Shoreline) and three miles from another (Hosgri) fault- not exactly a safe place for a Nuke Plant.
3 - Third Way is not Centrist. It is Republicanism without the Evangelical baggage masquerading as a moderate outfit. They are only centrist if you are on the radical right.
5
The key mischaracterization in this article is the description of nuclear as carbon-free power. On the contrary, a number of steps in the nuclear fuel cycle, most importantly uranium enrichment, are very energy-intensive. It is fair to call nuclear low-carbon, almost as much as solar and wind, but should never be called zero-carbon.
Most importantly, mass adoption of energy efficiency measures such as LED lights is faster, easier and cheaper than continuing to subsidize or increasingly subsidize nuclear power. In 2016 more than 5.5% of US electricity was generated by wind turbines, 1% by solar and significant opportunities exist in re-engineering dams, exploiting geothermal opportunities and biofuels.
Any economist can explain that subsidies once provided to an industry are exceedingly politically difficult to later retract. The US nuclear industry has had subsidies estimated at 5.5 cents per kWh since 1950. In the spirit of free enterprise and Schumpeter's concept of creative destruction, it is time to let this industry fade into historical oblivion. Not unfairly ramp up its support by state and federal governments.
Most importantly, mass adoption of energy efficiency measures such as LED lights is faster, easier and cheaper than continuing to subsidize or increasingly subsidize nuclear power. In 2016 more than 5.5% of US electricity was generated by wind turbines, 1% by solar and significant opportunities exist in re-engineering dams, exploiting geothermal opportunities and biofuels.
Any economist can explain that subsidies once provided to an industry are exceedingly politically difficult to later retract. The US nuclear industry has had subsidies estimated at 5.5 cents per kWh since 1950. In the spirit of free enterprise and Schumpeter's concept of creative destruction, it is time to let this industry fade into historical oblivion. Not unfairly ramp up its support by state and federal governments.
4
The reporter writes that: "When those reactors retire, wind and solar usually cannot expand fast enough to replace the lost power. Instead, coal and natural gas fill the void, causing emissions to rise."
Who says? Solar is growing so fast, nobody can make a prediction like this.
Who says? Solar is growing so fast, nobody can make a prediction like this.
3
I noticed that, too. Whether or not and how fast new technologies expand may depend on public policy decisions.
6
A new heat engine cycle, called the Allen cycle, is reported in the 20 May 2017 issue of "Science", the AAAS journal. It uses CO2 as its working fluid. With intercooling of the compression stages and reheating of the expansion stages, it can closely approach the theoretical Carnot efficiency of an ideal heat engine. A prototype power plant of 10 megawatts capacity has been constructed and is expected to become fully operational this autumn. It is expected to be almost as efficient as the best combined cycle plants, but it is vastly simpler and has less than 1/4 the footprint. Its exhaust product is high pressure pure CO2 suitable for direct injection to depleted oil fields and basaltic rocks that chemically sequester CO2.
It is a revolution in the making.
It is a revolution in the making.
3
Safety is the key issue here. These plants have a design lifetime. They were designed to be shut down after 40 years of service. No amount of wishful thinking can make old nuclear plants safe to operate.
4
Saying that Nuclear Power Plants are good for the environment completely misses the issue of Nuclear Waste which these Plants produce and for which no satisfactory solution has been implemented (or even devised).
6
Read about the Integral Fast Reactor design developed between 1984 and 1994 (not to mention more recent designs). It depends on what you mean by satisfactory. Is it satisfactory that climate is affected for 1000+ years by carbon burning vs 100-200 years of low-level radioactive waste? Just because you say it doesn't mean you know what you're talking about or that what you say is true.
5
As with every other pro-nuclear story, the reporter conveniently omits salient facts about this technology. Where is the discussion of the intractable problem of waste that remains toxic for 10,000 years? Does it stay on site? Do we move massive, highly radioactive casks on our crumbling roads, rails and bridges to a permanent repository that does not yet exist?
If renewables were given the sweet subsidies that nuclear has always enjoyed, we would be decades closer to a responsible and visionary energy future.
If renewables were given the sweet subsidies that nuclear has always enjoyed, we would be decades closer to a responsible and visionary energy future.
12
The article does not mention the incredible quantities of climate change gasses released into our atmosphere during the mining, milling, enrichment and transportation of the uranium that reactors use for fuel
3
This article misreports who opposes nuclear bailouts (not just fossil-fuel firms but also regional grids and many environmentalists); ignores the harm to competitive markets and competing carbon-free resources when political mandates replace market competition; mischaracterizes the new nuclear lobby group misnamed Environmental Progress; confusingly alludes to the baseload myth; and uncritically accepts the claim that closing reactors means burning more gas (in Vermont, for example, efficiency and renewables caught up in less than two years).
Most importantly, the article's basic thesis is wrong. Continuing to operate distressed nuclear plants would generally harm the climate, not protect it, because their operating costs are several times the total costs of other carbon-free resources (chiefly efficiency, sometimes renewables) that could be bought by reinvesting the avoided nuclear operating costs, as state regulators would require. That substitution would save both carbon and money (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=14575878), as the agreed orderly shutdown of California's twin Diablo Canyon reactors is designed to do (https://www.forbes.com/sites/amorylovins/2016/06/22/close-a-nuclear-plan.... Thus the article’s thesis and headline are exactly backwards.
Most importantly, the article's basic thesis is wrong. Continuing to operate distressed nuclear plants would generally harm the climate, not protect it, because their operating costs are several times the total costs of other carbon-free resources (chiefly efficiency, sometimes renewables) that could be bought by reinvesting the avoided nuclear operating costs, as state regulators would require. That substitution would save both carbon and money (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=14575878), as the agreed orderly shutdown of California's twin Diablo Canyon reactors is designed to do (https://www.forbes.com/sites/amorylovins/2016/06/22/close-a-nuclear-plan.... Thus the article’s thesis and headline are exactly backwards.
11
The article misses a critical difference between nuclear and renewables: base load vs intermittent. Nuclear generates carbon free emissions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week 95% of the time, rain or shine. Wind and solar are not capable of providing a stable base load without equally large investments in energy storage, so replacing 20% of US power generation that nuclear provides isn't just a matter of subsidizing more renewables.
Nuclear power base load plus wind and solar with gas turbine for dispatchable peak shaving makes for a reliable and clean grid. without nuclear, we will be burning carbon fuels all night long on the dog days of summer, regardless of how many solar panels we install.
Nuclear power base load plus wind and solar with gas turbine for dispatchable peak shaving makes for a reliable and clean grid. without nuclear, we will be burning carbon fuels all night long on the dog days of summer, regardless of how many solar panels we install.
12
Go to the head of the class. You nailed it brother. By any chance, are you an engineer ?
3
Finally, a small breeze of reason starting to dispel the fog of antinuke hysteria. Earth needs every non-fossil power source, wind, Solar, and nuclear, to have any chance of stopping the slow-motion apocalypse of climate change while achieving economic justice and development for all peoples. France and Finland have learned how to safely operate nuclear power plants and dispose of their waste; so can we.
12
It's most likely too late for nuclear power in the US. All the design and engineering expertise exists in other countries now. The US will most likely be buying nuclear power plant designs from China if at all.
This is unfortunate because behaviorally humans are easily influenced by fear, uncertainty and doubt. Carbon fuels have killed, caused suffering and will continue to cause suffering far into the future vastly greater numbers of humans and and cause greater short term and long term harm to the environment than nuclear power ever has or will.
Worse yet is that the complete collapse of the nuclear power industry meant that any design improvements from R&D and investment never came to fruition. It ended up being a dead end career and withered away. Those improvements today would result in Gen III, Gen III+ and Gen IV designs that greatly reduce proliferation and waste issues normally associated with nuclear power generation and are many times more efficient in their "burning" of fuel. Even current nuclear waste can be reprocessed into usable fuel in these new reactor designs.
Rarely do people admit to being wrong and it will only be until greater harm is done to the environment and human lives before nuclear power generation is seen as a viable option and it has nothing to do with the engineering or science but everything to do with FUD.
This is unfortunate because behaviorally humans are easily influenced by fear, uncertainty and doubt. Carbon fuels have killed, caused suffering and will continue to cause suffering far into the future vastly greater numbers of humans and and cause greater short term and long term harm to the environment than nuclear power ever has or will.
Worse yet is that the complete collapse of the nuclear power industry meant that any design improvements from R&D and investment never came to fruition. It ended up being a dead end career and withered away. Those improvements today would result in Gen III, Gen III+ and Gen IV designs that greatly reduce proliferation and waste issues normally associated with nuclear power generation and are many times more efficient in their "burning" of fuel. Even current nuclear waste can be reprocessed into usable fuel in these new reactor designs.
Rarely do people admit to being wrong and it will only be until greater harm is done to the environment and human lives before nuclear power generation is seen as a viable option and it has nothing to do with the engineering or science but everything to do with FUD.
11
Unless someone is totally comfortable living adjacent to a nuclear power plant, OR a depository for the highly radioactive waste that they produce, there is no conversation to be had in terms of promoting the use of nuclear power. Its that simple. I believe our salvation from burning fossil fuel for our primary source of energy lies in the continued perfection and efficiency of solar and wind power. There is undoubtedly room for major advances in both technologies, as witnessed over the last decade.
The expense of safeguarding against a nuclear disaster will most certainly prevent it from being cost effective in the long run......and even then, the grave consequences of failure far outweigh the benefit. To use it as today's answer will only make it tomorrows dilemma.
The expense of safeguarding against a nuclear disaster will most certainly prevent it from being cost effective in the long run......and even then, the grave consequences of failure far outweigh the benefit. To use it as today's answer will only make it tomorrows dilemma.
6
Clearly there is a direct benefit of nuclear with respect to carbon emission. That emission, unlike the isolated and relatively compact nuclear spent fuel, represents a wholesale spreading of pollution throughout the atmosphere. However, one might also consider the potential energy benefits associated with spent fuel. Geothermal power is believed to be produced by radioactive decay. The radioactive energy of the spent fuel can be harnessed as well. The quality of the energy can be established through increasing the temperature made available from the waste through engineered systems.
Please do not forget that nuclear energy is the basis for solar (fusion), geothermal (radioactive decay) and even wind, as it too is driven by temperature/pressure gradients produced by the sun.
Please do not forget that nuclear energy is the basis for solar (fusion), geothermal (radioactive decay) and even wind, as it too is driven by temperature/pressure gradients produced by the sun.
1
As to socializing risk, the idea of potentially having to provide a cesium letter on top of the radon letter, the termite letter and, in some parts of the country, a Chinese drywall letter when you sell your home should give anyone living near a nuclear power plant pause.
2
Water consumption and contamination are overlooked, as are climate-related shutdowns. "In 2008, nuclear power plants withdrew 8 times as much freshwater as natural gas plants per unit of energy produced ... water used for cooling is discharged back into the lake, river or ocean, with a temperature increase of up to 30 degrees. ... Uranium fuel extraction, for example, requires 45-150 gallons of water per megawatt-hour of electricity produced and uranium mining has contaminated surface or ground water sources in at least 14 states." Etc. Union of Concerned Scientists fact sheet "Nuclear Power and Water," 2011.
"The European heatwave has forced nuclear power plants to reduce or halt production. ... France, where nuclear power provides more than three quarters of electricity, has also imported power to prevent shortages." The Guardian, July 29, 2006
"The European heatwave has forced nuclear power plants to reduce or halt production. ... France, where nuclear power provides more than three quarters of electricity, has also imported power to prevent shortages." The Guardian, July 29, 2006
4
I'm against these plants for the simple reasons of potential leaks and the nuclear waste lasting thousands of years.
6
Living between Hanford and the Idaho Nuclear Engineering Laboratory as we do, upwind one way or another, no more of these plants until it's safe enough to keep your darn nuclear waste right where you use the power, in Manhattan or downtown Chicago. We sure don't need any more of your deadly, risky garbage around here.
7
At last, one of the few articles pointing out a few facts about nuclear. We need more nuclear power, not less. A clean and green low carbon economy with more electric cars, electric heat and air conditioning in our homes, and cheap electricity for our industries requires the enormous capacity of nuclear energy to provide base load. Please don't sabotage it by claiming the waste problem is bigger and less manageable than it is. Talk to the French. Yes, we do need safer plants and continued work to make nuclear even better than it is, let's get on with it. Wind and solar are not going to bail us out, that energy is too diffuse to make much of a dent in the real problem.
14
Last I heard Japan is still planning on building 45 coal fired power plants to replace their nuclear plants, and Germany is burning more lignite coal as a result of early shutdown of their nuclear plants and the intermittent nature of solar and wind power. Lignite is an especially dirty fossil fuel. Ironic that 'greenies' may get their way in shutting down nuclear, at the expense of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Their effect on the planet is no different than climate change deniers.
10
Can someone tell me why the are so expensive to run AFTER THEY ARE BUILT?
Isn't most of the cost in construction of the plant? Some people, yes, but do you need to keep shoveling in uranium? Or what?
Isn't most of the cost in construction of the plant? Some people, yes, but do you need to keep shoveling in uranium? Or what?
2
Operating costs are higher due to high quality standards. Simple processes that are inexpensive at conventional plants are very high at nuclear plants. For example upgrading a light bulb from fluorescent to LED can cost thousands of dollars just to make sure the new bulb won't cause any issues with critical systems (change in current, radio interference, etc).
2
It's primarily labor costs, and not for running the plant, but for all the administration of maintaining a regulated license, which means positive proof of performing preventative and corrective maintenance with high quality materials, and all the evaluations that go with that. The fuel costs are almost negligible.
In coal and gas plants, it's the reverse - almost no labor or materials costs (you can run components to failure), but high costs for fuel - except for right now when gas is cheap.
In coal and gas plants, it's the reverse - almost no labor or materials costs (you can run components to failure), but high costs for fuel - except for right now when gas is cheap.
4
zero-emissions nuclear power sounds great,
until the plant core melts down
And starts emitting radiation.
Then it's too late to run.
Death by the hundreds and thousands.
Horrible, slow deaths.
until the plant core melts down
And starts emitting radiation.
Then it's too late to run.
Death by the hundreds and thousands.
Horrible, slow deaths.
4
As geologist and having worked on WIPP and Yucca Mountain - storing at the plants is not feasible. There is no tested engineered solutions storing waste 10,000-50,000 years. That was decided in 1955. Bet against civilization - anything man made will fail over long time periods. Geologic requires a political solution. And for transportation advocates you are correct - we must deal with the waste we have and if we invest in nuclear it needs to be a no waste design
4
In addition, as I understand the waste storage proposals to date for Yucca Mountain, it actually would mean more (dangerous) transportation of waste and even less actual storage at Yucca Mountain than to date. Its another political ruse thrown out to appease constituents with no solution at all (or worse). Now I discover that very little waste would even qualify for storage there. Also there are geologic problems. See https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/02/09/americas-high-level-n... . Simplistic solutions will only cause more problems.
The article notes nothing about the 50,000 tons of highly radioactive spent fuel. Adequate large-scale reprocessing facilities for spent fuel do not exist in this country, nor storage sites for the unrecoverable toxic remnants with half-lives of tens of thousands of years. There is no transportation system on which the waste could be shipped across the country safely and securely. Storing the unprocessed spent fuel in pools and dry casks at the plants safely and securely for eons to come will cost. Adding to this legacy by keeping the reactors running on subsidies until they irreparably break is neither sustainable nor responsible.
6
Storing the unprocessed spent fuel in pools and dry casks at the plants safely and securely for eons to come will cost. - As geologist and having worked on WIPP and Yucca Mountain - storing at the plants is not feasible. There no tested engineered solutions for what you suggest that need to last 10,000-50,000 years. Geologic or seabed isolation requires a political solution.. Bet against civilization - anything man made will fail over long time periods.
4
I was thinking of the terrorist threat.
Nuclear power is un-sustainable. It looks good if we externalize the cost. We have NO PLAN to store the waste. A San Onofre Calif plant specialist was interviewed on NPR. When asked their plan if there's an earthquake he said no problem they are engineered all the way up to a 7.0 quake. When asked what if a bigger quake happened and they ran out of diesel fuel to power the cooling system for the spent fuel rods, what would they do? His response: evacuate 9-20 million people in Southern Calif. Really? Nuclear energy is a time bomb. Look closely at Fukashima. Hubris says we can handle this. How's that been working out for us. Are we accidentally planning our own extinction? Energy conservation, switching to rail use, wind & solar. Germany now gets 70% of their electricity from true renewables, not nuclear.
11
While people are correct that nuclear power only looks economically good when you externalize the costs, the same can be said of coal and gas when you consider the externalized costs associated with catastrophic global warming.
4
Germany's renewables mix is overwhelmingly biomass burning.
1
If anyone is actually interested in looking at the details of nuclear waste...here are two links.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/what-are-nuclear-wastes.aspx
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nucl...
http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/what-are-nuclear-wastes.aspx
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nucl...
1
Shut them all down as fast as possible. Secure the huge amounts of deadly waste they contain. Otherwise, climate change and sea level rise will make cause Fukushima's all over this country.
8
The actual amount of high-level waste from any nuclear plant is extremely small, just a few oil barrels per year.
2
Joke of the day: “Zero emissions nuclear power.”
You neglected to mention nuclear power's 12,000-year radioactive waste — and unresolved, ongoing catastrophes such as Hanford’s leaking nuclear mess in Washington state, and Chernobyl in Ukraine.
If your only yardstick is zero emissions then nuclear makes sense, otherwise this poison is an enormous burden on present and future generations, and testimony to our collective insanity.
You neglected to mention nuclear power's 12,000-year radioactive waste — and unresolved, ongoing catastrophes such as Hanford’s leaking nuclear mess in Washington state, and Chernobyl in Ukraine.
If your only yardstick is zero emissions then nuclear makes sense, otherwise this poison is an enormous burden on present and future generations, and testimony to our collective insanity.
12
What does the weapons complex (Hanford) and the old Soviet Union have to do with the merits of modern nuclear power?
Actual salient facts:
Fossil power generation has caused ~10 million deaths, along with global warming, over the ~50 years nuclear power has been around.
Over that same 50 years, non-Soviet nuclear power has caused 0-100 deaths (~100 being the most pessimistic estimates for Fukushima). That's at least a factor of 100,000 less than fossil generation, before global warming is considered.
Waste streams from other industries and energy sources, including coal and oil, and possibly even wind and solar, will pose a far larger hazard over the very long term.
Actual salient facts:
Fossil power generation has caused ~10 million deaths, along with global warming, over the ~50 years nuclear power has been around.
Over that same 50 years, non-Soviet nuclear power has caused 0-100 deaths (~100 being the most pessimistic estimates for Fukushima). That's at least a factor of 100,000 less than fossil generation, before global warming is considered.
Waste streams from other industries and energy sources, including coal and oil, and possibly even wind and solar, will pose a far larger hazard over the very long term.
25
Splitting atom to boil water is foolish.
When there is a solar energy spill, we call it a sunny day.
When there is a solar energy spill, we call it a sunny day.
12
Do you realize that massive solar expansion means much more mining waste and toxic landfills than proven deep repositories for nuclear waste and tiny footprint from uranium mining?
Can you please do a story on the state of perpetually polluted groundwater sources that accompany this natural gas glut.
5
About fifty years ago the US government built several experimental nuclear reactors. One was a solid uranium fueled, high pressure water cooled design such as the many in use today. The other was a liquid thorium fueled, low-pressure reactor built at the request of the Air Force, which intended its use in an airplane capable of flying for extended periods without refueling. With the advent of ICBMs, this thorium reactor was abandoned, and because the uranium reactor could produce plutonium for nuclear warheads, this became the basis for the modern reactor.
The uranium reactor has a number of disadvantages: Solid fuel is awkward and demanding to fabricate, handle, control, and dispose of. The high-pressure coolant (water) requires large containment vessel in case a leak causes it to expand to steam. Loss of control (meltdown) can be disastrous.
The thorium reactor, on the other hand, uses liquid fuel (molten thorium salts), is cooled at low pressure, and has the ability to consume plutonium. It is relatively safe, with the ability to shut itself down in an accident. Thorium is widely available.
I understand the Chinese are planning a number of thorium reactors, using the data from our own experiments many years ago. I hope to see more interest on the part of our government, and more information provided to the public (lookin' at you, NYT).
The uranium reactor has a number of disadvantages: Solid fuel is awkward and demanding to fabricate, handle, control, and dispose of. The high-pressure coolant (water) requires large containment vessel in case a leak causes it to expand to steam. Loss of control (meltdown) can be disastrous.
The thorium reactor, on the other hand, uses liquid fuel (molten thorium salts), is cooled at low pressure, and has the ability to consume plutonium. It is relatively safe, with the ability to shut itself down in an accident. Thorium is widely available.
I understand the Chinese are planning a number of thorium reactors, using the data from our own experiments many years ago. I hope to see more interest on the part of our government, and more information provided to the public (lookin' at you, NYT).
16
There was one problem with the liquid thorium salt system- corrosion. A current project is attempting to use that technology. In an interview with one of the engineers I saw last year, the engineer said she hoped to get the component lifetimes up to around 10 years. So that technology might have a way to go to be reliable and economic.
3
Molten salt plants are not unique to the thorium/U233 cycle. Uranium235/plutonium can be used as well. There are advantages to both with the u233 fuel producing less long-lived waste—which is very good.
Plutonium production reactors are operated differently than nuclear plants designed to produce electricity. The molten salt design was not abandoned due to inability to produce plutonium—it can produce plutonium just fine using a U235/Pu cycle. Water is just much easier to handle and operate with the reactor physics being easier as well.
Molten salt is not a panacea. Materials problem with the corrosiveness of salt is a very big issue as the plant won’t last much past about 10 years. Replacing components that have molten salt in them...not easy. The development of “online” reprocessing of the fuel is also needed and that technology has not been developed for that yet…and it will be a bit.
China is developing different types of nuclear plants. However, their plans currently include building light water reactors using the uranium cycle with 30 under construction and many more planned.
Plutonium production reactors are operated differently than nuclear plants designed to produce electricity. The molten salt design was not abandoned due to inability to produce plutonium—it can produce plutonium just fine using a U235/Pu cycle. Water is just much easier to handle and operate with the reactor physics being easier as well.
Molten salt is not a panacea. Materials problem with the corrosiveness of salt is a very big issue as the plant won’t last much past about 10 years. Replacing components that have molten salt in them...not easy. The development of “online” reprocessing of the fuel is also needed and that technology has not been developed for that yet…and it will be a bit.
China is developing different types of nuclear plants. However, their plans currently include building light water reactors using the uranium cycle with 30 under construction and many more planned.
Thorium designs really deserve a chance to get out from under the shadow of uranium nuclear reactors, as they are a very different and much better technology.
2
Spent nuclear power plant "fuel", even when isolated as best we know how, remains deadly for MANY thousands of years longer than civilization has existed, probably longer than current-version humans have existed. No way will humans ever be able to keep this lethal poison under constant safe control. Shut down all nuclear power plants now, military/Navy ships included, and never build another.
6
If nuclear waste is so deadly, how come next to no one has died from it outside a few suspect accidents in Soviet Union?
1
Ah, for the halcyon days of the late 1950s:
"Electric power too cheap to meter."
"Clean as the driven snow power."
"Electric power too cheap to meter."
"Clean as the driven snow power."
2
Not one word about energy conservation and efficiency!
For example LED lamps use 15% of the electricity of the lamps they replace. There are similar technologies for water heating and space conditioning. For example an advanced hybrid water heater sold at Home Depot uses about 30% as much energy as a conventional electric water heater.
You say that wind and solar are not continuously available. However the advanced digital electric grid can manage loads to balance supply with demand. Battery and other storage technologies can fill in for the rest.
For example LED lamps use 15% of the electricity of the lamps they replace. There are similar technologies for water heating and space conditioning. For example an advanced hybrid water heater sold at Home Depot uses about 30% as much energy as a conventional electric water heater.
You say that wind and solar are not continuously available. However the advanced digital electric grid can manage loads to balance supply with demand. Battery and other storage technologies can fill in for the rest.
2
I like many things about this article.
It clarifies how much climate progress will suffer if we allow these plants to close (and provides comparisons of how much non-emitting energy these plants provide, vs. renewable sources, etc..).
It correctly characterizes the opposition to the small state nuclear subsidies as fossil fuel interests, as opposed to "environmentalists". As the fossil fuel generation that would mainly be used in lieu of nuclear emits CO2 and is thousands of times as harmful/risky to public health, opposition to nuclear is a profoundly anti-environmental position.
And finally, it says that what we really need is a technology-neutral, market based solution that puts a price on CO2 emissions (and, ideally, also on emissions of pollution that harms public health) and lets the market decide how to respond. That is, all means of emissions reduction get to compete on a fair level playing field, and merit, as opposed to politics, determines the winner. The best approach of all is the carbon fee and dividend policy advocated by the Citizens' Climate Lobby (google them to read about the policy - better yet, join the organization).
It clarifies how much climate progress will suffer if we allow these plants to close (and provides comparisons of how much non-emitting energy these plants provide, vs. renewable sources, etc..).
It correctly characterizes the opposition to the small state nuclear subsidies as fossil fuel interests, as opposed to "environmentalists". As the fossil fuel generation that would mainly be used in lieu of nuclear emits CO2 and is thousands of times as harmful/risky to public health, opposition to nuclear is a profoundly anti-environmental position.
And finally, it says that what we really need is a technology-neutral, market based solution that puts a price on CO2 emissions (and, ideally, also on emissions of pollution that harms public health) and lets the market decide how to respond. That is, all means of emissions reduction get to compete on a fair level playing field, and merit, as opposed to politics, determines the winner. The best approach of all is the carbon fee and dividend policy advocated by the Citizens' Climate Lobby (google them to read about the policy - better yet, join the organization).
6
I'd keep the reactors running until they age out. All petroleum sources that have been found have been exhausted quickly. The new fraking produced gases will be burned up as well.
In the meantime, if the reactors are closed the United States becomes subject to economic extortion by the producers and transporters of petroleum products, oils and gas. We saw that happen in the Ukraine, as the powers in Europe tried to extort taxes from the Russians for transport of their gas into Europe. We are seeing it in the middle east as several nations fight over the use of the gas and oil pipelines they have and those they hope to build.
Nuclear power plants cost a lot to build, they cost a lot to decomission and they require upkeep. There is no benefit to shutting them down because all savings will be taxed away into the pockets of the petroleum interests who will control the energy market.
In the meantime, if the reactors are closed the United States becomes subject to economic extortion by the producers and transporters of petroleum products, oils and gas. We saw that happen in the Ukraine, as the powers in Europe tried to extort taxes from the Russians for transport of their gas into Europe. We are seeing it in the middle east as several nations fight over the use of the gas and oil pipelines they have and those they hope to build.
Nuclear power plants cost a lot to build, they cost a lot to decomission and they require upkeep. There is no benefit to shutting them down because all savings will be taxed away into the pockets of the petroleum interests who will control the energy market.
4
40 years ago environmentalists considered nuclear power plants as satanic. they invoked the fears of meltdowns, operator criminality, coverups and mass poisoning. remember the "china syndrome"? the amount of lawsuits, protests and contrived regulations aimed at nuclear power forced many utilities to shutter plants that were in the process of construction. the usa could easily have 200 reactors today, all emitting -0- of the dreaded greenhouse gases. extremist environmentalists dont want natural gas, nuclear, coal, wind (kills to many birds), hydro (confuses trout) or tidal (flipper may get caught). catering to the many environmental special interest groups has caused the usa jobs and yes, a cleaner environment.
4
So, in my Catskills neighborhood, a recent wind turbine proposal was shot down by lots of liberals insisting that the horrid turbines would ruin that precious resource, the "viewshed". And then here in town a proposed solar panel farm was brought to a crashing halt by folks who insisted on a decades long chemical monitoring to evaluate strange chemicals leaching out of the panels It's such a tragedy that atomic power is so controversial. It has provided 80% of French power for decades now, with never an accident.
16
What becomes readily apparent reading these comments is how uninformed the general public is regarding the risks associated primarily with the storage of spent nuclear fuel, but also with the operation of nuclear power plants.
One, the risk associated with storage of spent nuclear waste as nothing to do with radiation concerns. A plant, once subcritical for a short duration of time, has no risk of "meltdown" as people imagine; the decay heat associated with fission has decayed to negligible levels that generate no more heat than can be dissipated by ambient loses to the environment. While the material itself if very radioactive, it takes very little in the way of containment to contain this radioactivity. The only feasible way to suffer any exposure would be to be within very close proximity to the waste, which then makes it a matter of security more than radioactivity itself. This is especially true in civilian plants, where the enrichment levels are so low that there remains very little fissionable material once the fuel is spent (this effectively means that there is not enough fissionable material to sustain the chain reaction required to maintain criticality, the nuclear equivalent to running out of gas). This then leaves the issue of nuclear proliferation, as spent nuclear waste could feasibly be used in a nuclear weapon...but even then, the scale of the operation that would be required to remove nuclear fuel from any facility; it would take a literal army.
One, the risk associated with storage of spent nuclear waste as nothing to do with radiation concerns. A plant, once subcritical for a short duration of time, has no risk of "meltdown" as people imagine; the decay heat associated with fission has decayed to negligible levels that generate no more heat than can be dissipated by ambient loses to the environment. While the material itself if very radioactive, it takes very little in the way of containment to contain this radioactivity. The only feasible way to suffer any exposure would be to be within very close proximity to the waste, which then makes it a matter of security more than radioactivity itself. This is especially true in civilian plants, where the enrichment levels are so low that there remains very little fissionable material once the fuel is spent (this effectively means that there is not enough fissionable material to sustain the chain reaction required to maintain criticality, the nuclear equivalent to running out of gas). This then leaves the issue of nuclear proliferation, as spent nuclear waste could feasibly be used in a nuclear weapon...but even then, the scale of the operation that would be required to remove nuclear fuel from any facility; it would take a literal army.
21
I have no problem with atomic energy plants, provided they are much smaller than the giant structures created in the past more easily controllable in case of meltdowns. By now the technology to make them safer has probably dramatically increased. It is still by far the cleanest form of energy, along with solar energy we should be able to satisfy and sustain our energy needs.
3
Has anyone considered that, according to one study, replacing one nuclear power plat requires 108,000 acres of wind turbines? Or 13,320 acres of solar panels? "Renewables" have environmental impacts on the habitats in which they are placed, require access roads for service and maintenance, and won't work when weather & lighting conditions do not cooperate. Nuclear is a valuable part of the energy equation that should not get tossed aside.
http://www.entergy-arkansas.com/content/news/docs/AR_Nuclear_One_Land_Us...
http://www.entergy-arkansas.com/content/news/docs/AR_Nuclear_One_Land_Us...
21
Wind power is compatible with farming so the area it requires is of little consequence. Solar PV can be put on existing rooftops. The Tesla system, with battery storage for a day or two, takes less than a typical rooftop area to power a house. Expensive now, but it will pay for itself over the life of its installation.
3
This article, and most about nuclear power, fail to include the cost we all shoulder for a complete indemnification of nuclear power. Our property insurance excludes radiation. The cost of new fuel and disposal, aka decommisioning, are not included. And as for solar. why doesn't every roof with an approximately southern exposure have solar panels?
7
We need to address the spent fuel rod storage issue and once that is safely put behind us the promise of carbon free electricity is very real. One would have thought we had solved the issues before spending billions on Yucca mountain but apparently that was just a big sink hole for taxpayer dollars. I sure wish someone could be held accountable for that waste of taxpayer dollars.
As far as ignoring the nuclear option, maybe we should be careful what we wish for, if nuclear goes away, carbon emissions will rise.
Interesting though that for 10 years the price of electricity has dropped by 50%. Well I live in Pennsylvania and my electric rates have been rising consistently for years now. Maybe the profits of the utilities should be considered for funding to keep the nukes operating. And we need to use Yucca mountain, we have kicked the can down the road long enough.
As far as ignoring the nuclear option, maybe we should be careful what we wish for, if nuclear goes away, carbon emissions will rise.
Interesting though that for 10 years the price of electricity has dropped by 50%. Well I live in Pennsylvania and my electric rates have been rising consistently for years now. Maybe the profits of the utilities should be considered for funding to keep the nukes operating. And we need to use Yucca mountain, we have kicked the can down the road long enough.
1
I really, really, really, really, really want to replace all the fossil fuel plants in the world with renewable energy. I REALLY do. The problem is is that it is not currently technologically feasible. The falling cost of battery storage possibly makes 50% of the energy from renewables possible. When we decide to use peak electricity to produce hydrogen and then use that hydrogen to generate electricity when the sun doesn't shine for a period of a few days, in the winter etc. 100% renewable will be possible. That option is currently very expensive and the battery storage option for short term storage is not very cheap either.
Environmentalists have to make some hard choices if we want to make a serious dent in the global warming problem. We are currently in sort of a "euphoria" state about renewables. We are so excited about how much energy we can generate with the new technology that we are ignoring its current limitations. There are currently 500 nuclear power plants in the world. If we increase the number to about 3000 and continue to grow our renewable energy capacity the world can accomplish what france already has - virtually eliminating fossil fuels for the generation of electricity. Because France has done this they produce less than half the greenhouse gases per capita as the USA and western europe. Because of sequestration, if the world cuts green house gas production by 50% CO2 levels in the atmosphere will begin to plateau and even drop.
Environmentalists have to make some hard choices if we want to make a serious dent in the global warming problem. We are currently in sort of a "euphoria" state about renewables. We are so excited about how much energy we can generate with the new technology that we are ignoring its current limitations. There are currently 500 nuclear power plants in the world. If we increase the number to about 3000 and continue to grow our renewable energy capacity the world can accomplish what france already has - virtually eliminating fossil fuels for the generation of electricity. Because France has done this they produce less than half the greenhouse gases per capita as the USA and western europe. Because of sequestration, if the world cuts green house gas production by 50% CO2 levels in the atmosphere will begin to plateau and even drop.
5
Having been involved in both Naval Nuclear and Commercial Nuclear, and both boiling water (BWR) and pressurized water (PWR) reactors, the two major hurdles that are still unknown are, continuing regulatory changes and long term fuel storage. We have not as nation come to grips with an underground storage facility at Yucca Mountain of a similar location. There was an excellent article on this subject in the NY Times just recently in Finland. It can be done but local communities need to be involved with the onset of “where to store the fuel”.
The other major hurdle is the continuing changes made by the NRC. They may be necessary but it’s a killer to the industry. The best example is recent. Westinghouse Electric a subsidiary of Toshiba declared bankruptcy a month or two ago. They were the prime contractor for the design of a nuclear plants currently under construction, the Vogtle Plant in GA. It is now questionable whether it will restart. These changing regulations were also a major detriment to the nuclear industry decades ago and it continues.
Those two issues need to be resolved before nuclear power stages a comeback. In the meantime, all the spent fuel rods are sitting on the various plant sites throughout the country in what in my day were called interim fuel storage facilities. Not a safe place.
The other major hurdle is the continuing changes made by the NRC. They may be necessary but it’s a killer to the industry. The best example is recent. Westinghouse Electric a subsidiary of Toshiba declared bankruptcy a month or two ago. They were the prime contractor for the design of a nuclear plants currently under construction, the Vogtle Plant in GA. It is now questionable whether it will restart. These changing regulations were also a major detriment to the nuclear industry decades ago and it continues.
Those two issues need to be resolved before nuclear power stages a comeback. In the meantime, all the spent fuel rods are sitting on the various plant sites throughout the country in what in my day were called interim fuel storage facilities. Not a safe place.
7
Before we start discussing nuclear power, we need to talk about the storage of radioactive waste these nuclear plants produce. What ever happened to Yucca Mountain? Oh, right--Nevada managed to block it. Billions spent. Nothing stored.
"Under a 1982 law, the federal government was supposed to begin moving nuclear waste to a permanent location by 1998. There is currently more than 70,000 metric tons of waste stored at U.S. nuclear power plants."
1998 was nearly 20 years ago, all that waste is still stored at the power plants.
Solve that problem first, then we'll talk. In the meantime solar, wind, and battery storage costs will continue to dive, and the cost of a single nuclear power plant is around $10 billion.
"Under a 1982 law, the federal government was supposed to begin moving nuclear waste to a permanent location by 1998. There is currently more than 70,000 metric tons of waste stored at U.S. nuclear power plants."
1998 was nearly 20 years ago, all that waste is still stored at the power plants.
Solve that problem first, then we'll talk. In the meantime solar, wind, and battery storage costs will continue to dive, and the cost of a single nuclear power plant is around $10 billion.
9
What you describe here is largely a political problem, not an environmental one. The volume of high level waste is so small that present NPPs can accumulate them to their backyards for centuries with no ill effect.
When nuclear was being marketed to the public, one selling point was the ability to recycle spent fuel rods. However, because of the Plutonium produced in the reactors, spent fuel rods are NOT recycled. They still contain enriched levels of Uranium, just not high enough for producing electricity.
This was a Political decision, NOT a technical decision!!
This was a Political decision, NOT a technical decision!!
Renewable issues on materials… MIT solar renewables site.
Energy density is a paramount issue because solar cells require lots of materials as a result.
"...The amount of silver required to support c-Si PV deployment at the scale required in the 100% penetration case, assuming current material intensities, would correspond to roughly half the global cumulative production of silver since 1900. Complete reliance on CdTe or CIGS PV at current material intensities, on the other hand, would require the production of roughly 76 times more tellurium and 43 times more gallium, respectively, for use in PV installations than has ever been produced for all other uses combined..."
"...Deploying 25 TWp of Cd Te PV capacity would require the equivalent of 35 years of global cadmium production and 1,400 years of global tellurium production at current rates..."
Cadmium, silver and tellurium are not going to become cheap anytime. Especially since tellurium is less abundant than gold. And wind power uses niobium and dysprosium--not exactly plentiful stuff.
A Stanford study for 100% renewables is interesting. Using solar, wind, geothermal, ocean…. A boundary calc was done on power only.
The offshore component for wind power required about 150,000 installations. That would require 10 to 15 installations per day for about 30 years. Since their lifecycles is about 30 years, replacement would need to be continuous--and that was only off shore wind.
Solutions are just not that simple.
Energy density is a paramount issue because solar cells require lots of materials as a result.
"...The amount of silver required to support c-Si PV deployment at the scale required in the 100% penetration case, assuming current material intensities, would correspond to roughly half the global cumulative production of silver since 1900. Complete reliance on CdTe or CIGS PV at current material intensities, on the other hand, would require the production of roughly 76 times more tellurium and 43 times more gallium, respectively, for use in PV installations than has ever been produced for all other uses combined..."
"...Deploying 25 TWp of Cd Te PV capacity would require the equivalent of 35 years of global cadmium production and 1,400 years of global tellurium production at current rates..."
Cadmium, silver and tellurium are not going to become cheap anytime. Especially since tellurium is less abundant than gold. And wind power uses niobium and dysprosium--not exactly plentiful stuff.
A Stanford study for 100% renewables is interesting. Using solar, wind, geothermal, ocean…. A boundary calc was done on power only.
The offshore component for wind power required about 150,000 installations. That would require 10 to 15 installations per day for about 30 years. Since their lifecycles is about 30 years, replacement would need to be continuous--and that was only off shore wind.
Solutions are just not that simple.
2
The same scientists who proved climate change is real are the leading advocates for nuclear power. NASA scientist, James Hansen, has called nuclear power the only viable path forward on climate change. The largest reduction in fossil fuels in world history occurred when France deployed their nuclear fleet in the 1980's.
Statistically nuclear is the safest(least number of deaths) and the cleanest power source(least amount waste). We have had 4th generation technology for decades that recycles waste and cannot meltdown (See Experimental Breeder Reactor II), but this program was shutdown by the Clinton administration in a nod to the natural gas industry. Currently China and India are purchasing nuclear plants from France, South Korea and Russia.
Statistically nuclear is the safest(least number of deaths) and the cleanest power source(least amount waste). We have had 4th generation technology for decades that recycles waste and cannot meltdown (See Experimental Breeder Reactor II), but this program was shutdown by the Clinton administration in a nod to the natural gas industry. Currently China and India are purchasing nuclear plants from France, South Korea and Russia.
30
The potential costs of nuclear accidents are v high and this doesn't seem to be factored into this article. A NyTimes article earlier this year mentioned that Japan is struggling with the radioactive waste from Fukushima and that they haven't figured out how to remove the nuclear core.
The waste removal and cleanup will cost $188 billion. This doesn't account for all the people who have been permanently displaced from their homes and belongings. It is worth remembering that Fukushima supposedly was designed with some cooling redundancy but all the best laid plans of men failed.
Incidentally, that money is probably enough to put solar panels on every roof in California.
The waste removal and cleanup will cost $188 billion. This doesn't account for all the people who have been permanently displaced from their homes and belongings. It is worth remembering that Fukushima supposedly was designed with some cooling redundancy but all the best laid plans of men failed.
Incidentally, that money is probably enough to put solar panels on every roof in California.
5
The interesting thing about chernobyl (a VERY unsafe reactor) was they were able to operate the reactor next store not too long after the accident. The risk of nuclear accidents can be made minimal if they are sited in remote areas and several reactors are placed in the same location. For much of the west I would like to recommend west texas. In fact I am sure an argument be made that after you retire current plant, that you could quadruple the number of reactors in the USA and reduce the risk of an accident to the USA population by paying much closer attention to where you put the reactors
1
Fukushima was badly designed. The reactor and all the redundancy was built within reach of tsunamis. The planners were penny wise and dollar foolish when it came to safety and redundancy.
2
Still operating US reactors of the Fukushima type are sited on flood planes. It does not need a tsunami to overwhelm the essential service water system.
It is unfortunate that many people have an emotional reaction to nuclear, particular those from my generation who were exposed to hiding under desks in school during the development of early nuclear bombs. The proven harms and safety concerns of toxic waste (not even mentioning heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions with global warming and a disrupted changing climate) from coal and other extraction industries are much bigger than those from nuclear.
However, Indian Point and other existing nuclear plants are past their "sell by" date and it is difficult to deal with their expanding and long-lasting waste, *particularly* in a disrupting climate (floods, droughts, fires, power outages, etc.).
What we need is the most recent forward-looking, cleaner forms of nuclear energy, but in our investment-shy, cost-averse society which promotes socialization of risk and privatization of profit, what we need is not paramount.
We also need the most recent, forward-looking, cleanest forms of renewable energy, but Trump has appointed to the highest office those who will exert every fiber of their being to defund and prevent that, in favor of the dirtiest extraction industries. He is also convinced he can persuade these profiteers to go back to more labor intensive forms of extraction and rehire people they have let go. He is eager to remove, in collusion with enablers in Congress, their health protections. He is determined to dismantle protections from proven dangers.
Danger!
However, Indian Point and other existing nuclear plants are past their "sell by" date and it is difficult to deal with their expanding and long-lasting waste, *particularly* in a disrupting climate (floods, droughts, fires, power outages, etc.).
What we need is the most recent forward-looking, cleaner forms of nuclear energy, but in our investment-shy, cost-averse society which promotes socialization of risk and privatization of profit, what we need is not paramount.
We also need the most recent, forward-looking, cleanest forms of renewable energy, but Trump has appointed to the highest office those who will exert every fiber of their being to defund and prevent that, in favor of the dirtiest extraction industries. He is also convinced he can persuade these profiteers to go back to more labor intensive forms of extraction and rehire people they have let go. He is eager to remove, in collusion with enablers in Congress, their health protections. He is determined to dismantle protections from proven dangers.
Danger!
8
For information:
The “sell by” date for nuclear plants was based on engineering that has changed over the last few decades. The reactor vessel is damaged over time by neutron radiation causing it to lose ductileness. Back in the 80s, reactor physics engineers changed the fuel loading patterns and reduced the neutron flux by about 30%. This enabled keeping plant viable for up to about 60 years now. (this is tested periodically)
The “sell by” date for nuclear plants was based on engineering that has changed over the last few decades. The reactor vessel is damaged over time by neutron radiation causing it to lose ductileness. Back in the 80s, reactor physics engineers changed the fuel loading patterns and reduced the neutron flux by about 30%. This enabled keeping plant viable for up to about 60 years now. (this is tested periodically)
2
Of course, at the top of the list of nuclear concerns is the spread of various kinds of radioactive particles from a leak or an all out meltdown. Other concerns include the radiation taken in by miners, processors, transporters, and anyone living near the facilities that do any of the above. We also need to remember that no "final resting place" exists for radioactive material leftover from nuclear plants; it's simply stored on-site awaiting not only a decision but construction of something like Yucca Mountain, and shipment. Only then will we be worry free, unless something happens to the otherwise remote, geologically stable, impregnable site chosen in the next 250,000 years.
1
The safety issues are minimal. The real problem is that many people see potential deaths from nuclear in some imaginary accident as more serious than real deaths from stuff that de facto replace nuclear.
1
I think nuclear power plants are holding their customers and government officials captive to ransom demands: insufficient alternatives, pay up or we close. An interesting business model.
6
As others have pointed out, we should begin to better understand our waste streams instead of trying to play carbon off against other wastes. We need to consider far more rigorously why we produce so many waste products and rethink our energy and industrial production. Carbon dioxide resulting from the burning of fossil fuels is waste, plain and simple. Spent nuclear fuel is a waste product. Until we rethink our relationship to waste in all forms and the consequent deleterious aspects, we are going to continue having these false debates about which waste products are better for us. Let's see, a warming climate due to fossil fuel wastes or nuclear wastes which have half-lives of millions of years and can kill us for that long.
It's time to ask questions such as why is it a good idea that we not only produce massive amounts of waste but why, in the case of the internal combustion engine, do we allow our wastes to vent into the commons, our atmosphere? Why is a good idea that humans allow massive waste streams into our common waters? And why do we as humans think we can bury dangerous nuclear wastes without any future problems?
A goal of zero waste is the only answer if we want a future anything like the one we generally envision.
It's time to ask questions such as why is it a good idea that we not only produce massive amounts of waste but why, in the case of the internal combustion engine, do we allow our wastes to vent into the commons, our atmosphere? Why is a good idea that humans allow massive waste streams into our common waters? And why do we as humans think we can bury dangerous nuclear wastes without any future problems?
A goal of zero waste is the only answer if we want a future anything like the one we generally envision.
4
Thank you, that's a good way to rethink the way we live and the way we take for granted our right to use and discard without thought. Here's some material on the circular economy (I chose W instead of the Macarthur Foundation, which is of value in this as well.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_economy
The Story of Stuff: http://storyofstuff.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_economy
The Story of Stuff: http://storyofstuff.org/
1
It's simply untrue that nuclear waste can kill us for millions of years. This is a distortion worthy of InfoWars. In actuality, the intensity of radiation drops dramatically in the first years and then sputters along for decades at barely detectable levels. That's why Hiroshima was able to rebuild so quickly after a nuclear blast.
1
Sorry, no equivalence.
Waste that is emitted into the environment,, for free, should be counted as an externality (and taxed, if one wishes to correct the market). That is, wastes that either affect climate or negatively impact public health. Wastes NOT emitted into the environment (i.e., are contained) should not. Should we charge solar and wind for the toxic materials they make use of?
Even w/o considering global warming, the wastes/pollution emitted directly into the environment by fossil generation is thousands of times more harmful to the public than nuclear has ever been, including accidents.
The nuclear industry has been (uniquely) required to demonstrate that its wastes will remain contained, and never have any significant impact, for as long as they remain hazardous, a standard that no other waste stream comes close to meeting. NRC has concluded that Yucca Mountain meets that impeccable requirement. And the cost associated with disposing of the waste in a way that meets those impeccable, unprecedented requirements has been fully paid for by the nuclear industry.
In summary, the external costs associated with fossil fuels' pollution and waste streams is enormous, whereas the external cost associated with nuclear waste is negligible. Any externality associated with nuclear accidents is also orders of magnitude smaller than fossil fuels' externalities, as well as the direct subsidies that renewables get.
Waste that is emitted into the environment,, for free, should be counted as an externality (and taxed, if one wishes to correct the market). That is, wastes that either affect climate or negatively impact public health. Wastes NOT emitted into the environment (i.e., are contained) should not. Should we charge solar and wind for the toxic materials they make use of?
Even w/o considering global warming, the wastes/pollution emitted directly into the environment by fossil generation is thousands of times more harmful to the public than nuclear has ever been, including accidents.
The nuclear industry has been (uniquely) required to demonstrate that its wastes will remain contained, and never have any significant impact, for as long as they remain hazardous, a standard that no other waste stream comes close to meeting. NRC has concluded that Yucca Mountain meets that impeccable requirement. And the cost associated with disposing of the waste in a way that meets those impeccable, unprecedented requirements has been fully paid for by the nuclear industry.
In summary, the external costs associated with fossil fuels' pollution and waste streams is enormous, whereas the external cost associated with nuclear waste is negligible. Any externality associated with nuclear accidents is also orders of magnitude smaller than fossil fuels' externalities, as well as the direct subsidies that renewables get.
1
One often missed fact about our climate concerns is the need to produce MORE electricity. In a normal growing society, our electrical needs are not static, however in a society that should be allowing climate concerns to dictate what energy sources we use, we are talking about doubling our electrical use, at the very least. The simple reason for this is making electric cars practical on a scalable level. If we seriously plan to replace the internal combustion engine on a large scale, we cannot generate enough electricity using renewables alone. Nuclear power is a must to meet this goal, at least in the short to medium term.
This is a matter of setting priorities. At the moment, climate change is a number one environmental concern. A thousand years from now, dealing with radioactive waste might be. The point is, we will never get there if we continue to create a block against this most necessary energy resource. Given technological advancements in fusion technology and improvements in renewable efficiency, we should be able to address the nuclear fission concerns long before they become a major threat to the planet. We don't have much time to address climate change. Those with either an idealist environmental agenda that treats all environmental concerns equally irrespective to context, or those on the right that consider nuclear another source of big government, need to wake up.
In the meantime, steps can be taken to address the disposal of nuclear waste, and plant safety.
This is a matter of setting priorities. At the moment, climate change is a number one environmental concern. A thousand years from now, dealing with radioactive waste might be. The point is, we will never get there if we continue to create a block against this most necessary energy resource. Given technological advancements in fusion technology and improvements in renewable efficiency, we should be able to address the nuclear fission concerns long before they become a major threat to the planet. We don't have much time to address climate change. Those with either an idealist environmental agenda that treats all environmental concerns equally irrespective to context, or those on the right that consider nuclear another source of big government, need to wake up.
In the meantime, steps can be taken to address the disposal of nuclear waste, and plant safety.
3
Nuclear is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The little understood fact is that a solar superstorm, or a single nuclear bomb exploded above the USA by North Korea, could end many millions of lives.
Multiple meltdowns of nuclear plants would follow, as major portions of the grid would fail and standby diesel engines run out of fuel.
Visualize a few dozen Fukushima catastrophes upwind of major cities.
Breakthrough new energy systems are being born. They are much safer and less complex. Several are discussed at aesopinstitute.org
Most reflect hard to believe new science. Some exploit a surprising loophole, only recently recognized by scientists at Argonne National Laboratory and elsewhere, in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Engines can run 24/7 on atmospheric ambient (solar) energy, without fuel! They can scale and provide a cheap, faster, alternative to rooftop panels, wind and solar farms as well as nuclear plants!
Such breakthroughs usually require a generation to gain acceptance. We do not have that luxury.
Innovation is taking place at severely underfunded small firms. Mass production of the best systems will inevitably follow. We must speed the process on an emergency basis.
If you can assist, the lives you save may include your own - and those of everyone you care about
The little understood fact is that a solar superstorm, or a single nuclear bomb exploded above the USA by North Korea, could end many millions of lives.
Multiple meltdowns of nuclear plants would follow, as major portions of the grid would fail and standby diesel engines run out of fuel.
Visualize a few dozen Fukushima catastrophes upwind of major cities.
Breakthrough new energy systems are being born. They are much safer and less complex. Several are discussed at aesopinstitute.org
Most reflect hard to believe new science. Some exploit a surprising loophole, only recently recognized by scientists at Argonne National Laboratory and elsewhere, in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Engines can run 24/7 on atmospheric ambient (solar) energy, without fuel! They can scale and provide a cheap, faster, alternative to rooftop panels, wind and solar farms as well as nuclear plants!
Such breakthroughs usually require a generation to gain acceptance. We do not have that luxury.
Innovation is taking place at severely underfunded small firms. Mass production of the best systems will inevitably follow. We must speed the process on an emergency basis.
If you can assist, the lives you save may include your own - and those of everyone you care about
1
No fuel engine means no physics...perpetual motion is just not going to happen...sorry but magic is for harry potter movies.
2
A step towards LIMITLESS energy: Loophole found in a fundamental law of physics may lead to infinite power
• The finding may mean it's possible to create perpetual motion machines
• These machines can spin for eternity without losing any energy
• The four laws of thermodynamics set the physical rules for our universe
• Researchers found a way to bypass the second law of the four
• They have since projected a quantum system in which energy can be recycled
By Harry Pettit For Mailonline 3 November 2016
ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB
Second Law Modification
Ivan Sadovskyy
Valerii Vinokur
Researchers Propose Approach to Locally Circumvent Second Law of Thermodynamics
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that entropy always increases, is the most inviolable law for over a century and a half of physics.
Recently researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Argonne National Laboratory claimed that they have potentially found a small loophole in this well-known Second Law.
Their research findings have been published in Nature Scientific Reports...
Although the violation is only on the local scale, the implications are far-reaching. This provides us a platform for the practical realization of a quantum Maxwell's demon, which could make possible a local quantum perpetual motion machine.
Valerii Vinokur, Distinguished Fellow, Argonne National Laboratory
“The Second Law of Thermodynamics isn’t so much a Law as a rule of thumb.” Daniel Sheehan Ph.D. U of San Diego
• The finding may mean it's possible to create perpetual motion machines
• These machines can spin for eternity without losing any energy
• The four laws of thermodynamics set the physical rules for our universe
• Researchers found a way to bypass the second law of the four
• They have since projected a quantum system in which energy can be recycled
By Harry Pettit For Mailonline 3 November 2016
ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB
Second Law Modification
Ivan Sadovskyy
Valerii Vinokur
Researchers Propose Approach to Locally Circumvent Second Law of Thermodynamics
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that entropy always increases, is the most inviolable law for over a century and a half of physics.
Recently researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Argonne National Laboratory claimed that they have potentially found a small loophole in this well-known Second Law.
Their research findings have been published in Nature Scientific Reports...
Although the violation is only on the local scale, the implications are far-reaching. This provides us a platform for the practical realization of a quantum Maxwell's demon, which could make possible a local quantum perpetual motion machine.
Valerii Vinokur, Distinguished Fellow, Argonne National Laboratory
“The Second Law of Thermodynamics isn’t so much a Law as a rule of thumb.” Daniel Sheehan Ph.D. U of San Diego
Nuclear plants are not zero emissions in a broad sense. They emit radioactivity, sometimes by accident, as we have seen. But eventually the high-level waste from the plants must be dealt with, and we hope it's done safely. If it is shipped to Nevada tunnels, how can the shipments be secure and that the tunnels will not leak into the water supply? If it is left on site, how can the containers be monitored and kept intact for thousands of years?
9
That bad sentence should have read: "If it is shipped to Nevada tunnels, how can the shipments be secured and tunnels secured against leaks for millennia?"
Because geological activity is so low that the waste hardly moves anywhere until becoming safe.
It is always interesting to see how people claim nuclear is not zero carbon due to mining and supplying of raw materials--while leaving out that solar and wind require about 10 times more raw materials than nuclear and that means higher CO2 emission.
http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-w...
There are about one million megawatts of capacity on the US grid. To replace it with renewables, it would require about 3 million MW of capacity due to the intermittent output. Storage systems are net energy negative, but will be needed if backup nuclear and fossil systems are shut down. Storage of electricity or energy to produce electricity is difficult and expensive. Even the largest source, (pumped storage) cannot fill the US demand for more than a few minutes. Infrastructure is difficult to build out quickly and will be expensive no matter the future sources as they are all not as convenient as fossil fuels.
Any power system has issues, but dropping nuclear removes a high energy dense source that is proven on demand reliability. Note: all sources of power have been subsidized in the past...renewables are relying on such right now, whereas nuclear has not received much in the past 20 years, Nuclear has returned more output per subsidy dollar than renewables
Renewables and nuclear should be the primary energy source for the grid. Note: Natural gas for electricity. is a waste and it will not be plentiful in a few decades.
http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-w...
There are about one million megawatts of capacity on the US grid. To replace it with renewables, it would require about 3 million MW of capacity due to the intermittent output. Storage systems are net energy negative, but will be needed if backup nuclear and fossil systems are shut down. Storage of electricity or energy to produce electricity is difficult and expensive. Even the largest source, (pumped storage) cannot fill the US demand for more than a few minutes. Infrastructure is difficult to build out quickly and will be expensive no matter the future sources as they are all not as convenient as fossil fuels.
Any power system has issues, but dropping nuclear removes a high energy dense source that is proven on demand reliability. Note: all sources of power have been subsidized in the past...renewables are relying on such right now, whereas nuclear has not received much in the past 20 years, Nuclear has returned more output per subsidy dollar than renewables
Renewables and nuclear should be the primary energy source for the grid. Note: Natural gas for electricity. is a waste and it will not be plentiful in a few decades.
11
Eventually we have to go to a hydrogen economy. We will have to generate hydrogen from water with electricity to be used later either in fuel cells or as a replacement for natural gas in a conventional style power plant. We really have to begin working on making electrolytic hydrogen cost effective if we want to minimize our dependence on nuclear power and fossil fuels
The bankruptcy in progress right now of Toshiba and Westinghouse over the four reactors being built is the end of nuclear power in the US for the foreseeable future.
This dooms other issues, among them the problems of waste disposal. The existing reactors aren't paying enough, and will be decommissioned too soon in any event, to pay for the long-term waste disposal of the existing waste.
There is no chance now that fission can help solve our CO2 climate crisis -- it will be all wind and solar.
And as the reactors are decommissioned -- can they even pay for their own cleanup costs? Don't bet they all can. There's not much of anything good to look forward to here, any way you look at it.
This dooms other issues, among them the problems of waste disposal. The existing reactors aren't paying enough, and will be decommissioned too soon in any event, to pay for the long-term waste disposal of the existing waste.
There is no chance now that fission can help solve our CO2 climate crisis -- it will be all wind and solar.
And as the reactors are decommissioned -- can they even pay for their own cleanup costs? Don't bet they all can. There's not much of anything good to look forward to here, any way you look at it.
12
All heavy industry produces waste and some of it is toxic. High level nuclear waste for every reactor would cover a couple football fields after 60 years. Compare that with any other heavy industry.
All nuclear plants are required to sequester money during operations to pay for decommissioning. The cost is actually about 0.1-0.2 cent/kwh over the life of the plant.
All nuclear plants are required to sequester money during operations to pay for decommissioning. The cost is actually about 0.1-0.2 cent/kwh over the life of the plant.
5
Nuclear power needs to be eliminated completely. Decades of work have failed to produce an answer to the problem of nuclear waste. And we now have a track record of accidents: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Daiichi Fukushima. These are not like airplane crashes or coal mine cave-ins. A nuclear accident is for ever. We cannot keep cordoning off hundreds of square miles of the Earth on a permanent basis from human habitation.
As for the danger to climate goals, a far bigger problem is He Who Walks on Two Legs in the White House. Compared to that, a few nuclear plant closings are not going to have an effect beyond the third decimal place.
As for the danger to climate goals, a far bigger problem is He Who Walks on Two Legs in the White House. Compared to that, a few nuclear plant closings are not going to have an effect beyond the third decimal place.
30
Look at mortality data! Emissions from burning fossil fuels at power plants kills 10,000-50,000 annually! There has not been a single death from radiation exposure due to nuclear power plants in the U.S. I'm not saying nuclear is risk free but these numbers need to be considered. Radioactive waste is a given and we have to closely monitor it until it is reprocessed or a new method of reducing its toxicity is developed. We are already stuck with the nuclear waste and I think given this reality we might as well take advantage of the nuclear plants low-carbon generation. I don't think that there is a substantial difference in risk between managing the amount of waste we currently have and an increased amount in the future. Its a sunk cost.
9
for anyone wondering about this "pick" look at the other "pick": compare and contrast. The point is, whatdoIknow represents many respondents, and Adam from Germany provides reason and statistics. The NYT is not taking sides with this, it is asking us to think about it.
2
The Integral Fast Reactor program showed how to reduce the long-lived portion of nuclear waste to such a small fraction of the waste that it would be less harmful than uranium ore in 200 years. The program was canceled after being essentially completed in 1994 because "nobody was clamoring for nuclear energy", although its fuel cycle plant kept running for at least 20 years afterwards. It's too late to implement such reactors now, though. Google it for an interesting story. Two of the program managers wrote a book called Plentiful Energy, available on Amazon. Here's a link to a PDF of it: http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/PlentifulEnergy.pdf
1
I'm old enough to remember that the nuclear-plant promise was "too cheap to meter." Hah! I try to think the best in people, so I think this "promise" came more from naiveté than nefariousness. Nevertheless, here we are, awash in fracked natural gas (who'd have thought that that would be the nuke-power killer). The promise now is that there won't be overwhelming environmental problems. "Hah!" I say again; I'm less sanguine now about the energy industry than I used to be.
3
It really is a shame that more effort is not being put into nuclear power. The reality is that a nuclear energy program supplying base load to the grid would be a valuable addition to solar and wind. Something that is often overlooked when discussing idealized, carbon-free energy is that the grid doesn't just switch on and off, but needs a diverse portfolio of generation technologies to meet the variability of load over the course of a day.
Considering that the challenge of managing nuclear waste relative to each megawatt generated is frankly overstated, the resistance to nuclear power is another example of how environmentalism can become a religion for many advocacy groups.
To put is perspective, the WHO calculated the "deathprint" or various forms of power generation, i.e., deaths per trillion kilowatt-hours. Nuclear in the US got 0.1, while coal in the US got 10,000. Even if you look at global nuclear power generation, including the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, you still get a death print of 90.
Considering that the challenge of managing nuclear waste relative to each megawatt generated is frankly overstated, the resistance to nuclear power is another example of how environmentalism can become a religion for many advocacy groups.
To put is perspective, the WHO calculated the "deathprint" or various forms of power generation, i.e., deaths per trillion kilowatt-hours. Nuclear in the US got 0.1, while coal in the US got 10,000. Even if you look at global nuclear power generation, including the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, you still get a death print of 90.
3
QED -- you don't understand what "baseload" is, or why nuclear reactors are getting killed by renewables, and there is nothing that can be done about that unless nuclear power could be made far less expensive.
"Baseload" is the minimum load, the load that is "always there," and in the US that is almost always in the wee hours of the AM.
Baseload power is never the real problem -- peaking or backup are. Nuclear plants are dreadfully uncompetitive at peaking/backup.
"Baseload" is the minimum load, the load that is "always there," and in the US that is almost always in the wee hours of the AM.
Baseload power is never the real problem -- peaking or backup are. Nuclear plants are dreadfully uncompetitive at peaking/backup.
1
Exactly my point, Lee. Solar and wind are not consistent enough to provide baseload. the consistent supply of energy from nuclear, however, is. Hence my point that it is a valuable addition to the usual carbon-free characters of solar and wind.
It is sometimes amazing to see all that decades old anti-nuclear propaganda. The truth is that nuclear power is a clean energy source. Even with disasters like Chernobyl or Fukushima, it is only the generations and populations that benefited from these plants that have the inconvenience of moving. Long after all the Cessium and Strontium are gone and generations from now people move back, what they will remember and see are flooded ruins of our coastal cities.
Global Warming is by far the most challenging problem of current and next generation, yet all we have done is DOUBLE worldwide CO2 emissions since Kyoto. And to this day we have the ignorant (of both nuclear energy and scale of the carbon problem) protesting their ignorance.
Want to shut down nuclear? I have no problem with that if and only if you shut down all fossil fuel power sources first. But if you are unwilling to do that, then you are part of the problem. 300 or 500 years from now, our great....grandkids will curse the "environmentalists" that shut down the only reliable and scalable CO2 free power source we have and doomed the future generations.
PS. Nuclear, wind, solar and hydroelectric are all 100 percent carbon free, provided only carbon free energy is used for construction. But naysayers will always cherrypick convenient data to show otherwise, and suddenly hydroelectric dam makes more CO2 than gas power plant.
Global Warming is by far the most challenging problem of current and next generation, yet all we have done is DOUBLE worldwide CO2 emissions since Kyoto. And to this day we have the ignorant (of both nuclear energy and scale of the carbon problem) protesting their ignorance.
Want to shut down nuclear? I have no problem with that if and only if you shut down all fossil fuel power sources first. But if you are unwilling to do that, then you are part of the problem. 300 or 500 years from now, our great....grandkids will curse the "environmentalists" that shut down the only reliable and scalable CO2 free power source we have and doomed the future generations.
PS. Nuclear, wind, solar and hydroelectric are all 100 percent carbon free, provided only carbon free energy is used for construction. But naysayers will always cherrypick convenient data to show otherwise, and suddenly hydroelectric dam makes more CO2 than gas power plant.
51
At Chernobyl, scientists are finding that while strontium isotopes are behaving, i.e. decaying much as they expected, cesium 137 is not. As reported in Wired, they are currently saying the half-life in the environment is somewhere between 180 and 320 years. Not the time to make it safe, just the time for half of it to disappear.
Sadly this is the point of view the USA should have pushed 30 years ago when china and india were building so many coal fired plants. If the west had insisted they use nuclear instead of coal China right now would probably be elated by us insisting on it. Coal produces so much pollution in their country and there are so many deaths from coal mining, that I am sure very few chinese would argue that nuclear is not the better choice.
What are you going to do with all of that radioactive waste? I have much more confidence that we will innovate our way out of the greenhouse gas crisis than us every being able to safely deal with a vast amount of material that will be toxic and deadly for thousands of years.
1
What concerns me the most is that there are signs that we're just not maintaining these systems as well as we might. (Look at te problems experienced in Japan as an example). We can claim the nuclear power cost is cheap, until we have a failure with dire consequences. The best of our technological knowledge is needed to keep these systems running safely. No guarantees, my friends.
1
Trying to claim nuclear as a zero carbon emissions source is a card trick that's easy to see. Look how the material is gotten, refined, shipped, stored, and then left in stasis onsite for decades and there's no logic in calling it clean or green. Why is it so expensive to build and run a nuclear facility? Because it uses the most toxic substances known to humankind and we have zero long term plan for its thousands of years. Nuclear power must go.
30
Fake news....no one ever said nuclear was zero carbon. However, the energy return compared with the raw resources used makes it closer to zero carbon than any other source.
What the renewable energy people want to hide is the fact that is takes MUCH more raw and exotic materials for solar and wind power than nuclear plants because the energy density is very poor. Solar and wind require about 10 times more mined and building materials than nuclear (ballpark) all requiring lots of carbon emission to get to marked. And of course, solar and wind don't show up on demand.
And, no, nuclear does not use the most toxic substances known to humankind. Most of the waste--which is very small and much less toxic than chemical and medical waste--is gone within 300 years. The long lived isotopes can be "burned" by recycling.
All energy sources have issues...
Good luck when the lights go out.
What the renewable energy people want to hide is the fact that is takes MUCH more raw and exotic materials for solar and wind power than nuclear plants because the energy density is very poor. Solar and wind require about 10 times more mined and building materials than nuclear (ballpark) all requiring lots of carbon emission to get to marked. And of course, solar and wind don't show up on demand.
And, no, nuclear does not use the most toxic substances known to humankind. Most of the waste--which is very small and much less toxic than chemical and medical waste--is gone within 300 years. The long lived isotopes can be "burned" by recycling.
All energy sources have issues...
Good luck when the lights go out.
9
"Trying to claim nuclear as a zero carbon emissions source is a card trick that's easy to see. Look how the material is gotten, refined, shipped, stored, and then left in stasis onsite for decades and there's no logic in calling it clean or green."
You would have to make the same argument against renewables then - the mining, manufacturing, construction etc. of wind/solar/hydro also emits carbon. Come to me with cited calculations about the carbon cost of all of these per GW of generating capacity, then we'll talk.
"Why is it so expensive to build and run a nuclear facility? Because it uses the most toxic substances known to humankind and we have zero long term plan for its thousands of years."
What's your quantitative argument here? There's plenty of toxic material needed to make solar panels too. We also have a range of long term plans ranging from repository storage to reprocessing for fast reactor fuel - we aren't doing these not because we can't, but only because of politics. Also nuclear is expensive to build because it has to meet such high safety standards from regulation, and construction isn't modular enough yet - look at how South Korea has built nuclear and their prices / GW.
You would have to make the same argument against renewables then - the mining, manufacturing, construction etc. of wind/solar/hydro also emits carbon. Come to me with cited calculations about the carbon cost of all of these per GW of generating capacity, then we'll talk.
"Why is it so expensive to build and run a nuclear facility? Because it uses the most toxic substances known to humankind and we have zero long term plan for its thousands of years."
What's your quantitative argument here? There's plenty of toxic material needed to make solar panels too. We also have a range of long term plans ranging from repository storage to reprocessing for fast reactor fuel - we aren't doing these not because we can't, but only because of politics. Also nuclear is expensive to build because it has to meet such high safety standards from regulation, and construction isn't modular enough yet - look at how South Korea has built nuclear and their prices / GW.
4
You do a card trick yourself, Jonathan. In first sentence you say "zero carbon emissions source" but then you pull the switcheroo and replace "zero carbon emissions" with "clean and green". That's not honest.
So, since coal releases more radiation than the nuclear industry, and since some of the fracking operators have been caught improperly disposing of radioactives, too, why not rethink?
We can solve the nuclear disposal problem, read the article about Finnish nuclear disposal right here in the Science section. We just took the wrong approach.
Despite your verbal trick, nuclear IS basically zero-carbon. That's something we need a lot of. Nuclear is greener than any fossil fuel when you factor in all the impacts of extraction, wastewater management, emissions. The risks of climate change, with the equally harmful pollutants and bad global politics fossil addiction causes, means that perhaps nuclear must go AFTER fossil is shown the door.
A carbon price would benefit the nuclear industry over the fossil industry, and that's useful, as the steady advances in efficiency, demand management, energy storage and renewable sources continue.
Here's a link on the fracking waste - https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/07/24/strange-byproduct-of...
So, since coal releases more radiation than the nuclear industry, and since some of the fracking operators have been caught improperly disposing of radioactives, too, why not rethink?
We can solve the nuclear disposal problem, read the article about Finnish nuclear disposal right here in the Science section. We just took the wrong approach.
Despite your verbal trick, nuclear IS basically zero-carbon. That's something we need a lot of. Nuclear is greener than any fossil fuel when you factor in all the impacts of extraction, wastewater management, emissions. The risks of climate change, with the equally harmful pollutants and bad global politics fossil addiction causes, means that perhaps nuclear must go AFTER fossil is shown the door.
A carbon price would benefit the nuclear industry over the fossil industry, and that's useful, as the steady advances in efficiency, demand management, energy storage and renewable sources continue.
Here's a link on the fracking waste - https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/07/24/strange-byproduct-of...
1
The nuclear plants that are operating should be kept in service as long as possible because they generate no carbon emissions in operation, just in construction. Last month, the New York Times reported it took 2 million solar power workers to generate the same electricity supplied by 87,000 coal miners. Guess electricity is going to get much more expensive, but the spin is it will encourage conservation.
12
Rick
Do you have a link to that article?
Do you have a link to that article?
5
Rick -- where did you get those numbers you claim?
Today electric utilities are building only three types of new generation: natural gas (almost all of that combined-cycle now), wind and solar. They aren't building coal plants -- and many coal plants are closing.
They are doing what they are doing because that is what is economic, and wind and solar are still getting cheaper.
I have no idea where you got those job numbers you claim -- Google didn't find it -- but supposing it could be true -- why wouldn't you want something that is simultaneously cheaper, much less environmentally damaging, AND employs so many more people?
Today electric utilities are building only three types of new generation: natural gas (almost all of that combined-cycle now), wind and solar. They aren't building coal plants -- and many coal plants are closing.
They are doing what they are doing because that is what is economic, and wind and solar are still getting cheaper.
I have no idea where you got those job numbers you claim -- Google didn't find it -- but supposing it could be true -- why wouldn't you want something that is simultaneously cheaper, much less environmentally damaging, AND employs so many more people?
6
Rick's comparison of solar power and coal workers (supposedly from the Times) makes no sense. Coal is fuel for existing plants and solar construction is making new power plants. If you are going to do a fair comparison you'd need to compare construction costs for both types of plants and then add the lifetime amortized cost of all the coal, the heavy digging equipment and environmental damage that displaced the shaft coal miners, railcars and transportation and the health, pollution and mortality consequences. Depending on types, solar does also have power line, storage, and routing costs. As phrased, RIck's comparison is meaningless.
2
Nuclear power is not emissions-free or carbon-free! Life-cycle analysis - that is to say determining all the pollution related to production shows the impacts of mining and refining and everything else that goes into it. Please stop claiming otherwise
In order to promote the most expensive energy approach ever invented.
In order to promote the most expensive energy approach ever invented.
26
The IPCC itself says otherwise:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_ene...
How about you stop lying?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_ene...
How about you stop lying?
1
Ridding ourselves of the least educated and civilized half of our present population would obviate the need for any additional coal and gas power, and would, actually, reduce our needs considerably for an extended period of time, only if we were able to maintain that reduction in population, going forward! This sounds heartless, yes, but it is the only way we will be able to save our Planet and ourselves!
4
"Ridding ourselves of the least educated and civilized half of our present population would obviate the need for any additional coal and gas power..."
Great idea! Everybody take cover....
Great idea! Everybody take cover....
1
Ugh! And who's to choose and to appoint, you?
This kind of statement makes us all look bad, and gives purpose and power to Trump supporters.
This kind of statement makes us all look bad, and gives purpose and power to Trump supporters.
1
The least educated and “civilized” half of the population lead far less carbon intensive lives than the other half. You’re obviating the wrong bunch.
Get real about nuclear power. It's the most unclean source humans have ever devised for power generation. Fracking is a disaster on an unimaginable scale, with millions of wells drilled through the aquifers that will pollute our ground water in the decades to come, spoiling the best source of water we ever had. Until we reach a point of really using less energy to run our world and we start consuming fewer resources to live, the legacy of runaway commerce is tens of thousands of years of left over pollution.
23
Why is a "Jonathan Swenekaf" commenting from Oslo, with this long complaint, and then half an hour later are commenting from Bethesda?
"Really using less energy to run our world" won't be happening as long as the population expands, and expansion won't stop until the people at the bottom have a better standard of living they do now.
So, what's your realistic suggestion?
By the way, I'm in favor of shutting down nuclear fission power over the long term, but first things first. We do need to hold civilization together over what's going to be a really tough century of challenges, and that will require as much energy as possible be produced in ways that don't emit greenhouse gases during operation, and don't also release PM2.5 pollutants or chemicals that result in ground-level pollution.
"Really using less energy to run our world" won't be happening as long as the population expands, and expansion won't stop until the people at the bottom have a better standard of living they do now.
So, what's your realistic suggestion?
By the way, I'm in favor of shutting down nuclear fission power over the long term, but first things first. We do need to hold civilization together over what's going to be a really tough century of challenges, and that will require as much energy as possible be produced in ways that don't emit greenhouse gases during operation, and don't also release PM2.5 pollutants or chemicals that result in ground-level pollution.
Spell Swenekaf backwards for a real treat! For some reason you feel like I need to suggest a solution for my opinion to be real. If I'm driving over a bridge and see that it's breaking, do I need to know how to fix it to speak up about what I see? Good luck to you.
Environmentalists who believe in nuclear power are like liberals who thought Stalin & Mao were so great.
No, the end does not justify the means, because in the end, you still have nuclear waste, and you're simply not allowed to create materials so toxic.
And no you can't truck that stuff across the country to any Yucca mt. It's just far too risky.
Dump those subsidies that have always propped up the nuke industry & the nuclear bombs & dirty bombs it enables, on something else that really is clean.
But leave the uranium alone, stop making radioactive nuclear waste & find some solution to all the waste that already exists sitting in pools before splitting another atom.
Nuclear is not the answer.
No, the end does not justify the means, because in the end, you still have nuclear waste, and you're simply not allowed to create materials so toxic.
And no you can't truck that stuff across the country to any Yucca mt. It's just far too risky.
Dump those subsidies that have always propped up the nuke industry & the nuclear bombs & dirty bombs it enables, on something else that really is clean.
But leave the uranium alone, stop making radioactive nuclear waste & find some solution to all the waste that already exists sitting in pools before splitting another atom.
Nuclear is not the answer.
15
Sorry, that applies to "environmentalists", especially those who claim to be extremely concerned about global warming (i.e., the most significant environmental issue, etc..), who oppose nuclear power. Their efforts are responsible for millions of deaths and a greatly exacerbated global warming problem (due to all the fossil fuel, esp. coal, that has been used instead of nuclear due to political opposition).
Risks of nuclear waste transport are negligible compared to those associated with transport of other hazardous materials (as the multi-decade record clearly shows). As for waste disposal, nuclear has solved its waste problem to a *greater* degree than most other energy sources and industries. It's the only one that has a plan for which it has demonstrated that there will be no significant impacts for as long as the waste remains hazardous. That nuclear waste is unique in terms of long-term hazard is a myth.
Risks of nuclear waste transport are negligible compared to those associated with transport of other hazardous materials (as the multi-decade record clearly shows). As for waste disposal, nuclear has solved its waste problem to a *greater* degree than most other energy sources and industries. It's the only one that has a plan for which it has demonstrated that there will be no significant impacts for as long as the waste remains hazardous. That nuclear waste is unique in terms of long-term hazard is a myth.
2
Zero emissions? Nuclear power produces tons of radioactive waste which remain deadly for thousands of years. Maybe you will let us bury it in your back yard?
36
:Liz Lemon style eye roll:
2
The choice between nuclear waste in the backyard and chemical waste or medical waste...nuclear is really not so bad.
2
Why no words about Entergy owned Pilgrim Nuclear Power facility in Plymouth, MA, near Cape Cod? This being entirely overlooked or not discussed by the writer, Mr. Plumer, is highly questionable.
Because Pilgrim is a disaster waiting to happen and should be shuttered immediately or even 10 years ago. Also, no thoughts on what we're supposed to do with the highly radioactive spent fuel rods? Do tell, who is going to be financially responsible for those? The taxpayers. Again another great example of private corporate socialism and the public ultimately not only footing the bill but dealing with the consequences of storing this toxic, destructive nuclear waste element for 1,000's of years to come. Yup 1,000's.
We can do better by increasing development of alternative energy to replace these ancient, analog relics belonging to a different century. Just take a closer look at the photo of the control room! It's beyond due time to shut down these dinosaurs before they turn us literally into dinosaurs.
These nuclear plants are well over 40 years old. I ask, how much modern technology do you have in your home of this same age? And would you trust it if it were?
BTW, Pilgrim powers down and off very often for various reasons including malfunctioning safety equipment. There is no stoppage or interruption of the electrical power grid when it is offline. We don't need it. Shut it. Now.
Because Pilgrim is a disaster waiting to happen and should be shuttered immediately or even 10 years ago. Also, no thoughts on what we're supposed to do with the highly radioactive spent fuel rods? Do tell, who is going to be financially responsible for those? The taxpayers. Again another great example of private corporate socialism and the public ultimately not only footing the bill but dealing with the consequences of storing this toxic, destructive nuclear waste element for 1,000's of years to come. Yup 1,000's.
We can do better by increasing development of alternative energy to replace these ancient, analog relics belonging to a different century. Just take a closer look at the photo of the control room! It's beyond due time to shut down these dinosaurs before they turn us literally into dinosaurs.
These nuclear plants are well over 40 years old. I ask, how much modern technology do you have in your home of this same age? And would you trust it if it were?
BTW, Pilgrim powers down and off very often for various reasons including malfunctioning safety equipment. There is no stoppage or interruption of the electrical power grid when it is offline. We don't need it. Shut it. Now.
22
The reactor at Pilgrim is of the same vintage as Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1. Unit 1 incurred a hydrogen explosion and, according to TEPCO, all fuel melted and slumped through the reactor pressure vessel bottom head. TEPCO does not know were the melted fuel migrated, speculating that it remains at the bottom of the primary containment vessel. The unit's safety relief valves needed to depressurize the reactor pressure vessel during an emergency shutdown never opened. Pilgrim has observed such profound failure of its safety relief valves in tests that it is doubtful that also this reactor could be shut down safely in a Station Black Out.
"Early retirement"of U.S. nuclear generation is a false premise. Plant owners today face a choice to either keep plants running BEYOND their planned life or retire. (NERC ultimately decides their fate.) The vast majority of these plants are 50 or more years old.
Additionally, it's the combination of wind, solar, cheap natural gas and more efficient electric power markets that are shifting the economic sands underneath these plants. And that's before one considers the very small, but always present hazard of radiation leak, meltdown, act of terror, etc.
Additionally, it's the combination of wind, solar, cheap natural gas and more efficient electric power markets that are shifting the economic sands underneath these plants. And that's before one considers the very small, but always present hazard of radiation leak, meltdown, act of terror, etc.
6
Totally in favor of ending nuclear power as we know it.
And so ten years from now when the "magic of the marketplace" also shuts down all coal fired power plants in favor of cheap wind and solar power mostly emanating from the western side of the Mississippi, will the operators also say oh-shucks and come crawling to Washington for relief?
This is an inevitable consequence of technological advancement and cannot be averted.
And so ten years from now when the "magic of the marketplace" also shuts down all coal fired power plants in favor of cheap wind and solar power mostly emanating from the western side of the Mississippi, will the operators also say oh-shucks and come crawling to Washington for relief?
This is an inevitable consequence of technological advancement and cannot be averted.
What would a Fukushima-like event cost? Are we prepared to evacuate large densely populated areas? Because of transmission costs, power plants are sited near their service demands. Or do we take the stance that nothing bad will happen in the US because we're so wonderful at technology? When I worked for PASNY and it owned one of the Indian Point plants, we had a crisis because of operators growing marijuana onsite and using it on duty.
Part of the problems with renewables like solar, wind, and fermentation of garbage into methane is that Big Energy has stymied these resources at every stage of research and development.
Part of the problems with renewables like solar, wind, and fermentation of garbage into methane is that Big Energy has stymied these resources at every stage of research and development.
6
I like making future generations pay for nuclear power.
4
The bigger question is missing here, and that is; "how do you store Plutonium, the by-product of Nuclear Waste, which is highly lethal for 250-to-500 THOUSAND years ?? A bag of Plutonium the size of a loaf of bread is enough to kill every man, woman & child in America. Where do you "bury" it? Where do you hide it, where it won't leak into the ground water, or be taken by terrorists? We've barely been on this Continent for 400 years. 500 Thousand years is a good deal longer. Get real.
And, can you say: "Fukushima" ?? An earthquake, a tsunami, any number of natural disasters can wipe out a Nuclear Reactor. Japan's raw Nuclear sewage from Fukushima is still leaking thousands of gallons a day into the Pacific, poisoning fish and drifting "downstream" towards North America.
I don't want to subsidize Nuclear OR Coal. Let's ramp-up production of Solar and Wind Generation. China, dog-gone-it, is running circles around us on that.
There is one thing, and one thing only that is keeping America from being able to produce 100% clean, non-polluting, renewable Energy right now, and that is: GREED.
And, can you say: "Fukushima" ?? An earthquake, a tsunami, any number of natural disasters can wipe out a Nuclear Reactor. Japan's raw Nuclear sewage from Fukushima is still leaking thousands of gallons a day into the Pacific, poisoning fish and drifting "downstream" towards North America.
I don't want to subsidize Nuclear OR Coal. Let's ramp-up production of Solar and Wind Generation. China, dog-gone-it, is running circles around us on that.
There is one thing, and one thing only that is keeping America from being able to produce 100% clean, non-polluting, renewable Energy right now, and that is: GREED.
49
While I agree with you in principle, I have to ask, "WHO" has been on the continent for 400 years? We, as "Americans?" Because the North American CONTINENT has had humankind on it for MILLENIA. As has South America.
Just saying.
Just saying.
3
China is running circles around everyone in nuclear as well...they have over 30 plants under construction and many more on the drawing board.
The rest of your red herrings...are just fake news.
The rest of your red herrings...are just fake news.
In Germany there is almost a religious irrational fervor against any kind of nuclear energy. For the most part, you can not hold a rational discussion with people about it. I do my best to try to present the rationale for at least an interim nuclear solution to climate change, but it rarely goes anywhere. It is too bad, because there are lots of great German engineers who could be working on making next generation plants that are safe and solve most of the problems of waste.
20
Daniel
I have the same problem presenting the rationale for killing the 20 percent of the global population that is least productive. There is clearly no doubt that such a move would be beneficial to the world at-large, but people just refuse to listen. It's totally unfair.
I have the same problem presenting the rationale for killing the 20 percent of the global population that is least productive. There is clearly no doubt that such a move would be beneficial to the world at-large, but people just refuse to listen. It's totally unfair.
2
Your closing sentence. Ask yourself why it is that these "great German engineers" are no longer willing to "drink the nuclear kool-aid". (Hint: it's got everything to do with them being great engineers.) It's the uncontrollable waste that stays deadly for .25 million to .5 million years. Then there are the short-terms, like the inevitable uncontrollable disasters. Germans, smart.
Perhaps, because Germans miss the taste of wild mushrooms and berries they used to collect in their forests on summer weekends and the delicious venison and wild boar stews every fall. The consequences of the Tchernobyl accident will remain with them for hundreds of years to come.
Radiation around the clock.....now there's a thought!! It took ten years after Kiev before farmers in europe were allowed to graze cows. Milk and cheese production employs a few people last i heard.
3
Pseudo-environmentalists are doing a disservice in the flight against Climate Change. Wind and solar have failed miserably to curb CO2 emissions everywhere even trillions of dollars spent. Carbon-free nuclear power is only proven way to deeply decarbonize modern grids.
34
Mind sharing your source for those bold claims?
And where are
1. The "cost subsidy" of NOT. Charging a carbon tax on coal and oil?
2. Cost subsidy of allowing Duke Power and similar to dump their coal waste?
Nuclear issue not mentioned, cost of shutting down, storing waste. We have so far been totally unable to establish a long term storage facility. Have a site in Nevada identified , but about 20 years refusing to close the deal.
1. The "cost subsidy" of NOT. Charging a carbon tax on coal and oil?
2. Cost subsidy of allowing Duke Power and similar to dump their coal waste?
Nuclear issue not mentioned, cost of shutting down, storing waste. We have so far been totally unable to establish a long term storage facility. Have a site in Nevada identified , but about 20 years refusing to close the deal.
8
We just recently got the word that the last coal plant in Massachusetts closed. I was so pleased. But I am very sorry that we are going to be losing Pilgrim nuclear power plant.
I've done everything I can myself--I put panels on my roof, and I ran a city campaign to get over 100 neighbors Solarized as well. But there isn't much more I can do. I don't want us to turn to more natgas.
When the film "Pandora's Promise" was making the rounds, I saw it at the MIT Nuclear Science department showing. Although it was enjoyed in that room, I don't think it got much past that choir. It's too bad. People should revisit that now. And think more about whether we want to lose this source of power.
I've done everything I can myself--I put panels on my roof, and I ran a city campaign to get over 100 neighbors Solarized as well. But there isn't much more I can do. I don't want us to turn to more natgas.
When the film "Pandora's Promise" was making the rounds, I saw it at the MIT Nuclear Science department showing. Although it was enjoyed in that room, I don't think it got much past that choir. It's too bad. People should revisit that now. And think more about whether we want to lose this source of power.
25
The only use of tidal power here has been desalination plants. This is ridiculous given that our major cities and settlements are coastal.
Water packs a heck of a force, why not use it to power turbines?