Nuclear power: A dream that failed

[kristopher]

Nuclear power: A dream that failed

...Looking at nuclear power 26 years ago, The Economist observed that the way forward for a somewhat moribund nuclear industry was "to get plenty of nuclear plants built, and then to accumulate, year after year, a record of no deaths, no serious accidents -- and no dispute that the result is cheaper energy."

It was a fair assessment; but our conclusion that the industry was "safe as a chocolate factory" proved something of a hostage to fortune. Less than a month later one of the reactors at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine ran out of control and exploded, killing the workers there at the time and some of those sent in to clean up afterwards, spreading contamination far and wide, leaving a swath of countryside uninhabitable and tens of thousands banished from their homes.

Then, 25 years later, when enough time had passed for some to be talking of a "nuclear renaissance," it happened again. The bureaucrats, politicians and industrialists of what has been called Japan's "nuclear village" were not unaccountable apparatchiks in a decaying authoritarian state like those that bore the guilt of Chernobyl; they had responsibilities to voters, to shareholders, to society. And still they allowed their enthusiasm for nuclear power to shelter weak regulation, safety systems that failed to work and a culpable ignorance of the tectonic risks the reactors faced, all the while blithely promulgating a myth of nuclear safety.

...

Nuclear power would be more competitive if it were cheaper. Yet despite decades of government research-and-development programs, this does not look likely. Innovation tends to thrive where many designs can compete against each other, where newcomers can get into the game easily, where regulation is light.

Some renewable-energy technologies meet these criteria, and are getting cheaper as a result....

http://www.startribune.com/business/142393925.html

[johnd83]

1. The real failure is that nuclear power has become synonymous with "light water boiling reactors"

or the high pressure variant. Boiling water with nuclear power is like attaching an internal combustion engine to a horse drawn carriage and not making any other changes to the design. The real failure is that research was stopped on other alternatives that are safer, more stable, and don't produce long lasting nuclear waste (thorium, breeder reactors, etc). What really worries me is that we have aging reactors that we can't replace with other sources (yes, even renewable can't come online fast enough) so we are stuck with unsafe old power plants. So the failure is not technological, it is political. The thing that people forget is that coal releases extreme amounts of radiation in the smoke and in the coal ash. It is not as concentrated as nuclear waste but it is still very "hot" and is ALWAYS released into the environment.

[kristopher]

2. Bullpucky

Nuclear is a failure for a lot of reasons and you've identified none of them. The article in the OP gives a good start though.

Renewables are more than capable of doing the job and can be built faster than any other source of generation.

[johnd83]

3. *sigh* let's do some math...

Total energy usage in US in 2009: 25,155 TWh -> 69.9 TWh per day

I am going to assume that the earth's surface gets 100 W for 12 hours a day. This is a pretty rough estimate but it is within an order of magnitude. This means that each square meter gets 12 kWh per day.

69.9 TWh / (1200 kWh/m^2) = 58.25 billion m^2 = 58,250 square km

This is the area of sun incidence that you would need to capture at 100% efficiency. Now let's say solar is used, which has around 10-20% efficiency. I'll be generous and use 20% efficiency.

58,250 square km / (20%) = 291,250 square km. Land area of NY: 141,299 square km. So you need to cover NY twice to gather enough energy.

Biofuels (at least current ones) are way low, like around 1% efficiency. Wind is also not very efficient per square meter of sunlight. I also worry that wind power will change global wind patterns.

So... we are left with geothermal, nuclear, or fossil fuels as practical alternatives. If you find a math error I am interested to hear it. I have a Ph.D. in engineering (I actually do; I am not being a troll. I care about this stuff).

[tech3149]

4. I won't honor your post with a response, your numbers just don't add up. n/t

[johnd83]

5. What the is that supposed to mean?

Make an argument, don't just say they don't add up. I am genuinely interested. I would really prefer to use renewable but as far as I can tell they aren't practical. This is how science works; people debate things. Read a journal series sometime! The way our media portrays science is not at all how things happen in reality.

[Confusious]

8. It means you shat upon his glorious revolution

Nothing that contradicts or sheds doubt upon the glorious revolution is true.

If 1+1=2 contradicted or shed doubt upon the glorious revolution, it would be false, and 1+1 would equal 3, or some other number, but not 2.

You'll learn.

Banged your head against a wall lately? It's pretty much the same feeling.

BTW, your numbers are fine. I've made the same point, using a quarter+ of Arizona. It doesn't get through.

[bananas]

18. It means your math is wrong - the area needed is TINY.

You wrote:

I am going to assume that the earth's surface gets 100 W for 12 hours a day. This is a pretty rough estimate but it is within an order of magnitude. This means that each square meter gets 12 kWh per day.

69.9 TWh / (1200 kWh/m^2) = 58.25 billion m^2 = 58,250 square km

It should be:

I am going to assume that the earth's surface gets 1000 W for 12 hours a day. This is a pretty rough estimate but it is within an order of magnitude. This means that each square meter gets 12 kWh per day.

69.9 TWh / (12 kWh/m^2) = 5.825 billion m^2 = 5,825 square km

I haven't bothered checking the rest of your numbers, it's a pain in the ass correcting bad math on this forum, I've wasted enough time in the past doing that, especially when these calculations have been done over and over by many people, using varying assumptions, and the results - when they get their math right - is always the same: the area needed is TINY compared to other land uses - for example growing food.

Here's one example, you can look at the original for details of his calculations:

http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127

<snip>

According to the United Nations 170,000 square kilometers of forest is destroyed each year. If we constructed solar farms at the same rate, we would be finished in 3 years.

There are 1.2 million square kilometers of farmland in China. This is 2 1/2 times the area of solar farm required to power the world in 2030.

<snip>

[kristopher]

6. *sigh* More boilerplate misinformation?

If you are an engineer then I would expect a hell of a lot better understanding of the problem than that response indicates.

Does all of our energy come from oil? Nuclear? Coal? Any single energy source? Of course it doesn't so why would you take the approach you have when it comes to renewables. All you are doing is trying to make it sound hard, you aren't engaging in analysis at all.

Try some reality
The broad outline is here
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/sad1109Jaco5p.indd.pdf

and supporting information is here
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/susenergy2030.html

[johnd83]

7. I've seen articles like that before

however I think they are overly optimistic. I work in a group that researches fuel cells and they admit that there is no way that solar (or indirectly) solar power can be used. I (occasionally) work in a microfabrication cleanroom with silicon, and the chemicals that are used to create silicon solar cells are extremely unfriendly. The same for rare-earths. The issue is the shear amount of raw materials and fabrication required to gather enough energy because it is very low density. Most wind turbines are made out of aluminum and composites which are also not very environmentally friendly.

From the article:

Enough concrete and steel exist for the millions
of wind turbines, and both those commodities
are fully recyclable. The most problematic
materials may be rare-earth metals such as neodymium
used in turbine gearboxes. Although the
metals are not in short supply, the low-cost sources
are concentrated in China, so countries such
as the U.S. could be trading dependence on Middle
Eastern oil for dependence on Far Eastern
metals. Manufacturers are moving toward gearless
turbines, however, so that limitation may become
moot.
Photovoltaic cells rely on amorphous or crystalline
silicon, cadmium telluride, or copper indium
selenide and sulfi de. Limited supplies of
tellurium and indium could reduce the prospects
for some types of thin-fi lm solar cells, though
not for all; the other types might be able to take
up the slack. Large-scale production could be restricted
by the silver that cells require, but fi nding
ways to reduce the silver content could tackle
that hurdle. Recycling parts from old cells could
ameliorate material diffi culties as well.

There is a lot of vaporware in this section that is not easily solved.

[kristopher]

9. The article is backed up by a hell of a lot more than your hand waving...

Jacobson's analyses are very well done and highly credible.

Fuel cells and a "hydrogen economy" have are favored by fossil fuel and nuclear industries because they help perpetuate the existing energy structure. Electricity is the preferred energy carrier, hydrogen has lost the race. We will use fuel cells for some applications, but they aren't going to form a core technology for a distributed renewable infrastructure.

[johnd83]

11. There are lots of critiques besides mine

Unfortunately I can't spend the time to really track down a complete counter-argument (work tomorrow) but here is at least one:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/

[kristopher]

12. "Track down a complete counter-argument"???

So let me get this straight. You're an engineer, but you can't conceptualize the energy problem beyond a single source solution.

I provide you with a well crafted academic analysis showing the capabilities of the various renewable energy sources in meeting our global energy needs - an analysis with a great deal of documentation and background - and all you can do is "track down a counter-argument" from a rabid pronuclear website?

Really?

[bananas]

19. That website is full of bad information (to be polite). nt

[PamW]

14. WRONG!!!

The same old misinformation from Kris. We now know that he has actually seen the page from the National Academy of Science study on energy that says that without storage technology, which we don't have; the maximum that "non-dispatchable" renewables like wind and solar can contribute is 20% of our needs.

If you more than 20% of non-backed up intermittent renewables; your electric grid is unstable. The best you can do with intermittent renewables is 20%, as long as you have 80% in dispatchable power sources like coal, nuclear, hydro, and gas to back them up.

But unless you have a storage technology; which we don't have at present; then the best renewables can do is 20%.

Hydropower gives us about 10%; so where do we get the other 70% with low carbon emissions? Nuclear is pretty much all you have.

We can have a low carbon, reliable system of 20% renewables, 10% hydro and 70% nuclear; but that's not "good enough" for the renewables crowd.

PamW

[freshwest]

10. My problem with nuclear power other than health reasons, have been as follows...

In order to protect the radioactive materials involved, a more authoritarian society was needed. It would be seen as reasonable because of the inherent dangers, and the fear of contamination or misuse of the materials would justify the powerful maintaining control. And I don't trust them.

I saw it dangerous to human rights and freedom, as well as entrenching wealthy interests creating societal imbalance. Such things stratify societies, and lead to a conflict between those who want to live indopendently or seek alternatives because the investment required makes the policy makers rigid in their thoughts and planning.

Add the incestous relationship to the MIC and that explains my opposition since the late sixties and early seventies. Those are just my feelings and those of the groups resisting the construction of these plants then. They were a bad deal financially, rewarded crony capitalism, and the national security aspects made barriers between people.

The corporations that buit these plants are the same who acted as contractors in Iraq, etc. and they didn't care about safety then and they don't now. My husband worked on some of these and would come home daily and complain about the flaws and how the workers in the construction phase knew about them, but were ordered to cover them with more cement. But once contracts were signed they were going online to start the profits coming in.

Those who maximize profit don't think about the long term effects on society or the environment, they must look to the quick buck and the bottom line for their company. It's their model, they have to.

The real bottom line, and the long run, well, they are simply clueless about that. I have not changed my mind on this subject and everything I did not want to have happen has come true.

There could possibly have been a safe way to do this; but the profit motive got in the way, as well as those groups who solidified their power politically and socially with these. In a way, they are no worse than the rest of the filthy outfits that have provided energy for years.

They are criminals like those who made their fortunes off of wars, existing at a level of power that does not listen to reason and respect democratic controls. They will not change.

Everyone that can get off the grid and away from these entities should do so with all haste. If not for monetary reasons, for moral ones.

I respect that people are different and some feel all technological marvels are good and honorable. I would only ask them to consider my points. If not, fine. I refuse to get into these endless fights over this. This is an emotional issue for some. For me, it's common sense.

EOM. And n/t.

[madokie]

13. The bomb is why we went with nuclear and that is pretty much why everyone else is building

nuke plants. Theres always exceptions to all rules and this is no different as some countries don't seem to be trying to develop the bomb but for the most part first comes the nuke plants then the bomb comes next. IMHO

[freshwest]

15. Agreed. Gotta keep that MIC going. It's not just nuke vs. coal. Media is MIC owned.

The alternatives will not get a fair hearing as long as the country keeps on a war basis. The USA never really left off making war since the dropping of the A-bomb(s). Just because no more have been delivered doesn't mean it's not the ultimate control mechanism, pulled out and waved around when the MIC sees it's losing money.

We've been pushed economically and psychologically to accept this insane state of affairs for over half a century. All of the voices of wisdom who offered alternatives to the promoted ways of thinking have been killed with bullets or media lynchings.

[madokie]

17. No doubt

[PamW]

16. WRONG AS ALWAYS!!

LIES and MISINFORMATION, as usual.

EVERY nation that has nuclear weapons had a nuclear bomb BEFORE the first nuclear power plant.

The USA had nuclear weapons in 1945; and the first nuclear power plant was 1957.

Pakistan got the bomb in 1998; and its first nuclear power plant went online in 2000.

That goes for ALL the other nuclear powers

It has NEVER been the case that a country did not have either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear weapons program, then got a nuclear power plant, and then got the bomb.

The situation that you claim is the norm; NEVER HAPPENED!!

Now STOP LYING!!!

PamW

[kristopher]

20. And still...

This is a universal and irremediable problem with the human element.

"And still they allowed their enthusiasm for nuclear power to shelter weak regulation, safety systems that failed to work and a culpable ignorance of the tectonic risks the reactors faced, all the while blithely promulgating a myth of nuclear safety."

http://www.startribune.com/business/142393925.html




An anonymous comment on the internet:
"It's baffling that nuclear power is regarded as a gleaming, high-tech solution to energy generation - it's just a steam turbine run on the filthiest fuel imaginable. All the high-tech stuff does is to protect us from the waste, with varying degrees of success."