Proceedings of IEEE: Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs

[kristopher]

If you're wondering where the fission fan club has been, this upcoming article in the Proceedings of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has had them apoplectic for the past day or so...



(PhysOrg.com) -- The 440 commercial nuclear reactors in use worldwide are currently helping to minimize our consumption of fossil fuels, but how much bigger can nuclear power get? In an analysis to be published in a future issue of the Proceedings of the IEEE, Derek Abbott, Professor of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at the University of Adelaide in Australia, has concluded that nuclear power cannot be globally scaled to supply the world’s energy needs for numerous reasons. The results suggest that we’re likely better off investing in other energy solutions that are truly scalable.

As Abbott notes in his study, global power consumption today is about 15 terawatts (TW). Currently, the global nuclear power<2> supply capacity is only 375 gigawatts (GW). In order to examine the large-scale limits of nuclear power, Abbott estimates that to supply 15 TW with nuclear only, we would need about 15,000 nuclear reactors. In his analysis, Abbott explores the consequences of building, operating, and decommissioning 15,000 reactors on the Earth, looking at factors such as the amount of land required, radioactive waste, accident rate, risk of proliferation into weapons, uranium abundance and extraction, and the exotic metals used to build the reactors themselves.

“A nuclear power station is resource-hungry and, apart from the fuel, uses many rare metals in its construction,” Abbott told PhysOrg.com. “The dream of a utopia where the world is powered off fission or fusion reactors is simply unattainable. Even a supply of as little as 1 TW stretches resources considerably.”

...Of course, not many nuclear advocates are calling for a complete nuclear utopia, in which nuclear power supplies the entire world’s energy needs. But many nuclear advocates suggest that we should produce 1 TW of power from nuclear energy, which may be feasible, at least in the short term. However, if one divides Abbott’s figures by 15, one still finds that 1 TW is barely feasible. Therefore, Abbott argues that, if this technology cannot be fundamentally scaled further than 1 TW, perhaps the same investment would be better spent on a fully scalable technology....

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55418743/Nuclear-Power-and-World-Energy-by-Derek-Abbott-Professor

[GliderGuider]

1. It's an insightful and accessible article. Recommended.

One reason I supported nuclear power for a while was my naive trust in the industry's accident estimates. That trust has now been shattered, and the idea of subjecting the world to a nuclear disaster every month is unbearable.

It's also interesting that the rare metals argument I've made against wind power plays out in spades against nuclear power - biting even the thorium advocates.

Thanks for posting this.

[kristopher]

4. You're welcome.

It is a view taken to an extreme, but the way it categorizes the problems and relates them to scale is well done.

[txlibdem]

2. Uranium supply would not last with 15,000 reactors

Even if Australia opened their nation up to unrestrained mining, Uranium ores will run out in a decade or two.

If those 15,000 reactors were Thorium cycle reactors instead of proliferation-enabling Uranium cycle reactors we'd have about 1,000 years of supply of Thorium.

K&R

[kristopher]

3. Thorium is also rejected.

[GliderGuider]

5. It's not the thorium supply that's the issue, apparently.

It's the supply of exotic metals like hafnium, beryllium, zirconium and niobium that are required for reactor construction. It's similar to the neodymium supply argument against a 100% wind power scenario.

[txlibdem]

7. High power density of LFTR requires less of those exotic materials (if any)

Q: What advantages does a liquid-fluoride thorium reactor offer a utility?

A: Unlike a pressurized-water or boiling-water reactor, a liquid-fluoride thorium reactor operates at high temperature and low pressure. Its high power density means that the reactor vessel itself is much smaller and lighter than an LWR reactor vessel; small enough, in fact, to be mass-produced in a factory rather than constructed on-site. Its inert-gas coolant does not boil in the event of a loss of pressure, and the fuel, blanket, and coolant salts do not react with air or water. All of this means that the containment building of a fluoride reactor can be much smaller than the containment of a light-water reactor of similar power output.
... from http://energyfromthorium.com/faq/

I'll try to look up info on the exact materials used in the liquid fluoride thorium reactor but this does answer the question. Smaller reactor for the same power output means less materials used.

And, once again, I love to point out that the LFTR can be mass produced in a factory... bypassing the greedy construction contractors almost entirely. Got too greedy and put yourselves out of a job. Too bad for you.

[GliderGuider]

8. Why do I suspect that the Devil is hiding in his usual place...

...in the details?

[GliderGuider]

10. There's a hint of the devil here:

http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.php

The primary limitation with nuclear reactors, as always, is containment of radiation. But alloys and materials are improving. We will be able to make reactor vessels which are crack-proof, water-proof, and tamper-proof, but we will have to use superior materials. We should have those materials by 2030 at the latest, and they will make possible the decentralized nuclear energy vision I have outlined here.

And here:

http://energyfromthorium.com/2011/01/09/liquid-fuel-nuclear-reactors/

Developing LFTRs will require advances in high temperature materials for the reactor vessel, heat exchangers, and piping; chemistry for uranium and fission product separation; and power conversion systems. ... The technical challenges and risks that must be addressed in a prototype development project include control of salt container corrosion, recovery of tritium from neutron irradiated lithium salt, management of structural graphite shrinking and swelling, closed cycle turbine power conversion, and maintainability of chemical processing units for U-233 separation and fission product removal. Energy Secretary Chu expressed historical criticism of the technology in a letter to Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) answering questions at his confirmation hearings, “One significant drawback of the MSR technology is the corrosive effect of the molten salts on the structural materials used in the reactor vessel and heat exchangers; this issue results in the need to develop advanced corrosion-resistant structural materials and enhanced reactor coolant chemistry control systems”, and “From a non-proliferation standpoint, thorium-fueled reactors present a unique set of challenges because they convert thorium-232 into uranium-233 which is nearly as efficient as plutonium-239 as a weapons material.”

Skeptically yours,
Paul Chefurka

[txlibdem]

11. Such as?

I would suppose the same argument could be raised against Hershey's Kisses With Almond. There must be something sinister going on there, too, right? I mean, the almonds wouldn't just get in there willingly...

And what's the real truth about coca-cola? Did it actually contain cocaine long ago? And are the company officials today aware that their containers contain BPA, a chemical known to mess with human hormone production???

And the Toyota dealer put Nitrogen, not air, inside the new set of tires we just got a while back. Will that make my car lighter? Or heavier? Or ???

[GliderGuider]

12. Such as the ones above in post #10... nt

[txlibdem]

13. Developing LFTRs will require advances in high temperature materials

Sorry I had no time last night to read the article you linked to, the only criticism is that LFTR would need high temperature materials. That's a "devil in the details?" All they need is materials science.

The same argument was made to claim that electric cars will never be built... but visit your local Chevy, Nissan, Mitsubishi, and next year Ford and VW dealer and you will see that the advances in materials needed were solved quite handily.

Basically, your argument is that it can't be done because it hasn't yet been done... but you forget that it was done right here in the USA in the 1960s. Funding was pulled specifically because Thorium reactors can never be used to create nuclear bombs.

[kristopher]

14. A solution that will not be ready from *more* than 2 decades isn't a solution.

[txlibdem]

15. Where did you get 2 decades? And does it change my opinion

[GliderGuider]

16. It's mentioned in the first link in post 10. Also in this Australian government paper:

http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/energy/energy_10/ch_6.pdf (PDF)

Thorium based fuels could be used in some existing uranium-fuelled reactors possibly in the medium term, but full scale commercial thorium fuelled reactors are not likely before 2030.

[txlibdem]

17. Okay, and we have a 55-year supply of Uranium left. I'll just have to wait till 2030.

If we're lucky, the world won't be destroyed by fossil fuels yet and renewable energy and its required energy storage will be super cheap and dominant in the energy mix by that time.

But if there is even an ounce of fossil fuels still being used in the year 2030 I will still be a proponent of the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.

[SpoonFed]

Didn't grasp that...

With regards to floating cities why would he or she grasp that now?

[kristopher]

25. He has belief that some cockeyed system of automated manufacturing makes everything he wants free.

Seriously.

[SpoonFed]

24. Didn't grasp that...

With regards to floating cities why would he or she grasp that now?

[kristopher]

26. Read the entire thread (fm 2010)

but notice posts 26 and 63.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x261464

[SpoonFed]

27. Hahaha, Epic, Worth The Read...

I guess they can build one of those ice-cream-out-of-dirt-and-air machines while there at it, it's gonna be hot work out there in the desert in the hive. Make my machine vanilla pls.

But on a serious note, that looks like most of the past 3 months of E/E compressed into one thread. I'm totally amazed that 3-4 of the usual suspects that were pro-nuclear and ridiculing talk of another disaster (only 6 months before the real one came) can even raise their head for shame.

I mean really. One could use a couple of posts on there to beat down the credibility of a few regular posters at every turn. I mean, how does one advocate for nuclear and that Chornobyl was a one-off only 6 months before Fukushima, and then show up on E/E pretending that nukes have no problems and everyone is anti-science during the peak of the disaster?

Surprisingly the thread didn't actually change my view or opinion of those involved, they've been correctly formed in the past 3 months. I now see why you and bananas didn't join the rehash of txlibdem's coal emits more radiation nonsense.

Clowns, who put there foot in it? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=261464&mesg_id=261770 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=261464&mesg_id=261867 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=261464&mesg_id=261996

[kristopher]

6. IEEE is obviously biased against nuclear fission

Since they also published a special article to debunk the myths about wind energy that the fission industry tries to spread.

Wind Power Myths Debunked
november/december 2009 EEE Power and Energy Magazine Master Serie

http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf

Questions addressed:
Can Grid Operators Deal with the Continually Changing Output of Wind Generation?
Does Wind Have Capacity Credit?
How Often Does the Wind Stop Blowing Everywhere at the Same Time?
Isn’t It Very Difficult to Predict Wind Power?
Isn’t It Very Expensive to Integrate Wind?
Doesn’t Wind Power Need New Transmission, and Won’t That Make Wind Expensive?
Doesn’t Wind Power Need Backup Generation? Isn’t More Fossil Fuel Burned with Wind Than Without, Due to Backup Requirements?
Does Wind Need Storage?
Isn’t All the Existing Flexibility Already Used Up?
Is Wind Power as Good as Coal or Nuclear Even Though the Capacity Factor of Wind Power Is So Much Less?
Isn’t There a Limit to How Much Wind Can Be Accommodated by the Grid?

Summary
The natural variability of wind power makes it different from other generating technologies, which can give rise to questions about how wind power can be integrated into the grid successfully. This article aims to answer several important questions that can be raised with regard to wind power. Although wind is a variable resource, grid operators have experience with managing variability that comes from handling the variability of load. As a result, in many instances the power system is equipped to handle variability. Wind power is not expensive to integrate, nor does it require dedicated backup generation or storage. Developments in tools such as wind forecasting also aid in integrating wind power. Integrating wind can be aided by enlarging balancing areas and moving to subhourly sched- uling, which enable grid operators to access a deeper stack of generating resources and take advantage of the smooth- ing of wind output due to geographic diversity. Continued improvements in new conventional-generation technolo- gies and the emergence of demand response, smart grids, and new technologies such as plug-in hybrids will also help with wind integration.

Download this open access article free (normally this journal's articles are priced at $26 each) : http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf

[txlibdem]

9. It's been well established that wind requires no energy storage up to about 20% of total energy mix

At that point the math shows the requirement for storage. The UK uses pumped hydro storage to great effect with its wind power resources.

It's doable and only makes wind or solar cost prohibitive in an insane world where the costs of fossil fuel caused CO2 and toxic chemical damage are paid by the society as a whole and not by the polluters at all. We should all come to recognize this as just another subsidy to the fossil industry not to be tolerated for much longer.

I am not a willing participant in these subsidies to the coal, oil and / or natural gas industries.

[kristopher]

18. Storage is an economic niche not a technical one.

It develops when it is profitable based on a large range of factors. You continue to attempt to raise it as a boogeyman that you think undermines renewables - thereby fulfilling your prime directive of promoting nuclear.

[txlibdem]

19. Ad hominem not accepted as a valid response

You and I both know the truth. I write it in my posts and you avoid it at all costs, deflect the thread off into left field, ignore the question, or just make crap up (like the ungracious ad hominem attack in your post).

The truth is that without storage for renewable energy we will be stuck with fossil fuels for those times when the wind isn't blowing and solar output is decreased because it's night time or there is widespread cloud cover (as happened just weeks ago). You have access to the same solar maps and wind charts as I do. The numbers do not lie.

The truth is that energy storage does not undermine renewables; it is the only thing that will enable us to end fossil fuels and achieve 100% renewable energy.

[kristopher]

20. Twisting and spinning the truth is what you are trying to do - -

--- very poorly I'll add since it is evident that you habitually accuse others others of exactly those things you are engaged in yourself.

In your previous post you tried to create the impression that renewables are prohibitively expensive because of storage. That is bullpuckey and an overt attempt to undermine renewables.

And it isn't "ad hominem" to read the unalterable trend that runs through all of your posts. If you want "ad hominem" associated with your posts though, just read where you try to smear anyone opposed to nuclear as being in favor of fossil fuels when, as every environmental group out there agrees, the pursuit of nuclear is just perpetuating the system that is built around coal, thus preserving the value of coal and ensuring its continued use.

[txlibdem]

21. "Nuclear perpetuating the system" - You're the only one who claims that.

I've never read a knowledgeable environmentalist who claims that. Maybe you have a line on the nuclear+coal conspiracy blogs that I don't know about? :-)

I've never used the phrase "prohibitively expensive" to describe energy storage for renewables. What I said is that energy storage is vital, absolutely needed to get to 100% renewable energy.

I will readily admit that I am trying to undermine fossil fuels of all types, be it coal, oil or natural gas. I will never stop attempting to undermine the deadly, polluting, radioactive material spewing, toxic and hugely expensive (if its true cost were calculated) fossil fuels. Renewables with energy storage and adequate excess capacity is the only way to end the use of these poisonous, dangerous fossil fuels.

[kristopher]

22. So you are using the Shrub defense.

"I never said Saddam had nukes"

"I never said Saddam was responsible for 911

[txlibdem]

23. Yo no soy el arbusto - I got your reference :-)

That was a fun post to write, I'm sure. I like your sense of humor (when you let it out on display).

But it doesn't prove your claim that I've ever stated that energy storage would make renewable energy less desirable. I have stated that mass produced Thorium cycle nuclear reactors (such as the LFTR) could prove to be as cheap or cheaper than renewables when the proper amount of excess capacity and energy storage are added in to the cost comparison -- it's only fair to compare the costs of a 24/7/365 power source with renewable energy that can also be relied upon 24/7/365. That is what I have posted about here on DU a number of times. Fair comparisons? God, I'm such an unreasonable jerk!

PS, forgive me for the Spanish translation -- courtesy of http://www.spanishdict.com/translation -- so if it's not proper Spanish I apologize in advance.