Nuclear power and climate change – what now?

[wtmusic]

Toshiba's "nuclear battery" concept.

"The nuclear power plant debacle in Japan in the wake of the recent earthquake and tsunami has complicated what already was a contentious question: Should we look to nuclear power as a major component in solving the climate change problem? The situation at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan is getting more manageable by the day, though the ultimate repair and cleanup will be a long-term project. The 24-hour news cycle has feasted on the public’s dread of radiation, relegating the deaths of tens of thousands in the earthquake and tsunami to almost a footnote on American cable news shows. Anti-nuclear crusaders have been trotted out with little regard for their qualifications, some resurrecting long-debunked tales of deaths and injuries at Three Mile Island (where nobody was even hurt, much less killed).

The predicted nuclear renaissance may founder temporarily in some countries because of these events, but the lessons that will be learned from Japan’s accident won’t stop the growth of nuclear power in the long run. It will only make future plants safer. Despite the dire warnings of doomsayers, nuclear power plants being built today are far safer than those at Fukushima, and the Generation IV reactors to come will be even better. The aged power plants at Fukushima that would likely have survived the tsunami intact if not for the woefully misjudged placement of their backup power supplies had been running as long as forty years, and were designed half a century ago.

Nuclear Technology Moves On

How’s that laptop working that your daddy bought you back in 1960? One might well pose that question to those who now advocate the wholesale abandonment of nuclear power based on the accident in Japan, for technology—nuclear and otherwise—has not been standing still. The fact is that our energy options are limited, and those that can provide baseload electricity (24/7 on demand) without carbon emissions are more limited still. Except for geothermal power opportunities accessible in just a few places in the world, hydroelectric power and nuclear power are just about the only two choices. Hydro, of course, while not as geographically limited as geothermal, nevertheless is circumscribed by both topography and politics. (On that latter point, it’s ironic that the Sierra Club used to be pro-nuclear until the early Seventies, seeing nuclear power as the way to obviate the building of dams. Since their complete reversal of that position they have been anti-nuclear crusaders—who still hate dams.)"

http://bravenewclimate.com/

[FreakinDJ]

1. Climate Change or Nuclear Power .....

[kristopher]

2. Or...

Mods this is a one paragraph abstract it is not "an entire article".
You can view the html abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

The section is underneath in block quote is the SAME single paragraph abstract broken down for ease of reading.


As originally published:
Abstract

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge. Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended. Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended. The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs. The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73 000–144 000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300 000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15 000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020. In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.


Broken apart for ease of reading:

You can download the full article at his webpage here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

Or use this direct download link: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf

You can view the html abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Download slide presentation here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/0902UIllinois.pdf

Results graphed here: http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/RSCpubs.ePlatform.Service.FreeContent.ImageService.svc/ImageService/image/GA?id=B809990C

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[FreakinDJ]

3. Appears to only address the issues of Co2 produced by cars

I'm still torn on this issue - I think in order to bring manufacturing back to America and REALLY begin to control the Co2 emissions we are responsible for and not just out-source them to 3rd world countries we are going to have MUCH greater energy demands to fulfill our needs.

[kristopher]

4. It is more than CO2 and more than cars

It uses personal transportation as a clearly definable objective by which to measure the performance of existing, ready to deploy, low carbon technologies.
As it says in the abstract:
"This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. "


You can download the full article with supplementary data at his webpage here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

Or use this direct download link for the main paper: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf

You can view the html abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Download slide presentation here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/0902UIllinois.pdf

[FreakinDJ]

5. let me know when you are ready to have a discussion

and not just slap links down

and thats from a former Energy Efficiency Engineer

[kristopher]

6. The "links" form the basis for legitimate discussion.

Apparently you'd prefer to just toss out false claims and call it discussion.

As to your qualifications, I'd be more interested in the the failure of elementary skills like reading, since judging by your error in post #3 you either didn't comprehend or deliberately misrepresented the study in post #2.

Which was it?

[FreakinDJ]

10. Let me know when you actually have some thing that resembles

a solution

Until then the Nuclear Industry will work feverishly to deploy as many Nukes as they can

and you'll still be posting your links crying "but but but ....."

[kristopher]

11. The amount of nuclear is declining.

New installations are not keeping pace with those being taken offline.

Renewables, on the other hand are growing wildly and there is every reason to think the trend will accelerate as ever more MANUFACTURING capacity comes on line.

In 2003, when the DOE solar pamphlet below was written, the US was the leader in PV - now we are 5th. Myth #2 identifies a target of 3.2 GWp of US manufacturing capacity as being needed to meet a US goal of 10% of electricity from solar by 2030. The /p/ in GWp refers to manufacturing production capacity.

However since the Republicans have successfully obstructed every policy that would have helped the industry grow here, global solar manufacturing capacity is now the number to look at. Global mfg capacity will reach about 45GWp this year with China's manufacturing capacity alone expected to hit 35GWp, even though they didn't start building solar panel factories until 2007.

To put that in perspective, if China's factories manufacture 35GWp of solar panels each year those panels will produce the equivalent electricity of about 7 or 8 large nuclear power plants. So in 12 years, the amount of now existing factory capacity (in China alone) will manufacture enough panels to equal the output of between 84 - 96 nuclear power plants. And the buildup of manufacturing is just getting started. Within ten years it is hoped/expected/thought that global solar manufacturing capacity will hit 1000GWp/year

(see the slideshow at this solar company website for a graph showing how increased manufacturing directly impacts the price of the electricity produced http://www.1366tech.com/

And before you say it can't be done, consider that in 2007, China wasn't involved in solar manufacturing and now, 4 years later they have 35GWp. After Fukushima, what do you think they are going to do?


At this link you'll find the report mentioned, along with preemptive busting of any more antirenewable myths the nuclear indsutry bloggers have equipped you with.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=296568&mesg_id=296732

[FreakinDJ]

16. Just think where we would be if Reagan hadn't tossed out Carter's

solutions

But what did Carter know - he was only a Nuclear Engineer

REC in Washington is coming only with yet another plant. They won't reach full production capabilities for 3 or 4 years yet - but that is not the issue

We had a lot of hope for the "Thin Film Coating" process and the efficiency of photovoltaic cells. In the 50s when they were first produced 10% was it, up through the 80s 15% was considered good. But recently researchers in Menlo Park believe they have tapped into the secret and claim 85% efficiency is possible. That was 1 of the reasons they have even attempted growing crystals in the "Zero G" environment of the Space Shuttle in 2008.

Until the efficiency of mass produced photovoltaic increase they Can Not provide a full solution.

Personally I think we need Federal Laws to mandate every State enact legislation similar to California's Title 24 legislation which all the Captains of Industry proclaimed would drive businesses out of the state. Instead it increased their profit margins through energy savings. By mandating the implementation of renewable energy into the design of every commercial building above 5000 sq ft the markets would respond with increased R&D and increased efficiency photovoltaic cells

That would be a step in the right direction - but not enough to satisfy ALL of our energy needs

Estimates of "10Kw x 10 to the 10th" World wide over the next 20 years won't be satisfied by renewables alone, nor can the construction of Nuclear power keep up with those kind of demands.

You got an answer to that .....

[kristopher]

19. Yes, I do.

Your random comments on efficiency are meaningless. The prize is found in cost and amount of electricity produced. The numbers I gave you are based on averages for the industry and averge insolation in the US.

Here is the link again, but let me make it clear by restating it, so there is less ambiguity.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=296568&mesg_id=296732

The average time to plan and build a nuclear plant is 12+ year, so I chose that as a baseline. If China builds no additional manufacturing plants after this year:

Year 2012 they will manufacture enough panels to equal the output of 7-8 nuclear plants.
Year 2013 they will manufacture enough panels to equal the output of another 7-8 nuclear plants.
Year 2014 they will manufacture enough panels to equal the output of yet another 7-8 nuclear plants.
Year 2015 they will manufacture enough panels to equal the output of 7-8 more nuclear plants.
Etc, etc etc... until the factories close.

In the 12 years it takes to build a nuclear plant they will produce and install enough panels to equal the output of between 84 - 96 nuclear plants.

Now consider a more realistic scenario where the manufacturing base keeps growing until we hit the 350GWp.

That would equal 70-80 nuclear plants worth of new electricity generation being brought online every year; and that is fully accounting for capacity factors of both technologies.

Remember too, that doesn't count wind, geothermal, biomass, biofuels, and wave/current/tidal.

If we can get 1000GWp of solar manufacturing capacity built by 2020, we have climate change licked.

[FreakinDJ]

21. You really have no idea about Electrical Energy do you

I'm not trying to slam you - but I thought you should know

Besides the problem of Inverters associated with large photovoltaic systems that cause low power factors for every thing around it (which in turn RAISES demand for power)

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/10/how-pv-grid-tie-inverters-can-zap-utility-power-factor

but there is also an efficiency of the photovoltaic cell itself - this is the efficiency I have been referring to

http://www.pvresources.com/en/solarcells.php

sorry for the links but it is a rather lengthy and complicated explanation and those site have some pretty cool illustrations that make it easier to comprehend. I'm running off what I learned in school (30 yrs ago) and practiced in the field (15 yrs ago) and what I still follow today of the technology.

At 15% the economics of photovoltaic don't work very well. Sure there are savings but with a 15 to 20 year ROI the life of the Photovoltaic Panels are about used up by the time they pay for themselves. So China can build all the 15% efficiency photovoltaic cells they want. When the price of their electrical energy is compared to coal or Nuke it is almost a nonstarter.

BUT - should the efficiency be increased to even 50% the whole equation changes - Especially the numbers concerning Photovoltaic vs: Nuclear Power.

Bio-fuels is almost a nonstarter for most people's needs. The required Land-use issues and capitol investment required don't warrant the available power in return

Wave-Generation will be litigated to death by fishing industries and even some environmentalist groups. Again it is not enough power in return for the trouble 1 would run into trying to permit such a project. Blame it on the NIMBYs

There is more - but did you even read my post or did you go directly to forming your reply ?

[kristopher]

23. Actually I do.

My training is in how to evaluate energy technology capabilities and characteristics, including the way the different technologies integrate into effective energy distribution systems. This includes the technological, economic, social and political factors that are at work.

You are not correct about the economics of solar on a variety of fronts. I'll touch on a couple - the effective lifespan of panels is in excess of 30 years, so they are not "worn out" by the time they pay for themselves even if the payback time were 15-20 years, which is true less and less often. In fact, it is thought that more than 40 years is a pretty realistic expectation.

The second item is the existence of the cost/efficiency equation that you refuse to recognize. Its there and it is meaningful. Dropping production costs has proven to be far more important than boosting efficiency at driving market penetration and reducing the costs of delivered electricity. We do not have a shortage of sunlight or space, we have a shortage of money.

ETA: Another important consideration is market and regulatory system that governs how the different types of generation are ABLE to be bought and sold. If a homeowner is reimbursed for peak power at bulk rates, the homeowner is getting ripped off and that has historically been the case. It is slowly changing around the country, but there is still a market/regulatory penalty that will endure until the smart grid is able to manage the system on a more refined level; which is also coming.

We've moved from the market niche where utilities were the only entities that found solar economically viable, and we are now at the phase where commercial applications are soaring. With the changes I spoke of and the current market development we see in home storage solutions from EV battery manufacturers and various thermal storage systems designed into home and community utility systems, the residential market should start popping in about 3-5 years. Another predictable residential market expansion is probable when the resale market for EV batteries (they are replaced when they drop to 80% of designed recharge capacity) develops, but given the lifespan of the batteries that are in the pipeline to the market, that might take 10 or more years.

[bananas]

14. More like Climate Change and Nuclear Exclusion Zones. nt

[txlibdem]

7. Toshiba mini-nuclear power is going to be a powerful technology to combat climate change

There are several companies working on these mass produced, sealed and safe mini-nuke plants. It's going to be exciting to see thousands of them installed all around the world, providing clean and safe nuclear power.

[kristopher]

8. No it isn't. It is more nuclear hype.

[FreakinDJ]

9. Actually he is right

but the preferred approach would be a balance of Green and Improved Nuclear Technology

- and honestly some of the Greener's claims and arguments are more flawed then a Tepco press release.

[kristopher]

12. No, he isn't.

There are 4 factors that have to be addressed: cost, safety, proliferation and waste. Mininukes was looked at by MIT in their 2003 assessment of nuclear technologies, and when evaluated on those 4 problems, it was dismissed not being a viable option in comparison with GenIII reactors.

Now that Gen III has failed, all you prove by trotting out worse technologies is that you don't understand the issue.

I'd urge you to start reading some literature from "antinuke" groups like Greenpeace and Union of Concerned Scientists. There has also been a lot written by Amory Lovins that addresses the shortcomings of nuclear. I say that because the information you are using to base your beliefs on is almost certainly produced by the public relations department of the nuclear industry's lobbying groups like the World Nuclear Association and the Nuclear Energy Institute.

Would you give information from the Petroleum Institute the same trust you give that from the nuclear industry?

[FreakinDJ]

17. Greenpeace spouts "Dis-information as bad as Freepers"

and no intelligent person should take them seriously

BTW: their disproved claims have done your cause much more harm then good.

[kristopher]

20. Bookmarked.

You've certainly identified yourself.

We're done.

[FreakinDJ]

22. It is what you don't know that identifies You

[bananas]

13. BraveNewClimate.com: "There was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity"

It should be renamed to "BraveNewCrackpots.com"
That guy is clueless about nuclear energy - he just parrots all the hype and PR.
He and his website have lost all credibility: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x284853

[kristopher]

15. "B. Brooks, "Japan's nuclear crisis is mainly public panic, not radiation risk"

http://www.istockanalyst.com/business/news/5011635/interview-japan-s-nuclear-crisis-is-mainly-public-panic-not-radiation-risk-australian-expert


I disagree about one thing, he doesn't just parrot all the hype and PR; he actively works to create it. Do you know what uranium mining and sales are worth to the Australian economy?

[madokie]

18. Getting more manageable by the day

How in the hell can you even suggest such a thing? Let me put it this way this will be the last thread you start that I'll read. Hell after that 'getting more manageable by the day statement was where I stopped reading.
So long and have a good time continuing to try to minimize this catastrophe.