YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[OmCheeto]

Personally, I don't have much of a problem with nuclear power.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf34.html"
The US Navy has accumulated over 5500 reactor years of accident-free experience, and operates more than 80 nuclear-powered ships (with 103 reactors as of early 2005).

As long as they are built and operated well.

 

[mheslep]

...
Edit: the most direct way to remedy this policy error IMO is to force energy secretary Chu to discuss the matter. Unlike a purely political appointee, with his background he should not be allowed to delay and obfuscate on the subject by deferring to the experts.

Go Senator McCain:
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/03/06/yucca-mountain-mccain-goes-nuclear-on-chu/

“What’s wrong with Yucca Mountain, Mr. Chu?” Mr. McCain asked at the hearing.

“I think we can do a better job,” Mr. Chu replied.

“We’re going to have spent fuel sitting around in pools all over America,” Mr. McCain said. “To say after 20 years and $9 billion dollars spent on Yucca Mountain that it’s not an option is a remarkable statement . . . It’s clear industry isn’t interested in the construction of nuclear power plants because we have no place to store” nuclear waste.

Mr. Chu said the administration plans to come up with a new plan for storing spent nuclear fuel later this year. “I want to seek the best advice of deeply knowledgeable people,” he said. He cited assurances from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that interim storage of waste at nuclear plants is safe, but was vague about what options the administration sees for long-term storage.

"Better job ... seek best advice"
What an utterly lame, completely political, response from Chu. I was expecting much better.

Complete transcript
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2009/03/john-mccain-and-steven-chu-on-yucca.html

 

[Topher925]

Ever find that article, Topher?

No, I haven't. I'm not to sure about its accuracy anyway since the economics of biofuels can only be roughly estimated. Lots of pointless articles about land requirements though. http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1454/ On a side note, First Solar broke the $1 barrier last week. w00t!, I own FS stock.
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2237250/first-solar-reaches-dollar-per

 

[mheslep]

On a side note, First Solar broke the $1 barrier last week. w00t!, I own FS stock.
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2237250/first-solar-reaches-dollar-per

52 Week High $317.00, today: $107.80

 

[Topher925]

I know, its a great stock! I also bought it when it was only ~70 a share.

Its doing a hell of a lot better than most.

GE: 52-Week High = 38.52, Today = 7.14

 

[russ_watters]

What an utterly lame, completely political, response from Chu. I was expecting much better.

I heard about this (surprisingly, it got almost no press ). So it would appear I was wrong: the Obama administration has already fired their first shot against nuclear power, and it was a big one. This is very, very bad.

 

[.:Endeavour:.]

The Obama administration wants to end the recession as fast as possible, even though from the stimulus pack, we are more into debt than ever before. The shots where already fired here in California where both, I think, propositions for research and to start creating renewable resourses didn't pass, but what did pass was a bullet train from San Francisco to Los Angeles on the worse time were the state is going bankrupt. This is what a private industry should be making not the government. The first shots against nuclear power aren't going to be the last ones.

 

[Astronuc]

"Better job ... seek best advice"
What an utterly lame, completely political, response from Chu. I was expecting much better.

I agree. Chu's statement is disappointing to say the least.

No new plants will be built until there is a final disposition on spent fuel. It cannot stay at reactor sites indefinitely, unless each site is expected to develop a final respository. The government should then just refund the money that has been collected on the premise that a final solution was being developed.

I thought the middle of Wyoming would be a great place. There's a natural bowl surrounded by mountain ranges.

I'd like to see reprocessing with recycle of the U, Pu and vitrification of fission products which can then be buried in a geologically stable formation like Yucca mountain.

Clearly Reid does not want any spent fuel in Nevada, and many in the Clinton administration has no inclination to support nuclear energy, if they weren't opposed to it.

 

[signerror]

I'd like to see a fully closed fuel cycle with reprocessing and breeder reactors. Some mixture of fast breeders like IFR (sodium cooled) and GFR (helium), and thermal breeders based on Th232/U233 (the fluoride-salt MSR for instance). I think, by simultaneously investing in both conventional light-water reactors (and CANDUs), plus breeder reactors, nuclear power could satisfy a majority (or all) of the world's energy demand. It is symbiotic: the conventional reactors produce tons of fissile plutonium + minor actinide fuel, which is needed in large amounts to start up the breeder reactors. Conversely, excess plutonium from breeders would return to the light-water reactors as MOX fuel.

 

[Topher925]

I thought the middle of Wyoming would be a great place. There's a natural bowl surrounded by mountain ranges.

I think you need a very specific type of clay soil for the storage of nuclear waste. Something about very dense, stable, and relatively impermeable to water, so you can't just pick any mountain range or stable region to bury the stuff at.

I always thought the original A-bomb testing grounds would be good. The place is already contaminated and off limits.

I'd like to see a fully closed fuel cycle with reprocessing and breeder reactors.

I think we all would.

 

[Astronuc]

I think you need a very specific type of clay soil for the storage of nuclear waste. Something about very dense, stable, and relatively impermeable to water, so you can't just pick any mountain range or stable region to bury the stuff at.

Soil? Soil is permeable.

The ideal site is rock that has been geologically stable for millions of years and likely to remain so, e.g. basalt or granite.

I always thought the original A-bomb testing grounds would be good. The place is already contaminated and off limits.

Yucca Mountain is on the western side of the Nevada Test Site, and that's one reason it was selected. It's already Federal land.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Wfm_area51_map_en.png

 

[.:Endeavour:.]

I always thought the original A-bomb testing grounds would be good. The place is already contaminated and off limits.

Even though the area is off limits, the nuclear test sites are under federal land which are under the Military sovereignty unless Congress allows nuclear waste to be stored there. Its off limits to the public, not to the Military or to federal government.

 

[boab]

I think the original concept of this thread was "how you" would fix the U.S. energy crises", and was not intended to be some political energy rag site that abounds everywhere, while the problem(s) continue. I my view, political interference into some issue usually occurs to cloud and issue, and protect the status quo.
It does little to cure a problem, and only makes the lobbyist, attorney's, politicians, and the media wealthy. In the end, the issue dies on the vine of boredom, and we still have the problem.

I retired after 35 years from generating electrical power by steam, (oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear), jet engine peaking units, and hydro electric.
The best, the cheapest, the safest environmentally is hydro. Geo thermal is pretty good, and Hawaii is currently getting about 40% of it's electrical energy from it. And there is no fuel cost.
Fossil fired boilers are about 35% efficient, very reliable, but are not only damaging from green house gases they produce, but in sucking up "vast" quantities of resources. How vast this consumption is, is seldom realized by the public.
A quick example is coal. To fire a coal fired steam plant producing 650 MW's requires 10,000 tons of coal per 24 hours. 5,000,000 lbs. of air "an hour".
Of all that heat energy generated, 1/3 of it up the smoke stack, and about another 1/3 goes out the cooling towers, and 1/3 is converted to electrical power.
After burning all that coal you are left with about 5,000 tons a day of very acidic, sterile bottom ash and fly ash waste, that needs to be reburied someplace, where it can not get into the water supply.
True, coal is relatively cheap in relation to other fuels, but it is cheap only in a certain context, i.e.; BTU's. Environmental damage factors are not factored into its BTU cost advantage.
There are approximately 300, 650 MW + sized steam plants in the U.S. alone. From that, one begins to literally "see" the environmental problems they cause.
Oil and natural gas, being slightly less environmentally damaging, but are "much" more expensive fuel wise to operate. And both fuels are becoming more expensive and hard to find with time. And, as we all know, they continue to fuel the energy crisis.
Nuclear power is cheap. That's a laugh! Nuclear steam plants are not that efficient when compared to fossil fueled plants that run 2300 to 3200 psi throttle pressure and a steam temperature of 1010*F. (Higher pressure = higher efficiency)
Nuclear plants run in the neighborhood of 800 to a 900 psi on the newer ones, and much less on the older ones. The reason is their heat exchanger is located between the reactor and the steam processor that feeds the steam turbine. It becomes almost impossible above a 900 psi to design a high efficiency heat exchanger that can handle 800*F temperatures, and "NOT EVER" develop a leak caused from reactor coolant fluid flow erosion, corrosion, or the varying of thermal cycling.
Most people also forget, that cheap nuclear power is subsidized by the tax payer. "ALL" nuclear mining, processing, and sale is controlled and supervised by the government(s). Who then sells the pellets to the utility industry at "an agreed on cost". Usually 55% of the true cost in producing the pellet to make it competitive most other fuel costs. The taxpayer is picking up the difference.
Maintaining the radioactive waste is also controlled and paid for by the government, (taxpayer) "FOREVER". True, no green house gases are produced by nukes, but huge amounts of radioactive waste is.
Nuclear power has its place. In the ocean, powering submarines in my book.
Radioactive waste is bad stuff. Given time, there are very few of natures elements it will not turn literally, to dust.
And if it is compressed to save store space for example, it gets hotter, both in temperature and radioactivity. It is also very corrosive. This is why there is a BIG, BIG problem of its disposal and longterm storage.
I have found it interesting, that at the beginning of my career, the solution to "the nuclear waste problem" was just over the hill. At the end of my career, 35 years later, it was still, just over the hill. Almost no "practical" solution has yet been found. That kind of sums up how difficult this problem really is, and why the Earth's core is still molten from radioactive decay 4.5 billion years later.
Solar energy. Solar energy is expensive to produce, and only works when the sun shines. But let's take a closer look at it. Even though the current generation of solar cells are only 15% or so efficient, and expensive to produce. Solar, like hydro and wind power, has no fuel cost. Thus saving hundreds of millions in fuel bills, lost resources, and producing no green house gases over the life of that generating source.
Also plant maintenance is practically eliminated in comparison to a normal fossil fuel steam, or nuke plant. Consequently, though more expensive per MW to build, it pays for itself much-much quicker through reduced operating costs and becomes a cheap source.
Solar also, along with wind and hydro, does not increase the temperature of the Earths environment, beyond what the natural shinning of the sunlight on the Earth would cause. If global warming is a consideration, this is a major advantage.
Wind is extremely practical, and is springing up everywhere the wind blows enough to justify its use. But again, it only works when the wind blows.
Wave power. I don't consider wave power a viable power source, beyond servicing small isolated areas, or islands. The robustness of their design to deal with storms, tides, problems with marine growth, makes them extremely expensive for the little power they produce.

If I were to have my way in fixing the energy crises, I would do four things.
#1 Increase the intertie distribution network throughout the U.S. to take more advantage of the cyclic nature of electrical power use across the nation as the time of the day and usage moves across the country.
#2 Eliminate much of the unnecessary lighting of highways, roads, as well as advertising. The amount of electrical power wasted for these items is absolutely staggering! In reality much of this waste produces little safety or practical benefit. Much of it is for just "psychological security and safety", and prevents little crime or accidents. The advertising illumination could still be done of course, but with much lower and practical intensity.
One only has to look at the night sky on an overcast night to see all the energy going to waste, lighting up the clouds. Or look at the satellite photographs of the Earth at night and see the huge amounts of energy being wasted...world wide. Keeping in mind of course, that a majority of this light is reflected off the ground, (a very poor reflector) and was not originally intended in its designed use, to be beamed into space. But to light the area around it.
#3 Future good hydro location sites are almost gone now. Geothermal sites are very limited in the U.S. Though Iceland gets by fine with them, as does Hawaii.
However solar energy is world wide. True the conversion of solar cells are not very efficient, and takes a very large area to produce large amounts of power. However, there are many vacant south facing roof tops in the U.S. The tax incentive for installing an entire solar cell covered south facing roof, plus a percentage cut of the power the roof produced, would not only be extremely practical from the homeowners prospective, but also supply his needs, as well as any excess into the grid.
A large utility solar array farm, could be devoted to converting solar power into heat, and used to melt salt, where the heat stored in the molten salt is used to run turbine generators during the night, or during cloudy days.
The key here is using what's available, and practical in a particular region, and being able to ship any excess to a need elsewhere with a minimum of loss.
There will still be a need for nukes, and fossil fuel plants, but much-much less so than we are lead to believe.
The electrical industry is extremely conservative, and in many ways this is good. It makes for reliable service. But the industry also wants control, and also wants tax write off's on their generating equipment. Plus the investors want a maximum return on their investment. So efficiency and environmental damage sometimes become secondary.
I think we are at the beginning of a new way of looking at energy. Just as a point is now being realized where increasing the miles per gallon of fuel in a vehicle, has got to the point that the vehicles accessories power use are suddenly becoming a major offender to increasing that MPG of the vehicle. Ten years ago a vehicles accessories were never a real consideration. Now with the development of hybrid cars, it is becoming a real concern.
In the same aspect, smaller distribution areas, supplying their own power needs for that moment by using the best environmental resources available in that area are becoming very viable as the population density increases, and they become practical.
This concept has several advantages. It is more efficient, more reliable, cheaper to construct, less targetable, and less vulnerable to storm, or other natural disaster damage affects.
#4 Finally, I would make research into a practical means of storing electrical energy an extremely high priority. It is "The Key" to any future system.
Unfortunately, certain industries do not want others meddling in their market nitch, and consequently suppress alternative research, (unless they thought of it) and control patent use, to maximize their products.
In some ways, when such improvements could affect the welfare of the entire country, or the health of the Earth, I view such greed as a crime against humanity.
Industry view it as improving business.

boab

 

[mheslep]

The best, the cheapest, the safest environmentally is hydro.

No, overstated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_with_the_Three_Gorges_Dam
And although hydro is predictable, it is unreliable due to flow variation.

...There are approximately 300, 650 MW + sized steam plants in the U.S. alone.

Very accurate guess. There were 266 plants 650MWe or greater as of 2005 (EIA data).

 

[misgfool]

http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=after-20-years-new-life-for-cold-fu-2009-03-23

Hope is a good friend. Maybe it's coming.

 

[vanesch]

http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=after-20-years-new-life-for-cold-fu-2009-03-23

Hope is a good friend. Maybe it's coming.

My my. There's one sure way to find out whether fusion is happening, and that is the detection of tons of fast neutrons coming out, say, by experimenters vomiting and dropping dead to the floor from the moment some substantial amount of power is produced.

I really, really don't see how you could have D + something without having also fast neutron production. There is simply no known exclusive reaction channel that does so.

 

[mheslep]

My my. There's one sure way to find out whether fusion is happening, and that is the detection of tons of fast neutrons coming out, say, by experimenters vomiting and dropping dead to the floor from the moment some substantial amount of power is produced.

I really, really don't see how you could have D + something without having also fast neutron production. There is simply no known exclusive reaction channel that does so.

That seems to be one reason why this is interesting: no neutrons, yet people keep finding He and gamma products. Is it all poor technique, simply background? I don't think that's a reasonable answer any more.

 

[Topher925]

My my. There's one sure way to find out whether fusion is happening, and that is the detection of tons of fast neutrons coming out, say, by experimenters vomiting and dropping dead to the floor from the moment some substantial amount of power is produced.

I think cold "fusion" releases such small amounts of energy that there wouldn't be enough energy to kill the scientists or even boil the water it supposedly occurs in.

Here's a link to a seminar by George Crabtree that I unfortunately had to miss last week. It's basically just a brief overview of current and future sustainably.
http://techtv.mit.edu/collections/m...e-crabtree---the-sustainable-energy-challenge

 

[boab]

Originally Posted by boab
The best, the cheapest, the safest environmentally is hydro.

---------------------------------------------------------

No, overstated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ...ree_Gorges_Dam
And although hydro is predictable, it is unreliable due to flow variation.

------------------------------------

Maybe overstated, but it depends on your prospective. The Three Gorges Dam is a ecological nightmare. It was designed not only with power generation in mind, but with national prestige in mind. The old "Mine is bigger than yours" bit. So it wasn't stair stepped, with smaller dams along the river, as is the norm for hydro efficiency. Consequently it caused more major environmental and cultural problems, than stair stepping would have.
BUT, it also will have a generation capacity of something on the order of 21,000 MW's. Which is about 3 times that of Coolee Dam, which is the largest in the U.S. Also I think that it should also be considered that that 21,000 MW's produces no greenhouse gases, and does not add heat to the Earth's environment than would normally occur from the Sun.
Now if we take that 21,000 MW capability, and divide that by a typical 650 MW coal fired steam plant using 10,000 tons of coal per day, (24 hrs) we see that Three Gorges Dam replaces 32.3 coal fired steam plants. Or the burning of 323,077 tons of coal "a day", to say nothing of all the greenhouse gases and pollution produced.
China has huge stocks of coal, and as far as air quality goes as a nation, it is about the worst in the world by far. L.A. doesn't have a clue how bad, bad air can get!

So yes, I agree Three Gorges is a bad thing. But it is much better at doing what it does as far as producing hydro electrical power, than the effects of 323,077 tons of coal being burned a day to fill the gap, and the environmental mining fallout to produce that much coal and get rid of the ash.
As has been mentioned several times by some of the writers here, WE are the actual problem that caused/(s) all the pollution, and the energy crises. We want to control everything in Nature...but ourselves, and our greed.

boab

 

[mheslep]

Originally Posted by boab
The best, the cheapest, the safest environmentally is hydro.

...So yes, I agree Three Gorges is a bad thing. But it is much better at doing what it does as far as producing hydro electrical power, than the effects of 323,077 tons of coal being burned a day to fill the gap, and the environmental mining fallout to produce that much coal and get rid of the ash.
As has been mentioned several times by some of the writers here, WE are the actual problem that caused/(s) all the pollution, and the energy crises. We want to control everything in Nature...but ourselves, and our greed.

boab

Sure, compared to coal, but you said environmentally 'safest'. I'd place nuclear and any of the the renewables (others) in front of hydro.

 

[boab]

"Sure, compared to coal, but you said environmentally 'safest'. I'd place nuclear and any of the the renewables (others) in front of hydro."

Okay...if you want to split hairs, solar, wind and hydro. Or wind, solar and hydro.
One thing "I sure as Hell would not agree", is that nuclear reactors are safer than fossil fuel plants, or hydro! My God! To many examples in history of things going wrong in the nuclear industry. And when they do, it is BAD, to REALLY BAD!
Here is an example or two, your not told. In Idaho there is a small model design of the San Orofre #1 power generator reactor inside a mountain. During design testing in 1952 it had the control rods swell and stick open and it couldn't SCAM. In seconds it melted down.
The radiation inside the mountain was so intense that the shielded TV camera on a remote controlled vehicle from Los Alamos failed from the radiation exposure 7 minutes after it entered the control room area. Everbody was dead naturally. No bodies were removed, or the remote vehicle. The radiation counters on the vehicle were beyond max'd out. And that is on a vehicle was brought in because it was made to handle highly radioactive waste! The access tunnel was simply blownup, then imediately sealed with concrete.
Until about 15 years ago it was highly classified, and I only found out about it when I was in the service in the nuclear weapons program.
It was felt at the time, if it became known publicily, nuclear generation of power would have been dead before it started. It only started the de-classification process after the 3 Mile Island incident.
Then if you'll Goggle around, (it's kind of hard to find naturally) there is a report on a Russian radiative dump site that blew up in 1954. Seems they buried to much hot stuff together, it melted, and sank down into the ground water caused by the heat melting the permafrost. Caused a huge steam explosion that killed over a hundred people outright.
That was another highly classified nuclear accident that was classified by "both sides". And why reactor rods are now stored in cooling ponds for 20 years before being moved off site.
Japan and England also have had there share. France is the only nuclear country I'm aware of that is so far, a virgin.
Notice, this skips the more publized accidents. But like I said, I'm not against nuclear subs, or its use in space. I live on the ground.
Personally I believe the only "safe" long term storage of nuclear waste canisters is to put them in front of the Earths plates, thousands of feet down in the ocean, and let those plates movements at 2" a year, carry the waste back down to the Earth's core were it belongs.

boab

 

[vanesch]

That seems to be one reason why this is interesting: no neutrons, yet people keep finding He and gamma products. Is it all poor technique, simply background? I don't think that's a reasonable answer any more.

I don't know the most recent results, and in how much they are reproducible. However, from the moment that you have a *noticable* amount of power with the release of penetrating radiation (gamma or neutron), then the flux is really strong and usually deadly. If you have a release of the order of the MeV per reaction, then in order to have 1 Watt of power from that, you need something of the order of 10^13 reactions per second, and if a noticable fraction of that reaction rate branches into such penetrating radiation, you see that the observed fluxes are huge, and not difficult to detect, AT ALL, and in most cases, even dangerous.

Now, D + D branches normally 50% in a p + T and 50% in a He-3+n
and this is a property of the nuclear reaction, so it is hard to see how this can be significantly influenced by solid-state effects, but even if it is, it would mean that the channel D + D -> He-3 + n is suppressed by a factor of something like 10^9 or so to make the neutrons not appear in huge quantities. Even if the branching ratio is suppressed to 1 ppm, you'd still have a million neutrons per second, something that is easily detectable (even in the room nearby!).

So unless very very weird physics is going on (suppression of nuclear branching ratios with huge factors), I don't see how you cannot bathe in deadly fluxes of easily detected radiation if you are capable of detecting thermal effects, and hence, how there can even be the slightest bit of ambiguity of its reproducibility. The effects should be easily visible.

 

[Rade2]

Re: Cold Fusion: US Navy makes breakthrough?

Here is the link to the Navy publication where they claim "evidence" of LENR--fusion at low activation energy input.

http://www.newenergytimes.com/Library2/2008/2008BossTripleTracks.pdf

Edit: and see here news release of American Chemical Society presentation:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0323110450.htm

====

Now, I would like to begin here a detailed analysis in this forum of the peer reviewed publication by the Navy. I would like to know the following:

(1) Exactly what are the 'possible' hypothesis now on the table that explain how the Coulomb barrier was overcome to allow for any fusion to begin ?

(2) The Navy explanation of the 3-pit patterns they show in Fig.1 is that Carbon-12 was split into three alpha ? Does this not mean Navy then suggests Carbon-12 isotope has preexisting within it three alpha ready to split ? Is this an accepted hypothesis for how nucleons arranged within nuclear shells for carbon-12 ?

(3) What other explanations come to mind to explain the 3-pit pattern shown by Navy in Fig. 1 ? I think it good possibility each pit is a nucleon, either a P or N. So, why would my hypothesis be false ?

 

[intrepid_nerd]

problem: source of power

solution: modify technology so no conventional electricity is necessary. there is no reason that we should be using electrons flowing through wires to power our electronics, it's like selling a product through a middle-man, making the system inefficient and costly. For the source? The sun! not at all as we're using it today, but rather technology that directly uses photons.

example: if a satellite-looking thinger were put on a rooftop that would be able to concentrate sunlight it could be sent down optical fibers. Couldn't light then be split to create a desired image on a television? problems: no idea how to store photon power without converting it to electrons, no idea how we would send signals from the cable company to the television without using conventional electricity (but then again I'm not sure how the signal is sent today).

example 2: in designing our technologies on the molecular level we tend to create stable materials. why? let's start creating materials that are strained. initially creating them would require lots of extra energy but I really think that this could prove beneficial. Extreme example: if we designed a car that had a bottom comprising of strained bonds, and roads that were actually chemical "trails," they could interact where the road could, in a way, power the car.

conclusion: we need to stop with our conventional methods of using power. it has always been hugely beneficial to look at nature and mimic aspects of it, but we must begin to understand we are not limited to this and move onto more abstract ideas. I believe the future of these technologies lies in materials science and that in today's world bulk technologies must be engineered from the molecular level.

 

[mheslep]

Re: Cold Fusion: US Navy makes breakthrough?

Here is the link to the Navy publication where they claim "evidence" of LENR--fusion at low activation energy input.

...

I'd suggest dropping the '--fusion' trailer as long the active researchers continue to make statements like "The mechanism by which DD and DT fusion reactions can occur in Pd is not yet understood; nevertheless, theories are currently under development"

 

[vanesch]

To many examples in history of things going wrong in the nuclear industry. And when they do, it is BAD, to REALLY BAD!

Bad in the sense of objective damage, in the sense of numbers of death ? Or bad in the sense "it really freaked me out" ?

Almost all large industrial endeavors lead sooner or later to some kind of damage. One would like to avoid it, but it is in the nature of things. Now, the question is: is the damage done by the nuclear industry so terribly worse than other activities for which we take such things for granted ?

Here is an example or two, your not told. In Idaho there is a small model design of the San Orofre #1 power generator reactor inside a mountain. During design testing in 1952 it had the control rods swell and stick open and it couldn't SCAM. In seconds it melted down.
The radiation inside the mountain was so intense that the shielded TV camera on a remote controlled vehicle from Los Alamos failed from the radiation exposure 7 minutes after it entered the control room area. Everbody was dead naturally. No bodies were removed, or the remote vehicle. The radiation counters on the vehicle were beyond max'd out. And that is on a vehicle was brought in because it was made to handle highly radioactive waste! The access tunnel was simply blownup, then imediately sealed with concrete.
Until about 15 years ago it was highly classified, and I only found out about it when I was in the service in the nuclear weapons program.

I haven't heard about that one. Now, assuming this seems to be a military test program, and this is more than 50 years ago (at the very beginning of the nuclear era, where still a lot about safety was to be learned), tell me, how many dead do we talk about here, and is there not one single other military testing program that had a similar amount of casualties in the 50 years of its existence ? Say, aeronautics or so ?

Then if you'll Goggle around, (it's kind of hard to find naturally) there is a report on a Russian radiative dump site that blew up in 1954. Seems they buried to much hot stuff together, it melted, and sank down into the ground water caused by the heat melting the permafrost. Caused a huge steam explosion that killed over a hundred people outright.

Yes, again this was in the 50ies and in a military installation: the Mayak accident. It is in fact the second largest disaster after Chernobyl (the only one I know on INES 6 level). The former Soviets are not particularly well known to be careful with anything.

If you want to have an overview of the military nuclear accidents, there's a list on Wiki about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents

A list of civilian nuclear accidents is there too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents

Now, be honest with yourself, and think of any other major military activity, or civilian activity, and then try to get an estimation of the real damage and the victims caused.

For instance, compare to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incidents

or have a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_disasters_by_death_toll

(ok, I don't know the accuracy of those articles, but they give an idea).


Tell me then, does nuclear stand out so badly ?

 

[gmax137]

Nuclear power is cheap. That's a laugh! Nuclear steam plants are not that efficient when compared to fossil fueled plants that run 2300 to 3200 psi throttle pressure and a steam temperature of 1010*F. (Higher pressure = higher efficiency)
Nuclear plants run in the neighborhood of 800 to a 900 psi on the newer ones, and much less on the older ones. The reason is their heat exchanger is located between the reactor and the steam processor that feeds the steam turbine.

Close enough (though the bigger units run do run over 1000 psi), but thermodynamic efficiency is not an issue in itself, when the fuel cost is almost zero (ie, nuclear). Plus, there's not much else uranium is good for.

Most people also forget, that cheap nuclear power is subsidized by the tax payer. "ALL" nuclear mining, processing, and sale is controlled and supervised by the government(s). Who then sells the pellets to the utility industry at "an agreed on cost". Usually 55% of the true cost in producing the pellet to make it competitive most other fuel costs. The taxpayer is picking up the difference.

Please provide a reference for that 55%. I think that is totally false. Also, a good portion of the U235 currently being used as reactor fuel came from the soviet weapons. Please don't tell me you think it would be better to leave it there. Also, the feds do the enrichment, but the fuel vendors (Westinghouse, GE, Areva) make the pellets.

Maintaining the radioactive waste is also controlled and paid for by the government, (taxpayer) "FOREVER". True, no green house gases are produced by nukes, but huge amounts of radioactive waste is.
boab

False again. If your power company is operating a nuke, you're bill includes paying 0.1 cents per kilowatt hour, which your power company 'gives' to the feds to pay for this. This is completely different from the fossil power generators, who we allow to use our air as their 'waste dump' for no charge.

Here is an example or two, your not told. In Idaho there is a small model design of the San Orofre #1 power generator reactor inside a mountain. During design testing in 1952 it had the control rods swell and stick open and it couldn't SCAM. In seconds it melted down.
The radiation inside the mountain was so intense that the shielded TV camera on a remote controlled vehicle from Los Alamos failed from the radiation exposure 7 minutes after it entered the control room area. Everbody was dead naturally. No bodies were removed, or the remote vehicle. The radiation counters on the vehicle were beyond max'd out. And that is on a vehicle was brought in because it was made to handle highly radioactive waste! The access tunnel was simply blownup, then imediately sealed with concrete.
Until about 15 years ago it was highly classified, and I only found out about it when I was in the service in the nuclear weapons program.

I would really like to see more about this one. I have never heard this story before. The Chalk River (NRX) accident was in 1952, maybe that's mixed up in here. Also, I'm pretty sure the san onofre reactor wasn't even a gleam in G Westinghouse's eye in 1952. And why it would be inside a mountain I don't know. And the Idaho Lab site is pretty flat & bleak. But if you have *anything* - links, articals, even more "I heards" I would appreciate your sharing them.

 

[vanesch]

problem: source of power

solution: modify technology so no conventional electricity is necessary. there is no reason that we should be using electrons flowing through wires to power our electronics, it's like selling a product through a middle-man, making the system inefficient and costly. For the source? The sun! not at all as we're using it today, but rather technology that directly uses photons.

example: if a satellite-looking thinger were put on a rooftop that would be able to concentrate sunlight it could be sent down optical fibers. Couldn't light then be split to create a desired image on a television? problems: no idea how to store photon power without converting it to electrons, no idea how we would send signals from the cable company to the television without using conventional electricity (but then again I'm not sure how the signal is sent today).

example 2: in designing our technologies on the molecular level we tend to create stable materials. why? let's start creating materials that are strained. initially creating them would require lots of extra energy but I really think that this could prove beneficial. Extreme example: if we designed a car that had a bottom comprising of strained bonds, and roads that were actually chemical "trails," they could interact where the road could, in a way, power the car.

conclusion: we need to stop with our conventional methods of using power. it has always been hugely beneficial to look at nature and mimic aspects of it, but we must begin to understand we are not limited to this and move onto more abstract ideas. I believe the future of these technologies lies in materials science and that in today's world bulk technologies must be engineered from the molecular level.

You should put down your SF story books, we're talking about solving a real-world problem here. Also, I remind you of our "no personal theories" policy here at PF.

Real-world engineering is pretty much more difficult than thinking up extravagant schemes on one's sofa. You have to know pretty well how things work, you have to know how to handle a technological approach that is reliable, you have to do this in an economical way, and you have to have a guarantee that it will work the way you planned.

 

[russ_watters]

Bad in the sense of objective damage, in the sense of numbers of death ? Or bad in the sense "it really freaked me out" ?

Almost all large industrial endeavors lead sooner or later to some kind of damage. One would like to avoid it, but it is in the nature of things. Now, the question is: is the damage done by the nuclear industry so terribly worse than other activities for which we take such things for granted ?

I haven't heard about that one. Now, assuming this seems to be a military test program, and this is more than 50 years ago (at the very beginning of the nuclear era, where still a lot about safety was to be learned), tell me, how many dead do we talk about here, and is there not one single other military testing program that had a similar amount of casualties in the 50 years of its existence ? Say, aeronautics or so ?

I have a whole lot to say about the safety issue, but for now, here are two quick examples for your consideration:

The V-22 Osprey is a revolutionary airplane that has been in development since the 1980s. Because of the major design challanges, there were four crashes during development, which killed a total of 30 people. That's a lot for the development of a new airplane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22_Osprey The crashes did not cause the cancellation of the program and the plane is in service today.

One of the first big machines used in the industrial revolution was the steam engine. As with any new technology, people didn't fully understand the dangers and there were a lot of boiler explosions. One I just heard about recently, which was actually worse than the Titanic was the SS Sultana, which exploded on the Mississippi river in 1865 and killed an estimated 1800 people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultana_(steamboat ) The cause was simply a faulty boiler repair, combined with some procedural violations. This accident did not stop the development of the steam engine, but did help lead to improved safety. With nuclear, safety has improved substantially since the 1950s as the technology matured.

Because of the nature of the risk, I tend to draw a clear line between these two examples. Those who are members of the military or are civilian contractors working on military projects assume a certain risk when they sign up for the job and the most important aspect of the risk is largely in their control: they can always quit and make the risk zero. The death rate for military pilots, in particular navy pilots and test pilots is very high, but it is ok because people go in with their eyes completely open. This is not the case for civilians and the risk from nuclear plants or even airplane crashes. Most people don't understand the risk enough to make informed decisions and even if they do, practicality sometimes gets in the way. As a result, even though airplanes are extremely safe relative to other modes of travel, we require the actual risk to be extremely low, partly due to the fear factor, but partly due to the innocence of the victims. This is why that one critical fact about nuclear power is so important: despite all the fearmongering from the anti-nuclear crowd, nuclear power has never killed a single person in the US who was not involved in its production or research.

 

[gmax137]

russ & vanesch - I do not disagree with your contention, that nuclear power was developed with comparatively few fatalities, but still I question the anecdote related by boab above in post 301. I know about the three killed in the SL-1 accident in 1961, and I believe three more were killed at Los Alamos and one more in Argentina (Ref INPO 91-008, "In-reactor Fuel-damaging Events."

Unless boab can support his story, I would classify it as ********. And it is damaging ********, because people hear stuff like this and they believe it (after all we know how the gummint likes to cover up their mistakes). Stories like this should not go unchallenged. All most people take away from these stories is "nuclear is dangerous..."

 

[russ_watters]

gmax, you're right - I'm discussing it based on the assumption that the incident was real or similar ones happened, but that doesn't really meet our standards of reporting facts. I'm going to look into that incident, but Boab, you really need to provide citations for such examples. I'll let that one go since the discussion has already incorporated it, but for the future, examples that aren't common knowledge or easily found with a google (and I checked - this one can't be) need backup.

 

[Topher925]

Sorry to break away from the main topic of current discussion, but I recently heard at a conference that China is currently adding 1GW A WEEK (two plants per week) to their power infrastructure. Although, currently most of these are coal fired plants.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6769743.stm

I've been watching nuclear rather closely lately and it seems that China is having a huge affect on the price of nuclear fuel now that they are looking to start building 30 high output plants within a decade.

Higher worldwide demand and a fear of future shortages have driven the price of processed uranium ore from $10 a pound in 2003 to $120 this month.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/28/AR2007052801051.html (Old article, I know)

More to the point, most nuclear power studies I have read use numbers from TODAY, with only 17% of the world's power (~15 TW) being supplied by nuclear fuels. What's going to happen in the not to distant future to the cost of nuclear created electricity when materials such as Uranium and Thorium become highly valued commodities? Whats are going to do with all of the nuclear waste when the worlds demand for power increases from 15TW today to the estimated 30TW in the next few decades, assuming this energy increase is solely supplied by nuclear power? Breeder reactors and reprocessing are still said to be 25+ years away (source a few pages back). What will the world do with all of the radioactive waste when its produced 10+ fold from its current production rate?

Back to the topic of safety, everyone knows China is well know for their unmatched value of human life. With the rate at which nuclear power plants are going to be built in that country and with China's legendary safety standards, I bet in a few years you will be seeing that nuclear fatality list on wikipedia to get a little bit longer.

 

[russ_watters]

More to the point, most nuclear power studies I have read use numbers from TODAY, with only 17% of the world's power (~15 TW) being supplied by nuclear fuels. What's going to happen in the not to distant future to the cost of nuclear created electricity when materials such as Uranium and Thorium become highly valued commodities? Whats are going to do with all of the nuclear waste when the worlds demand for power increases from 15TW today to the estimated 30TW in the next few decades, assuming this energy increase is solely supplied by nuclear power? Breeder reactors and reprocessing are still said to be 25+ years away (source a few pages back). What will the world do with all of the radioactive waste when its produced 10+ fold from its current production rate?

I'll have to go back and look, but both technologies have been used sucessfully in the past and reprocessing is in use now in some places, so I'm not clear on why they would be 25 years away...

In any case, serious efforts to drive down CO2 usage are going to drive up prices. That's just an economic reality. But we have to compare technologies against each other, not just say one is expensive. In addition to (currently) being cheaper than solar, nuclear doesn't have the scaleability issues of either solar or wind. As a result, even if the price goes up substantially, it still may be the only real viable alternative.

Also, $120 a pound doesn't sound like much to me. Currently, by far the biggest economic impediment to nuclear power is the plant construction cost, not the fuel cost. Fuel cost is rarely ever mentioned as being a relevant issue.

Back to the topic of safety, everyone knows China is well know for their unmatched value of human life. With the rate at which nuclear power plants are going to be built in that country and with China's legendary safety standards, I bet in a few years you will be seeing that nuclear fatality list on wikipedia to get a little bit longer.

True, that is a serious concern. The only real solution to that is global standardization and technology sharing, as was done with the phase-out of CFC's. It is in our interest to help them, so we will - and we can even profit from it if we do it right.

 

[vanesch]

More to the point, most nuclear power studies I have read use numbers from TODAY, with only 17% of the world's power (~15 TW) being supplied by nuclear fuels. What's going to happen in the not to distant future to the cost of nuclear created electricity when materials such as Uranium and Thorium become highly valued commodities? Whats are going to do with all of the nuclear waste when the worlds demand for power increases from 15TW today to the estimated 30TW in the next few decades, assuming this energy increase is solely supplied by nuclear power? Breeder reactors and reprocessing are still said to be 25+ years away (source a few pages back). What will the world do with all of the radioactive waste when its produced 10+ fold from its current production rate?

The only "sustainable" large scale solution for nuclear are breeders, and as you say, they are still two or three decades away (the decades we lost with their stopping in the 80/90ies). I recently had a talk from a guy from Areva concerning mining and so on, and their predictions are that until 2030, there are no real concerns, afterwards, things will depend on new discoveries of ores, the speed of expansion of (thermal) nuclear and so on. So there will be some tension on the market around that period, which might finally stimulate to get real with breeders.

The waste is really not a problem, there simply has to be a policy that becomes efficient: reprocessing already, which reduces the waste to its essential part (and anyhow necessary to switch to breeders). The best middle term solution to the waste (once it is re-processed) is dry cask temporary storage at the surface, because in any case these things have to cool 50+ years before final geological storage. And become serious with geological storage.

Back to the topic of safety, everyone knows China is well know for their unmatched value of human life. With the rate at which nuclear power plants are going to be built in that country and with China's legendary safety standards, I bet in a few years you will be seeing that nuclear fatality list on wikipedia to get a little bit longer.

I'm afraid so too. This might have two effects: people might panic at the first "serious" China Syndrome (haha) and this might be the end of nuclear worldwide (for no good reason), or, we might have an accumulation of serious accidents in China, which finally give us enough statistics of what is a serious nuclear accident, and people might then just get used to it and become less ticklish about it.

 

[Astronuc]

Well ultimately, we'll use up the coal, oil and natural gas, and that will leave nuclear, hydro, wind and solar. Industries might be able to use solar power to produce liquid fuels, and perhaps biofuels will become a major source of liquid fuels.

As for nuclear, the current inventory of spent fuel contains some unused U-235 and some amount of Pu-239, which could be recovered into MOX. At the same time, Thorium could be introduced. When Shippingport was burning thorium the fuel was actually U-235 mixed into Thoria, and some of the Th-232 was converted to U-233.

Thorium is relatively abundant, but it would have to be used in breeders to produced fissile U-233, to supplement U-235 and Pu-239.

Of course, this doesn't address the proliferation issue.


In our neck of the woods, there is rumor of a pending announcement of a company that produces solar cells moving into an abandoned IBM facility. Further north, a biofuels company is expanding.