Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy?

[Fledermaus]

Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK8ccWSZkic

Now I know why the nuclear nuts hate Professor Jacobson so much. He debunks nuclear power and anti renewable argument very well.

[endless october]

1. at this point, yes.

it's either that or get caught up in world wars over diminishing fossil fuel supplies.

i like to think renewables will be a big player, but who knows if they can be developed quickly enough.

and yes, conservation is key. but it's not an energy policy for a growing population. and the population is most likely going to keep growing.

[Terry in Austin]

11. Populations rise as energy inputs rise

For animal populations, energy input is exclusively in the form of food populations -- e.g., rabbits for coyotes.

For human populations, energy input is also in the form of fossil fuels. The main example is our oil-intensive agriculture, whereby we effectively "eat oil."

The upshot is that populations grow or shrink in proportion to their energy inputs. You can bet that as energy dwindles long-term, so will our population.

[kristopher]

16. Did you watch the discussion?

[stray cat]

2. Does the world need energy?

[midnight]

3. NO..... Let's use solar.... And as an environmentalist you

need to keep in mind that the spent nurclear waste is a mess that no math can solve.....

[joshcryer]

5. I believe we should spend a billion dollars to build a solar factory in the NM and AZ deserts.

This solar factory would operate 24/7 and would be able to expand across the border between AZ and NM to provide enough energy to power the midwest and Pacific coast in a thousand mile diameter. If you want to go crazy with it you could export it further out but you'd want large banks of storage I think.

It would be the size of a small state.

And its ecological impact would be minimal at best, at most it would cool the desert by some degrees, and life would be able to thrive in the shade of the reflectors, as their bases would provide some bit of water retention when it does rain. It'd still be mostly desert life but there would be some migration.

[midnight]

6. We could put to work all the unemployed construction people to put solar

roofs, panels, water heaters into all the homes that want them. This could be the jobs program that is needed in real peoples lives...

[joshcryer]

7. Yeah, but that would cost way more, I am thinking automation.

A few thousand people would be hired, but there'd be no slave labor cleaning off reflectors, they'd be operating the machinery.

[madokie]

14. Heres what I don't understand

many keep saying that it will take a whole army of people to keep the mirrors or solar panels clean. Well I have a small solar panel that is a good 15 years plus old and I've covered it with dust and I can't tell any difference in the output, all things being equal except one time it is clean as a new dime and the next time it is dusty, dirty would be a better choice of words actually and I see no difference. Whats the deal with that. Do you have a verifiable link to where they compare a squeaky clean solar panel and a dusty one for output that you could post so I can see where I'm going wrong in my experiments? I just don't see any difference in output. :shrug:

[joshcryer]

18. Scale it up to a square mile PV field and it adds up.

Same with reflectors.

But it's not really an issue, I was just using it as an example.

The example could have just as easily been "overpaid engineers standing around scratching their butts* deciding when to plant the next reflector post." :D

*I get paid to do this.

[madokie]

31. But many use that as an argument as to why solar won't work in the long run

When there is no discernible difference in a small, 12X18" solar panel how can that scale up and be much of anything either? I've done the same experiment with a mirror using a light meter and same thing I can't see any difference in light reflected when the mirror is dusty or clean.
Methinks that many are just casting asparagus :-) when they use that as an argument against solar and I read that here a lot.

Oh well I only create/make things, I'm not a scientist. In making/creating things I have to do a lot of experiments so I experiment a lot :hi:

[joshcryer]

4. The infeasiblity of Jacobson's plan with Nd based wind turbines:

3.8 million wind turbines over 20 years is 190000 per year. A wind turbine uses 600 kg of Nd per MW. At 5 MW per turbine you are using 3000 kg of Nd. 190000 wind turbines per year would require 570,000 tonnes of neodymium to build. Per year. Current global production of Nd is 7,000-11,000 tonnes. It is expected to rise to about 20,000 tonnes.

Until I see one wind turbine that doesn't use Nd or only uses a very small amount of Nd I will not believe one iota of garbage coming out of the mouth of a wind turbine supporter.

A side note. To build out 3.8 million wind turbines using Nd you would require nearly 1.5 times the planetary reserves of Nd. That is, the reserves are thought to be about 8 million tonnes. 570,000 tonnes per year * 20 years = 11,400,000 tonnes.

Jacobson says that gearless wind turbines may use less Nd. He's wrong. The 600 kg / MW number comes from some gearless designs.

This relates to rare earth metals because of the emerging use of Neodymium-Iron-Boron (NdFeB) magnets in the generators of wind turbines. Reliability is particularly important for offshore applications because servicing turbines in the water is problematic and expensive. Traditional Doubly Fed Induction Generators (DFIG) with gearboxes are prone to breakdown. Offshore operating and maintenance costs are variable depending on location but the UK experience with offshore DFIGs has seen O&M take up 23% of total costs. Of these, the gearbox and generator account for 42%. Thus as much as 10% of the capital cost is due to servicing the gearbox and generator.

However Direct Drive Permanent Magnet (DDPM) generators have no moving parts and no gearbox and are therefore much less prone to breakdown. They are quickly becoming the turbine of choice for offshore applications. DDPMs contain NdFeB, and lots of it. Jack Lifton suggests 1 ton NdFeB/MW however I have not seen a source for that. This source suggests 567kg/MW.

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/345817-eamon-keane/29223-will-offshore-wind-growth-boost-rare-earth-demand

[Fledermaus]

10. Neodymium use for wind turbines at present is very small

From the same article you quoted

Neodymium global production in 2007 was approximately 11,000 tons. Neodymium use for wind turbines at present is very small but should NdFeB become widespread in offshore wind, this would take up 18% of the 2007 total by 2020 (2000 tons Nd).

There is a lot of research being conducted into making gearboxes more reliable. There is furthermore another generator option – the Direct Drive Synchronous Generator (DDSG) which like the NdFeB magnet variety has no gearbox and is almost as reliable. It has a 30% heavier tower top mass, though. It’s not a given that NdFeB will monopolise offshore generators

[joshcryer]

12. That's because we're not building a significant amount of wind.

For every 10-15 5MW turbine that goes up a 1GW coal plant goes up. I was pointing out the flaw in Jacobson's proposal. It's not possible with Nd.

[Fledermaus]

15. Its low because they did not use neodymium in the recent past.

The introduction alternative drive train configurations is new and evolving. No one knows how much neodymium will be used in wind turbines.

The author of the article you have referred to understands the issue, but you do not.

[joshcryer]

17. DDSG need a baseload grid to run, they can't just magically spin up without sync from the grid.

I understand the issue and have not misrepresented the author in any way. We must move away from Nd based turbines to be able to build out turbine infrastructure in any way resembling Jacobson's proposal.

[Fledermaus]

21. The author understands there are competing different generator systems for wind turbines

You do not.

Abstract
The objective of this paper is to compare five different generator systems for wind turbines, namely the doubly-fed induction generator with three-stage gearbox (DFIG3G), the direct-drive synchronous generator with electrical excitation (DDSG), the direct-drive permanent-megnet generator (DDPMG), the permanent-magnet generator with single stage gearbox (PMG1G), and the doubly-fed induction generator with single-stage gearbox (DFIG1G). The comparison is based on cost and annual energy yield for a given wind climate. The DFIG3G is a cheap solution using standard components. The DFIG1G seems the most attractive in terms of energy yield divided by cost. The DDPMG has the highest energy yield, but although it is cheaper than the DDSG, it is more expensive than the generator systems with gearbox

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F60%2F35284%2F01677663.pdf%3Farnumber%3D1677663&authDecision=-203

[joshcryer]

22. Nothing I says contridicts that there are competing designs. Eamon Keane says that it's not likely.

He says:

There is a lot of research being conducted into making gearboxes more reliable. There is furthermore another generator option – the Direct Drive Synchronous Generator (DDSG) which like the NdFeB magnet variety has no gearbox and is almost as reliable. It has a 30% heavier tower top mass, though. It’s not a given that NdFeB will monopolise offshore generators, but it seems likely to take the lion’s share. GE has acquired ScanWind, which uses NdFeB, and other wind companies are also turning to NdFeB.

I can find nothing that indicates that any wind manufacturers are aware of the supply chain issues associated with neodymium. For rare earth mining investors it is safe to assume, however, that in the coming years increased demand for neodymium will come from the wind sector. The extent of this demand remains to be seen.

I do not see DDSG being used any time soon, for the reason I stated above, and because Eamon Keane, who seems like quite a reasonable fellow, suggests so.

[kristopher]

23. Omission is a sin of commission.

You can't get out of misrepresenting the facts by hiding behind the fact that you deliberately omitted key information required for full understanding. The truth, the WHOLE truth, and NOTHING BUT the truth is the basic standard.

Please stop pushing false information that has been cultivated by the coal and nuclear industries.

Two-hundred kg NdFeB per MW translates into approximately 70kg Nd2O3/MW, or 70 tonnes per GW. Up until now, very few turbines have used permanent magnets, with demand of only 3 or 4 tonnes <17>, suggesting present demand of less than 100MW per year. Figure 19 shows the historical and projected wind turbine additions <53, 54>. In 2014, if half the wind turbines were PMG, a requirement of 2.1kt/yr of neodymium oxide would be required (70*30). From Figure 9, this is 10% of current neodymium production capacity.

Wind turbine demand for neodymium is highly unlikely to have a 50% market share by 2014, as it takes time to build factories and road test the technology. 20% may be a realistic figure, which only entails a requirement of about 1kt/yr.

Furthermore, there is always a backstop technology – the traditional DFIG – which can, and I argue will, step in should any shortfall in neodymium appear.
- Eamon Keane

[Fledermaus]

26. He gave a link.

[joshcryer]

27. DFIG is not Nd based and it supports my original comments, in fact, Emaon Keane appears in full...

...agreement with me. Wind turbines won't be Nd based.

[kristopher]

28. No, he doesn't agree with you.

You tried to use limited Nd supplies to say that wind COULD NOT play the role energy analysts see for it.

You were making up a completely bogus argument out of cherry picked half-truths in an effort to bolster nuclear power by denigrating renewables.

Your claims were proven false, and now you are trying to spin it as if you were not, once again, making up things to aid nuclear power.

Please stop making false claims about renewable energy in your efforts to promote nuclear powered steam kettles. If you can't do it with the truth, then you need to change your position.

[joshcryer]

29. I did not, you are lying. I said that wind will have to not use Nd for me to believe it is viable.

As of now wind is trending in the Nd territory, particularly offshore wind.

[Fledermaus]

25. DDSGs are used and work very well.

There is a converter between the generator and the grid. There is no need to sync the generator with the gird. The converter decouples
the two frequencies.

Basic Operation Principles and Electrical Conversion Systems of Wind Turbines
http://www.elkraft.ntnu.no/norpie/10956873/Final%20Papers/069%20-%20electrical%20conversion%20systems.pdf

[joshcryer]

30. Why are we going after Nd based designs if these other designs "work well?"

Note, I am specifically referring to non-permanent magnet direct drive systems.

I have a feeling the market is deciding that for us going on page 5 of that report.

[Fledermaus]

34. Its your straw man not mine.

[kristopher]

19. Your numbers are (deliberately?) waaaay off and there are acceptable alternatives.

That cite states that there is 567kg/MW of "Neodymium-Iron-Boron (NdFeB) magnets in the generators of wind turbines".

Neodymium
...plus
Iron
...plus
Boron

With Nd being about 35% of the whole that works out to about 200kg/MW.

However, according to your quoted source (Eamon Keane) on Sept 23, 2010, the amount is actually 200kg of NdFeB per MW, equaling 70kg/MW of Neodymium meaning 350kg for a 5MW turbine.

He is also very clear that acceptable alternatives exist. Such constraints are always part of the picture and most times there are viable alternatives - you probably won't get that since it is an "economics" thing.

[joshcryer]

20. Fair enough, if your number is right Jacobson's plan requires 66,500 tonnes a year.

Far better. But still infeasible.

Yes there are gearless designs that don't use Nd, but they aren't the ones being built, as per the article. Until that starts happening I am not buying one thing that you people say.

[Confusious]

8. No, not really

I just don't think the alternatives are going to make it.

He gets things wrong all the time. If he was right, I couldn't argue and would have to say no nuclear.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dead_Parrot]

13. Does it need bicycles with gas engines strapped to them?

Opinions differ.

[Fledermaus]

33. The Honda A-Type, Honda’s First Product on the Market (1947)

http://world.honda.com/history/limitlessdreams/atype/

Perhaps you could tell us how you have reduced carbon emissions and encouraged other to do the same.

I get over 200 mpg in city driving on my home made hybrid vehicles.

[bananas]

24. No, the world will be better off without nuclear energy.

[Nihil]

32. No.

It doesn't need humans either.

A hungry child doesn't need a wind turbine.

A homeless man doesn't need a renewable energy credit certificate.

A harpooned whale doesn't need a bicycle.

The E/E forum doesn't need any more flamebait.

Maybe you need to refine your "debate" question a little?

[Nederland]

35. Thanks for the link

What is most interesting about the presentation is that there seems to be a fundamental disagreement about the facts. Brand and Jacobson presented two completely different calculations of how big the carbon footprint of nuclear is. Brand addressed this in the little time he had to respond by saying that Jacobson's footprint numbers assume that there will be a nuclear war. Is that true? If so, it does seem like a little bit of a stretch.

[joshcryer]

36. Brand made a mistake there, though, the CO2 contribution from that is very little.

Jacobson includes it as a deflection point in debate, it hardly modifies nuclears carbon footprint as calculated by Jacobson. Most of it comes through lifecycle emissions. But nuclear war is just so appealing when you have an emotional debate, and Brand fell for it. Brand should have argued that Gen IV would last 60 years as a baseline with an extension to 120 years. That completely destroys every other thing on the table.

Jacobson's report nicely leaves out Gen IV reactors in its "assessment of nuclear power" because it helps the numbers against nuclear. Jacobson is now acting as if his "review of solutions" is applicable to Gen IV nuclear power (see his most recent report where he cites the "review of solutions" while discussing LFTR and the like). It's not. And Brand fell for it.

Barry Brook or Kirk Sorenson or Tom Blees would've done a much better debate with Jacobson.