What the MIT nuclear study REALLY said

[kristopher]

You'll hear the nuclear lobby refer in reverential tones about "The MIT Study" as support for all kinds of outrageous claims. My favorite is that the MIT study PROVES that nuclear energy is preferable to renewables because renewable energy CANNOT provide for our power needs. Aside from the fact that there are literally hundreds of studies and books that disprove the assertion about renewable energy potential and capability, the MIT study didn't even look at renewables.

What it did do was identify several major problems with nuclear power and said that IF they can solve these problems then nuclear MIGHT be a part of the solution. Here is the relevant text:

Over the next 50 years, unless patterns change dramatically, energy production and use will contribute to global warming through large-scale greenhouse gas emissions — hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power could be one option for reducing carbon emissions. At present, however, this is unlikely: nuclear power faces stagnation and decline.

This study analyzes what would be required to retain nuclear power as a significant option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting growing needs for electricity supply. Our analysis is guided by a global growth scenario that would expand current worldwide nuclear generating capacity almost threefold, to 1000 billion watts,by the year 2050.Such a deployment would avoid 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually from coal plants, about 25% of the increment in carbon emissions otherwise expected in a business-as-usual scenario. This study also recommends changes in government policy and industrial practice needed in the relatively near term to retain an option for such an outcome. (Want to guess what these are? - K)

We did not analyze other options for reducing carbon emissions — renewable energy sources, carbon sequestration,and increased energy efficiency — and therefore reach no conclusions about priorities among these efforts and nuclear power. In our judgment, it would be a mistake to exclude any of these four options at this time.

STUDY FINDINGS
For a large expansion of nuclear power to succeed,four critical problems must be overcome:

Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas.However,plausible reductions by industry in capital cost,operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.

Safety.
Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices”in construction and operation are essential.We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle,beyond reactor operation.

Waste.
Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs. Improvement in the open,once through fuel cycle may offer waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more expensive closed fuel cycles.

Proliferation.
The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks. pg. ix

- The Future of Nuclear Power
AN INTERDISCIPLINARY MIT STUDY

[jpak]

1. stop telling the truth

just stop it

OK?

:hi:

[BrklynLiberal]

2. -fingers in ears- lalalalalalalalalalalalala

[joshcryer]

4. The reason nuclear advocates on this forum like the study is that most of us aren't absolutists.

Most of us on this forum don't think that nuclear is the "only" solution. I can only name one person here (one very loud person, you know who it is) on this forum who has that stance. And then there was another person who did a hit and run, posted once here (in E&E), and I haven't seen them post since. Otherwise my generalization is correct.

Most nuclear advocates on this forum do not consider nuclear power the only solution to our environmental problems.

[joshcryer]

3. Yes, and it's clear that overseas those issues are not relevant, and here those issues are being...

...resolved.

[kristopher]

5. "At present, however, this is unlikely: nuclear power faces stagnation and decline. "

Those little curly thingies at each end of that snip are called quotation marks...

[joshcryer]

8. Ahh, from the 2003 study.

1. Status of nuclear power deployment

Today, there are about 44 plants under construction4 around the world in 12 countries, principally China, India, Korea, and Russia. There are no new plants under construction in the United States.5 The slow pace of this deployment means that the mid-century scenario of 1000 GWe of operating nuclear power around the globe and 300 GWe in the United States is less likely than when it was considered in the 2003 study.6

In the United States, nevertheless, there have been a series of developments that could enable new nuclear deployment in the future:

The performance of the 104 U.S. nuclear plants since 2003 has been excellent. The total number of kWh produced by the reactors has steadily increased over those five years. The fleet-averaged capacity factor since 2003 has been maintained at about 90%.7

Extended operating licenses. Nuclear reactors typically have initial operating licenses from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for 40 years. The earlier trend to obtain license extensions to operate existing nuclear reactors an additional 20 years (total of 60 years) has continued with the expectation that almost all reactors will have license extensions. The NRC has granted 51 license extensions to date with 19 such renewals granted between January 2003 and February 2008.8 Furthermore, modest power uprates have been granted in that period, adding about 1.5 GWe to the licensed capacity.

Changes in the NRC regulations in the 1990s created a new approach to reactor licensing that included a design certification process, site banking, and combined construction and operation licensing. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized DOE to share the cost with selected applicants submitting licenses to the NRC to help test this new licensing approach — all actions that are consistent with recommendations of the 2003 report.

Your post is obvious flamebait and if the discussion declines into a flamefest (which you have the power to prevent by not name calling), I will be first to report it.

[kristopher]

21. On the front page

"At present, however, this is unlikely: nuclear power faces stagnation and decline."

Those little curly thingies at each end of that snip are called quotation marks...

[joshcryer]

23. Yes, the Executive Summary of the 2003 report.

The 2009 report is just as quotable, except it points out that the DOE followed the 2003 reports' recommendations. :rofl:

[Statistical]

25. Anti-nukkers never ge the concept of updating assumptions as facts change.

This is why most anti-nukker studies use 10-19 years as construction time, 80% as capacity factor, 25 - 40 years as lifespan.

Now those assumptions may be valid in 1980 but they certainly aren't valid today.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Statistical]

29. "The sober warning is that if more is not done."

Good thing more has been done.

Since that report came out ground broke on 16 new reactors.
Japanese Steel Works doubled the output of their ultra heavy foundry.
Obama announced loan guarantees.
Kerry is pushing for more loan guarantees and carbon tax which will hit big coal in the pocket book.
Construction has begun on Watts Bar reactor.
Pre-approval construction has began at Vogtle.
MEAG secured $2.5 billion in private funding for reactors

[joshcryer]

30. Yeah, their updated report, say, 2012, or maybe 2015 will be quite interesting.

We'll have, I believe, broken ground on new nuclear plants.

[Statistical]

34. Well technically we have.

Vogtle has broken ground. The utility is simply taking a risk.
If the application is denied well they will be left with a VERY BIG hole in the ground. :)







Some cool photos of Vogtle and steel mills ramping up to produce plate used in nuclear plants. Sadly no US mill has large enough forges to produce major components anymore. Maybe if we build a dozen reactors they might take the risk and expand.
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/04/22/business/20100422NUKE_index.html

[kristopher]

39. They are taking no risk, taxpayers and ratepayers are taking 100% of the risk

Whaat you said isn't wrong so much as it isn't a response to the MIT remarks.

while there has been some progress since 2003, increased deployment of nuclear power has been slow both in the United States and globally, in relation to the illustrative scenario examined in the 2003 report. While the intent to build new plants has been made public in several countries, there are only few firm commitments outside of Asia, in particular China, India, and Korea, to construction projects at this time. Even if all the announced plans for new nuclear power plant construction are realized, the total will be well behind that needed for reaching a thousand gigawatts of new capacity worldwide by 2050. In the U.S., only one shutdown reactor has been refurbished and restarted and one previously ordered, but never completed reactor, is now being completed. No new nuclear units have started construction.

In sum, compared to 2003, the motivation to make more use of nuclear power is greater, and more rapid progress is needed in enabling the option of nuclear power expansion to play a role in meeting the global warming challenge. The sober warning is that if more is not done, nuclear power will diminish as a practical and timely option for deployment at a scale that would constitute a material contribution to climate change risk mitigation.

[Statistical]

40. So MIT conclusion that we won't have 1000 GW by 2050 somehow means nuclear is dead.

We may (if things don't improve) have to settle for something less than 1000 GW of new capacity.

That is something I can live with. Far cry from your usual nuclear is dead chanting.

[kristopher]

41. What the MIT report shows is that nuclear supporters falsify their claims on a grand basis.

Nuclear is barely on the table and there is little indication that it will survive past the point of Federal handouts. It's only hope lies in state-rigged rate schedules that shift risk away from the vendor onto the backs of helpless ratepayers.

[Statistical]

42. Even if that were true in the US (which it isn't) we are only one of many countries.

You still haven't explain how/why public non-profit utilities want to chose the more expensive form of power.

Still we will build a dozen reactors in the US. If they don't cost taxpayers anything will you admit your wrong? Don't worry you don't need to answer I know you won't.

Still even if nuclear energy doesn't expand in the US it is expanding overseas.
China broke ground on YET ANOTHER nuclear reactor today (less than 3 months after starting work on the last reactor).
24 reactors under construction now with average time remaining of about 3 years. A new reactor in China will go online about once every 3 months.
70GW by 2020. 250GW by 2030. Remember you need to adjust for capacity factor so that is more like 200 - 300 GW of wind by 2020 and 700 - 1000 GW of wind by 2030.


Are those also "falsified claims"? How many reactor starts in China before you admit your wrong? 10 more? 20 more? 50 more?

[kristopher]

43. You mean the nonprofits in the red states, don't you?

Part of the answer is that they have nothing to lose; how does it hurt the leadership of they are 1) ideologically driven to support nuclear power? I hope you aren't trying to say that nuclear isn't absolutely loved by the right wing? You aren't trying to say that, are you? If you are, you are going against a lot of history. Just because AGW has provided a window of opportunity for the traditionally Republican supported nuclear power industry to attempt a resurgence doesn't negate the history of the technology's base of political support - and that includes people of power in utilities.

There is no protection for the public against leadership in this sector based on ideological preferences. For example the head of the TVA, who is building the one reactor actually under construction, is a board member of the Nuclear Power Institute. Do you think he is actually an honest broker?

MEAG that you like to bring up is in one of the reddest states in the country - a solid bastion of nuclear power supporters who care nothing for climate change and everything about the "treehuggers" taking away their power. It does most of the planning for a group of small munis who don't have the expertise, clout, nor likely the inclination to question the decisions of management.

The Nuclear Industry spends huge sums of money waging a sophisticated lobbying and misinformation campaign that lays the groundwork for bad decision making. Pointing to the success of that misinformation campaign is not evidence that the underlying facts are accurate nor the positions valid.

ETA Additional information:

As I've previously pointed out this would not have been accepted if the investors were actually required to shoulder the risk.
Not only is MEAG getting $1.8B in loan guarantees for their portion of the financing, but they have signed "take or pay" power purchase contracts with 49 of the municipalities they serve. That means that no matter what happens with this first of a kind nuclear build, those ratepayers are going to be paying back the money investors have put up. You routinely deny both this and the loan guarantee, but your denial has no basis.

"Last month, the government offered around $8.3 billion in conditional loan guarantees to the owners of the nuclear reactor project, which besides MEAG include Southern Co.'s /quotes/comstock/13*!so/quotes/nls/so (SO 34.73, +0.18, +0.52%) Georgia Power and Olgethorpe Power Corp. MEAG's share of the loan guarantee is $1.8 billion, its Chief Financial Officer, James Fuller, said in an emailed statement.

...Some investors also praise the structure of the deal and note that MEAG is a well-respected issuer. The deal also offers protections to mitigate the risks of the project, said Richard Saperstein, managing director/principal of Treasury Partners, a division of HighTower Securities, in New York.

For instance, MEAG has so-called "take or pay" 50-year contracts with 49 municipalities in Georgia, which secures future cash flow since the customers must still pay even if power is unused or the new projects aren't operational.

MEAG's share of the conditional loan guarantees should also help alleviate any construction costs running over estimates, he said. MEAG finance chief Fuller said the bond financing and the conditional loans should finance 120% of its costs.""

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nuclear-bonds-test-muni-markets-appetite-for-risk-2010-03-03

[kristopher]

73. ?

[kristopher]

74. Listen to those crickets...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=243977&mesg_id=244107

[kristopher]

32. Who to believe?

Stat's or my lying eyes.

[Statistical]

35. Is any one of those things I stated incorrect? n/t

[kristopher]

38. Even trimming the data they can't support nuclear

while there has been some progress since 2003, increased deployment of nuclear power has been slow both in the United States and globally, in relation to the illustrative scenario examined in the 2003 report. While the intent to build new plants has been made public in several countries, there are only few firm commitments outside of Asia, in particular China, India, and Korea, to construction projects at this time. Even if all the announced plans for new nuclear power plant construction are realized, the total will be well behind that needed for reaching a thousand gigawatts of new capacity worldwide by 2050. In the U.S., only one shutdown reactor has been refurbished and restarted and one previously ordered, but never completed reactor, is now being completed. No new nuclear units have started construction.

In sum, compared to 2003, the motivation to make more use of nuclear power is greater, and more rapid progress is needed in enabling the option of nuclear power expansion to play a role in meeting the global warming challenge. The sober warning is that if more is not done, nuclear power will diminish as a practical and timely option for deployment at a scale that would constitute a material contribution to climate change risk mitigation.

2009 MIT update

[underpants]

6. Cost- once again the public will pay the industry's cost at least partially

if you don't think that is what will happen with offshore drilling you are kidding yourself.

great post

I actually have changed my mind on nuclear power. It is safe now due to the technological changes that the stop of the 70's produced. I do NOT have a problem with nuclear plants as long as we realize the cost WE are going to pay....which is the killer of the deal (if we had an functioning media).

[kristopher]

10. I'm not satisfied with safety - the "best practices" remark is important to take seriously

It is an acknowledgment that the human element is a part of the equation that can't be engineered out. Bureaucratic indifference and collusion like we have seen in the banking, pharmaceutical and agricultural sectors is just as likely to be part of the picture with nuclear power. We have a good portion of this country that believes government can't do anything right, and they work hard to make it a self fulfilling prophecy. If we pursue nuclear at this juncture it is a massive commitment for up to one hundred years and this group is going to have the reins of government a lot during that time. Nothing would please their world view more than to allow "market forces" to regulate even the nuclear industry.

When it comes to "too big to fail" nuclear power makes the banks looks like pikers.

[Statistical]

17. "If we pursue nuclear at this juncture" IF? Wakeup WE ARE pursuing it at this juncture.

Have you read the paper at all this year both in US and around the world there is significant progress in nuclear energy.
There are 55 reactors under construction (including one in the United States) and 98 planned.

8 reactors are going to achieve first criticality this year. The highest since 1974.

Which means nuclear power WILL be here for 100 years. So starting thinking of solutions. Methods, regulation, technology to make it better, safer, more efficient.
It will be here. By the time you die (and may you live a long long long time) nuclear power will still be here.

[Statistical]

7. I have never made the claim that nuclear is the only solution rather is part of the solution.

There are only 1 or 2 people who post here regularly who claim 100% nuclear power.

Nuclear power is part of the current solution and will be part of any future solution. Both in the United States and around the world.

Wind - Hydro - Nuclear - Solar - Efficiency - Geothermal - CCS

[joshcryer]

11. I only know of one who posts that here.

He's also obsessed with the 2003 study, the 2009 study betters the outlook for nuclear, but again the US appears to be lagging behind. One reason I am ambivalent about nuclear here. It's still taking almost a decade to build the damn things.

[kristopher]

13. They do not support that position either.

As far as they go is to say that it should be on the table for evaluation.

It has been evaluated and found to be a third rate solution.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


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.

[joshcryer]

15. I look forward to the update of that paper in 10 years.

I don't look forward to the temperature increases we will have to endure until then.

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. Don't forget GeoThermal!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=244003&mesg_id=244003

[Statistical]

20. I'll update it. Geothermal never gets the respect it deserves.

Geothermal heat pumps are off the charts efficient. If only we can get the cost down.

[Dogmudgeon]

9. So you can listen to Kristopher, or you can read the report for yourself

--d!

[joshcryer]

12. Link to the report (including the 2009 update which holds a more promising future):

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

Still utterly underwhelming though.

[Statistical]

14. Now you have gone and done it.

They will read that EITHER a carbon tax OR lower risk premium makes nuclear cost competitive with fossil fuels.

However if Kerry bill becomes law nuclear energy will have both which means for the first time in history a nuclear reactor will be cheaper than a coal plant.

Nuclear has never (and will never) be competing with tiny wind/solar plants. Nuclear power competes directly with coal.
Utilities don't burn coal because they enjoy fucking up the planet. Utilities burn coal because it is insanely cheap and plentiful.
That is the only reason. Utilities are in the business of producing electrical power for sale. Period.
They don't care what technology sends watts down the line as long as it does so reliably and cost effectively.

Nuclear cheaper than coal is a huge game changer. There are hundreds of older (25-35 year old) and less efficient coal plants. A carbon tax and loan guarantees for nuclear reactors makes coal very unattractive.

[joshcryer]

18. The Kerry bill would do that? Got a link for this?

Thanks in advance.

[kristopher]

22. There are 6000 coal plants in the US alone.

[Statistical]

24. Yeah which is why an all of the above solution is necessary.

The nice thing is that number of plants is not as relevant as annual generation. Coal plants tend to be both "small (300 to 600 MW) and have low capacity factor (50% - 70%).

Will nuclear replace all coal plants? Nope. I have never and will never make that claim.
Can nuclear replace a significant portion of them? I believe it can and should.

There is plenty of dirty power to go around. Low carbon power vs. high carbon power that is the battle.

[kristopher]

31. We can do the job faster, cheaper and safer without nuclear.

[Statistical]

50. That is your claim but not accepted by realists.

Wind - Nuclear - Solar - Efficiency - Geothermal - CCS

[Dogmudgeon]

26. Nuclear energy is already competitive with all fossil fuels

There are enormous secondary costs involved with fossil fuels -- particularly medical and agricultural costs -- that nuclear energy does not inflict.

Even according to the inflated numbers generated by Russian scientist-turned-politician Aleksei Yablokov, Chernobyl will kill fewer people (200,000 to 950,000 total, depending on the paper) than coal combustion alone (one million per year -- minimum). Petroleum, natural gas, wood, and even poor stove design kill a whole lot more.

Nuclear is not so much more expensive than coal that it can't be considered. The social benefits would be enormous. I wonder -- how many people have died from the widespread use of coal and fossil fuels, where nuclear would have been built if not for the market "correction" and M.U.S.E. concerts of the 1970s? THAT might make an interesting epidemiological study, particularly now that the anti-nukes have become desperate enough to throw "everything including the kitchen sink".

--d!

[Statistical]

28. Agreed 100%. The advantage of the Kerry bill is internalizing those costs.

Coal isn't "cheap" by any stretch of the imagination however externalized costs rarely bother the person causing them.

Kerry bill helps to internalize some of those exteranlize costs. Technically he isn't making coal more expensive (society cost remains the same) however more of that costs is shifted back to the emitter.

$25 per ton of carbon works out to about 2.5 cents per kWh of coal and 1 cent per kWh of natural gas.
Global average for coal CO2 is about 1 kg per kWh. Natural gas is roughly 40% of that (0.4kg).

Coal is slightly cheaper than nuclear power. 2.5 cents makes it more expensive. What is worse for utilities is the "future risk".
Will carbon costs rise to $50 per ton in some future legislation.

Just like a mortgage immunizing you from rent inflation moving from coal to nuclear immunizing utilities from decades of future rising carbon costs.

[kristopher]

33. ROFLMAO

[joshcryer]

36. Does that graph include the externalized costs of CO2?

[NNadir]

19. How many educated people hear have you ever heard get reverential about anything?

I don't fucking live by one academic study of any type, especially studies that are several years old.

I agree with some of the stuff in the MIT study, and disagree with other facets. The literature is filled with many hundreds of thousands of papers on nuclear energy, but you'd have to know some science to be able to read them or comprehend them.

On the other hand, one can obliviously cut and paste from them without knowing a shred of science.

Basically, the worldwide nuclear community couldn't care less about how a light weight blogger with no science education reads papers that are obviously beyond their capability to comprehend. They don't cherry pick and cut and paste: They develop the science, they work with it, they have their hands on it.

Anyway, we all know that there is ONE and ONLY ONE OPINION ON ENERGY THAT MATTERS:

Mark!!

Z.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jacobson!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have a nice bad reading comprehension obviating evening.

[jpak]

44. fuck those lightweight anti-science bloggers- they don't know shit!

:rofl:

[janet118]

37. I live less than 4 miles from a nuclear power plant

It was built in the 60s and every bit of spent fuel is still onsite. It is stored underwater. Should that water drain or overheat for any reason the area around the plant would be contaminated for hundreds of years. Is it worth it?

Every individual, group or community that can should install their own solar or wind power generators now. If we wait around for this Congress to act, we are doomed.

[Statistical]

51. That isn't completely true.

Decay heat for spent fuel is high enough for combustion when it is removed from a reactor so it is placed in a cooling pond however decay heat dies off rapidly. After 3-4 years the decay heat is too low to auto-ignite the fuel. Generally the fuel will remain in cooling pond util space runs out simply because why move it until a permanent storage center opens.

So if the plant has been operating for decades only a tiny fraction of spent fuel is hot enough for combustion. Of course cooling "ponds" are sealed inside containment so even a fire would simply disperse radioactive material INSIDE containment.





Once cooling pond nears capacity the oldest fuel will be moved to dry casks where they can sit for decades without any form of cooling.

For example when Conneticut Yankee was decommissioned all the fuel was moved to a newly built spent fuel storage yard.



The 3 containers on right don't contain fuel they contain parts from reactor removed as part of decommissioning.

The casks of the left represent all the spent fuel for three decades of operation. The equivalent amount of coal would be millions of tons.

[janet118]

52. I can tell you work for the nuclear industry . . .

so, of course, I will take your word for the safety of spent fuel rods. Lovely photo, that. The fuel cemetery. Maybe we should build one here, too. Much nicer than those ugly wind generators and solar panels.

I do have one question - what would happen if the water covering that 40 years worth of spent fuel were drained away because of say, a massive power failure or terrorist action?

If the nuke industry is serious about building new plants, the first thing they need to do is figure out how to fix the waste problem at existing plants. With the money left over (ha-ha), build new plants with a a system on-site for producing encapsulized spent fuel for dry storage. I wonder what the cost/benefit analysis for this might be as compared to developing the much safer solar, wind, tidal power.

[kristopher]

53. Note that "containment" as used above = tin shed.

[Statistical]

55. I don't work for nuclear industry.

At one time I worked for a transmission company and I lived near Surry power plant when I was younger. The closest to nuclear energy in my occupation was working as a contractor for DOE doing analytical work on nuclear weapons safety (models of effects of age on critical components).

If all water was lost in cooling pond the "younger" fuel rods would begin to overheat. Eventually if water was no restored they would combust. This is why the cooling pond is inside containment building. The containment building would contain any radioactive material. The containment building also has emergency cooling system (sprayers) to keep temperature of fuel rods below that of combustion.

As far as the fuel graveyard. Scale is important. That is the amount of fuel used for a nuclear reactor that is the equivalent of about 2000 turbines over the course of more than three decades. Modern reactors produce far more electricity from same amount of fuel.

Using modern reactor efficiencies you get about 60 MWD/MTU. That's 60 Megawatt days per metric ton of uranium fuel.

60*24*0.35 / 1000 = 0.5 MWh per kg = 500,000 kWh per kg.

To put that into perspective the average American uses about 500 kWh of electricity per year, figure over 70 years that is 35,000 kWh A family of four would use about 140,000 kWh. So if you have a family of 4 (typical American family) your families lifetime electrical use if supplied 100% by nuclear power would be about about a quarter of a kg (half a pound). The size would be a cube one inch by one inch by one inch.

Compare that to all the other waste you or your family will generate in a lifetime. How much used motor oil, how much human waste/sewage, how many thousands of bags of garbage. One cubic inch of fuel is your share of nuclear waste for a family of 4 for a lifetime.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Nihil]

46. Bloody hell! I (mostly) agree with you on that post!

Well, these parts anyway ...
> Proliferation has NOTHING to do with nuclear energy!!!!
> Posts about proliferation do NOT belong in the EE forum
> If you ever see a post about proliferation in the EE forum, ALERT THE MODERATORS!!!!

:P

[kristopher]

47. What does MIT's stance mean to you? nt

[Nihil]

49. Well, as you asked so nicely, ...

... I'll be nice in return by addressing the summary you posted in the OP.

...
Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive
with coal and natural gas.However,plausible reductions by industry in
capital cost,operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could
reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can
give nuclear power a cost advantage.
...

I am glad to see this in a report that is apparently well-respected by both
sides of the pro/anti-nuclear argument. Nuclear is NOT cost competitive with
fossil fuels that can be dug out of the ground and burned without ANY penalty
for the damage done either in extraction or in consumption. At risk of poking
the wasps' nest, although "carbon emission credits" might help both nuclear
and (most forms of) renewable generation, the better method by far would be
to put a straight carbon TAX in place as this would still provide the incentive
for non-fossil fuel growth whilst allowing less opportunity for the type of
fraudulent accounting tricks that were pulled with things like bio-fuels.

Sorry, was getting off the topic ... I am in favour with the finding that
fully regulated & controlled nuclear power is not directly cost competitive
with unregulated & unrestrained fossil fuel power. The need to eradicate
fossil fuels from domestic energy generation is far more important to the
world than the desire of coal companies (et al) to make large short-term profits.

...
Safety.
Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents,
but “best practices”in construction and operation are essential. We know
little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle,beyond reactor operation.
...

Strikes me as a blindingly obvious comment really: best practices in
construction & operation are essential. No argument there at all.

...
Waste.
Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be
demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the
long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles
involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term
risks and costs. Improvement in the open,once through fuel cycle may
offer waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more
expensive closed fuel cycles.
...

"A convincing case has not been made". Seems reasonable to me.

Part of me distrusts the short-termism again: trading off the "long-term
waste management benefits" for the sake of "short-term risks and costs".

I would have thought that it was better to consider the long-term aspects
(not only of the waste management but also for the fuel efficiency and
CO2 reduction ones) rather than the comparatively trivial issue of short-term
profit but maybe that's being too idealistic?

...
Proliferation.
The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the
security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated
in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe,
Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium
presents unwarranted proliferation risks.
...

If that is the case (and it appears from your extract that MIT believe it
to be so in this study) then the solution is to address the perceived
inadequacies a.s.a.p. - regardless of whether a decision is made for
future reprocessing, if there is a problem now, fix it now.

I do not have a problem with genuine issues being raised and addressed.
If, however, they are hand-waves and off the curve "what-ifs", my concern
is correspondingly lower.

:hi:

[kristopher]

54. Actually the MIT report ISN'T all that well regarded by independent analysts.

It is constructed with assumptions that strongly favor the nuclear industry; the machinations they went through to maintain some sense of illusion in the 2009 version was particularly distasteful.

The aspiration of the nuclear enthusiasts, embodied in early reports from academic institutions, like MIT, has become desperation, in the updated MIT report, precisely because their reactor cost numbers do not comport with reality. Notwithstanding their hope and hype, nuclear reactors are not economically competitive and would require massive subsidies to force them into the supply mix. It was only by ignoring the full range of alternatives -- above all efficiency and renewables -- that the MIT studies could pretend to see an economic future for nuclear reactors, but the analytic environment has changed from the early days of the great bandwagon market, so that it is much more difficult to get away with passing off hope and hype as reality.

The massive shift of costs necessary to render nuclear barely competitive with the most expensive alternatives and the huge amount of leverage (figurative and literal) that is necessary to make nuclear power palatable to Wall Street and less onerous on ratepayers is simply not worth it because the burden falls on taxpayers. Policymakers, regulators, and the public should turn their attention to and put their resources behind the lower-cost, more environmentally benign alternatives that are available. If nuclear power’s time ever comes, it will be far in the future, after the potential of the superior alternatives available today has been exhausted.

Cooper pg 8.

Where is your critical eye for nuclear? I have had a respect for your views since you took the time to actually ascertain my position on nuclear once long ago. However in the last few months judging by your posts it is hard to conclude anything but that you have drifted into the cheap seats of the nuclear peanut gallery. Look at your comments on the thread about the MIT study and proliferation concerns.


Where is your critical eye for nuclear power? The MIT paper highlighted 4 MAJOR issues that have been present for 50 years. They haven't been solved and it isn't because no one has tried.

Moving forward with that fact looming is real "hand waving".

[Statistical]

56. No it is no-name Cooper who isn't well regarded.

I mean you have a nobody attacking MIT because his worthless study is directly contradicted by a study done over years by hundreds of individuals at the most prestigious research university in the country.

Can anyone say conflict of interest? :rofl:

[kristopher]

57. What is rolling on the floor funny

is that statement in the face of the position of MIT's cost projections on this graph:

[Statistical]

58. Sorry adblock plus blocks all graphical spam.

:rofl:

[kristopher]

59. ROFL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=243977&mesg_id=244107

[Statistical]

62. I care about the environment.

It is spam. It is no longer new information. Posting it the 500,000 time isn't likely going to change an opinion after it has been debunked 499,9999 times in the past.

Bits require electricity and electricity requires carbon.
By blocking your useless high bandwidth spam I am helping to save the planet.

Maybe I could make a counter that records how many grams of CO2 adblock plus has saved by blocking your stupid graphs?

[kristopher]

63. I didn't say you don't care about the environment.

I said that your priority is energy security. If it were not, you'd be pushed by your environmental values to apply a higher price to the problems and consequences of nuclear power.

EVERYONE cares about the environment. It isn't lip service when a coal company executive says the same thing, "I have children and grandchildren, I care about the environment".

That isn't hokum; the exec believes it and is being truthful. What the statement misses is the way values conflict; when they do, one value is prioritized above another. That's the way we work. That coal company exec cares, but he/she cares about the company, personal wealth, an inner circle of peers, and the ability to protect that entire inner circle also. So he/she finds ways to reconcile the violation of the environmental values with those competing personal demands. In the end, he is invested in the internal resolution he/she crafts.

[Statistical]

64. I care about the enviroment SO I BLOCK YOUR BANDWIDTH WASTING SPAM.

Man even jokes go right over your head. Must suck to be constantly wound so tight.

WIND - NUCLEAR - SOLAR - HYDRO - EFFICIENCY - GEOTHERMAL - CCS

[Nederland]

60. In other words

When it comes down to choosing between academics and Wall Street, you side with Wall Street.


Good to know.

[kristopher]

61. Cooper is an academic.

[Nederland]

65. I was referring to the chart

In post #57.

[kristopher]

66. Chart's by Cooper (the academic)

"In an eerie parallel to the great bandwagon market, a series of startlingly low-cost estimates prepared between 2001 and 2004 by vendors and academics and supported by government officials helped to create what has come to be known as the “nuclear renaissance.” However, reflecting the poor track record of the nuclear industry in the U.S., the debate over the economics of the nuclear renaissance is being carried out before substantial sums of money are spent. Unlike the 1960s and 1970s, when the utility industry, reactor vendors and government officials monopolized the preparation of cost analyses, today Wall Street and independent energy analysts have come forward with much higher estimates of the cost of nuclear reactors."

[Nederland]

67. Yes, Cooper is an academic

An academic who, like you, sides with Wall Street.

[kristopher]

68. "Sides with Wall Street?"

Since when is searching for objective data "siding" with anyone. Independent analysis from a variety of sources reveals a completely different picture than studies that depended heavily on rose tinted nuclear industry data and overly optimistic assumptions. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and the costs based on the industry data have already been shown to be wildly inaccurate and incomplete.

Cooper says it well. Everyone should download his report and read it closely.



http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

[Nederland]

69. Again with the lies

The proof of the pudding is in the eating and the costs based on the industry data have already been shown to be wildly inaccurate and incomplete.

Nothing has been "shown" either way because no new reactors have been built in the US in decades. How many times do people have to point this out to you before it sinks in?

[kristopher]

72. Nothing has been shown?

OK, now you've hit pure delusion. Please link to an up to date proposed or ongoing project that matches the cost profile predicted for 2010 by the 2003 MIT report.

Go ahead, we'll wait.

[Nihil]

70. To address your last section ...

> Where is your critical eye for nuclear power? The MIT paper
> highlighted 4 MAJOR issues that have been present for 50 years.
> They haven't been solved and it isn't because no one has tried.

Just before I go off in the wrong direction, these are the same 4 issues
as were listed previously (and mentioned in my reply)?

If so, I would disagree that all four "haven't been solved and it isn't
because no one has tried" for 50 years. All four have had solutions presented
but the "people who don't try" are the politicians who ultimately have
the decision. As a result, we've ended up with compromises and evasions
instead of simple, straightforward responses. Despite this, the industry
has moved forwards a huge amount in that 50 years.


Proliferation:
>> The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that
>> involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted
>> proliferation risks.

My "critical eye" was reflected in my earlier response: if there is a
problem ("unwarranted risks"), fix it now. Enforce it fairly & squarely
for all nations instead of playing pathetic political games of "it doesn't
affect *them* because *they* are our friends".


Safety:
>> Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents

And the comment that "best practices in construction & operation are
essential" is an unnecessary addition: there is no way you can be safe if
you are being sloppy in construction or operation. This is really a no-brainer
that no-one can dispute. If you don't build your foundations to spec, the
reactor (or house or dam) will fail and all of the public inquiries in the
world will be unable to help you.

In the past, there have been problems. Each one has led to an improvement
in process, design, regulation or all three. (The same upward movement has
been found in practically every industry over time: cars have improved,
houses & skyscrapers have improved, boats have improved, ...).

We have already had discussions with regards to the reliability (as in
the integrity or otherwise) of the US nuclear industry and I can see
how that cannot help but colour Americans' views against nuclear power.
In the past, I have snappily responded that Americans simply can't be
trusted with such things but that is largely a political & ideological
problem that is grossly distorted by one country rather than something
inherent in the technology at a global level.


Cost:
> Nuclear is NOT cost competitive with fossil fuels that can be dug out
> of the ground and burned without ANY penalty for the damage done either
> in extraction or in consumption.

In the past, the approach has usually involved government subsidies.
In this case, the best (fairest) thing that can be done to address this
is *not* to supply government subsidies (though cutting existing subsidies
to the fossil fuel industry would help) - it is to apply a carbon tax in
order to bring the fossil fuel industry onto the same playing field.
(This would be even more beneficial to renewables as their advantages
would come further into play).

The problem here is political as there is always the case made to reduce
expenditure on public issues (energy, water supply, health) in order to
keep it high on ones that "reward" their sponsors (military projects).
Given that the decision makers are actively sponsored by the industries
that would be impacted by a carbon tax, I am not hopeful that this will
change in a hurry.


Waste:
What would be fair would be to enforce the same level of waste planning
and management on all power generation technologies as is currently
applied to nuclear. Again, fossil fuel cannot compete at all (and, again,
most renewables are even further in front of even nuclear).

The secure management of nuclear waste is not a technical issue but it
*is* vulnerable to the same corruption and corner-cutting issues that
affect safety (above) when not consistently enforced.

The problem here is political. There is no desire to alienate well-paying
and well-entrenched fossil fuel related industries. Look how slowly (and
how trivially) people react to the plainly visible hazards of heavy metal
pollution - never mind the more "abstract" gaseous emissions - to see where
the real problems are.

I would be truly delighted if CO2, mercury, cadmium et al were radioactive
as this would ensure that the bogeyman card couldn't be played and ALL sources
of such pollution would be found & stopped instead of having to watch more
repeats of the "drop of tritium" farce distract from the blatant "see if I care"
attitude of the fossil fuel suppliers (and consumers).


Overall:
My "critical eye for nuclear power" is still working; I just have difficulty
now & then at stopping it from working for everything else at the same time.

[kristopher]

71. You really believe all that "hand waving", don't you?

- Proliferation is a systemic and human problem - it cannot be "fixed", now or ever. Even with the limited amount of global nuclear power in place now we have a real issue. If nuclear is expanded the problem gets worse; more humans, more political systems, more conflicts leading to motives for seeking nuclear weapons - all spread over a hundred or more years. What could possibly go wrong?

- Safety is similar: the human element in design, construction and operation cannot be eliminated. The risk is real and the consequences and scale of failure are simply not acceptable.

You wrote, ""best practices in construction & operation are essential" is an unnecessary addition: there is no way you can be safe if you are being sloppy in construction or operation. This is really a no-brainer that no-one can dispute."

So why do you go on to try and dispute it?

And that doesn't even get into the potential of terrorism and the supply chain/construction process.


- Nuclear waste issues are not solved by attacking fossil fuel emissions. That's the "Well my friends do it" defense of a child. France hasn't "soved" their waste issues. Japan hasn't "solved" their waste issues. That's because they can't be "solved"; the problems associated with waste can only be kicked down the road for our descendants to deal with. And don't forget two other points - the cost of kicking the problem down the road isn't factored in to the price of nuclear power and if we actively pursue nuclear as a solution to climate change the production of waste will soon ramp up to the equivalent of filing one Yucca Mountain repository every two years.

- Cost? You'll need a lot more than a carbon tax to make nuclear power affordable. There are lots of papers around written by PROPONENTS of nuclear power who have a desire to see the technology compete in the open market. Unfortunately none of them can come up with a way to do it. The size of the projects, the term required to payback the capital investment and the uncertain nature of the competitive environment over that period is a recipe that cannot be baked by a merchant reactor fleet.


If you listen to the rationalizations on this board by nuclear proponents, you'd think that none of these issues are out there - they are irrelevant. That isn't what the MIT report(s) stated. They are problems that doom nuclear unless the ARE solved - hand waving not allowed.

[joshcryer]

48. Done.

Methinks some people here completely ignored Skinner's new rules about civility. And yes I alert on that one guy who even the pro-nuclear people think goes too far.