

The Nuclear Energy Option by Bernard L. Cohen - ScotterC
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html

======
brc
And that's where the global warming theory came from : opposition to coal
plants, in favor of Nuclear plants. Since then it has been picked up an run
with by everyone as a reason to use their product / not use a competitors.

The resulting water is so muddy nobody can see through.

I would have thought that the non-greenhouse pollution from coal, plus the
deaths caused from mining put Nuclear in front. Even in the extremely rare
events of Nuclear accidents the total deaths are lower than the ongoing toll
from coal mining and shipping. But nobody wants to discuss that, all we get
now is OMG NUCLEAR WASTE and OMG GREENHOUSE GASES!

The worst outcome of it all is the obsession with wind power over all else,
despite all the drawbacks as mentioned in this paper : land use, siting issues
with regards to transmission to demand areas, wildlife impact, noise pollution
and what happens when the wind stops. The greenhouse gas debate started as a
support to transition from coal/oil to nuclear, and we ended up talking about
going from coal to wind power because the wrong interest groups got control of
the dialogue.

~~~
miratrix
For the human species to survive on Earth over the long haul, we need a way to
sustain our lifestyle with the energy coming from the Sun. In Oil / Gas /
Coal, we're just living off previously stored solar energy.

There is only a limited amount of nuclear fuel on Earth (not counting
something like deuterium deuterium fusion reactions which likely will never be
feasible in full scale) - granted, the amount of fuel we have with right
technology (fast breeder reactors, thorium reactors, etc) will last a period
measured in centuries, not decades.

Even as someone who's working in the wind energy industry, I believe that
nuclear power is clean and safe energy source that we should be actively
developing and perfecting, and I'm in agreement with you that nuclear option
has gotten the short end of the shaft.

However, the pure renewables like Wind and Solar do have a place in the
conversation, and many of issues you cite are overblown (wildlife
impact/noise) or technically solvable (wind stopping - there are papers
showing that by tying the entire eastern seaboard into a single grid, you can
ensure certain amount of base load capacity). There are still unexplored
places for wind energy (deep offshore, high altitude) that hold a lot of
promise, with technology that already have been developed.

If we have the will to go ahead with a full blown nuclear option, then by that
time, we'd have the will to go ahead with updating our transmission
infrastructure. And if we ever end up in a pure electric transportation
sector, we'll have 250 million batteries-on-a-wheel that can soak up the extra
generating capacity on windy/sunny days and dump it out on cloudy/still days,
with nuclear likely providing the baseload capacity.

I see transitions from coal to natural gas, then to nuclear, but as a stepping
stone while we perfect the pure renewable solution which is the only thing
that will ensure the survival of human species unless we decide to go
gallivanting across the universe collecting resources from other planets. Even
then, energy dense nuclear fuel will be too valuable to waste in heating up
homes and food - they'll be closely guarded as a means to get to those said
energy dense planets.

~~~
brc
These are the points I strongly disagree with: >many of issues you cite are
overblown (wildlife impact/noise) Pelicans get covered in oil and die = bad,
evil, oil drilling. No pelican should die from oil drilling! Eagles and bats
get hit by wind generators = overblown and acceptable loss, some birds will
get hit, oh well. This particular issue really gets me riled up.

Noise is an issue for people who live close to the generators. I've heard them
going and it's not a pleasant noise.

>There are still unexplored places for wind energy (deep offshore, high
altitude) that hold a lot of promise, with technology that already have been
developed No they don't, not at least on any sort of acceptable cost basis.
It's just pure fantasy to build offshore wind turbines in deep water and think
they are going to be economical as compared with any of the other onshore
options. Deepwater offshore oil and gas platforms rigs cost a fortune to build
and run, but they effectively produce millions of joules of energy during
their lifetime. There's simply not enough harvestable energy in the wind to
justify anything like that sort of spend for a fraction of the energy
produced. It's also fantasy to think you can cover an entire coastline in wind
generation and think it's going to come out at anything like a cost effective
solution, and particularly when two or three nuclear generators would provide
the same coverage with less environmental impact.

Wind energy is an interesting niche product useful for certain areas. It's
current status is largely as a result of tax incentives, and it has all the
hallmarks of an industry that is overinvested because of available government
subsidies. Once those subsidies die (and they will) the market mostly
dissappears.

I commend you for coming out in defense of your industry but disagree with
pretty much everything.

And as for nuclear fuel only lasting a couple of centuries - for a start I
highly doubt the accuracy of that - and further, a couple of centuries is
plenty enough time to develop other alternative energy sources. Large scale
energy as we know it is barely 100 years old. The big problem 100 years ago
was what to do with all the horseshit in the streets, and whether there was
enough whale oil around to light reading lamps. The problems facing society
200 years ago are unrecognisable and unthinkable today. It is arrogance in the
extreme to think that technology and society in 200 years is going to hinge on
decisions made today. It's pointless and a misuse of our time on earth to try
and make decisions with that sort of time frame in mind.

~~~
miratrix
Most studies indicate between 2 and 3 bird strikes per wind turbine, with far
more birds being killed by cats, buildings, glass, cars, etc. Turbines are
also below 500m, which typically is the floor for the path of migratory birds.

The noise for the wind turbine comes from mostly the gearbox, though there are
efforts under way to reduce that, including completely eliminating the gearbox
from the design.

But at this point, I think debating with you on point to point is a little...
pointless, so I'll just leave this:

On earth, there are 5 sources of energy. Unlike in 1900, we now have a pretty
damn good understanding of physics to know that this is all we get.

\- We have energy coming from the Sun. There's a fair bit of it, and there
might be enough to sustainably allow us to live. This gives us Wind / Solar
power. \- We have energy coming from the moon. Tidal power does work in some
places, but it's magnitudes smaller than the energy from the Sun. \- We have
carbon fuels \- We have nuclear fuels \- We have geothermal energy... though
efforts to tap that has produced only earthquakes so far.

That's all we get, unless someone goes out and develops cheap fusion power
(highly unlikely situation - fusion reactions produce a lot of neutrons which
are very difficult to deal with). I don't think there is any other
"alternative energy sources".

~~~
ScotterC
I hope you understand that fission was the first time we have ever created
energy. All other forms are just scavenging it from the sun.

Nuclear fusion is unlikely but nuclear fission has been proven over the last
60 years and as Bernard Cohen lays out, could provide us with enough energy
for millions of years (<http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter13.html>).

~~~
miratrix
And I hope you stop putting words into my mouth. I just said that there are 5
sources of energy (solar, lunar, geothermal, nuclear, and fossil fuels) on
earth. Also, you're also factually incorrect regarding the Sun being the only
energy source. The lunar / tidal energy is due to the gravity between the
earth and the moon, and the geothermal energy is due to the gravity of the
earth itself. Fact of the matter is that there is no silver bullet that'll
solve all our energy problems ala Star Trek unless there's a breakthrough in
something like nuclear fusion.

The paper you cite assume 100% uranium recovery from uranium contained within
the Ocean waters, which holds most of recoverable uranium on Earth. The
Japanese have some interesting research that they're doing to recover the
seawater Uranium using a giant sponge like device, but it hasn't been proven
yet whether it's possible to extract uranium from seawater in net-energy-
positive manner, not to mention most of the seawater being fairly
inaccessible.

I don't understand your hostility, as I've mentioned over and over again that
I am in agreement that Nuclear power has gotten the short end of the shaft,
and that more investment is needed. All I was trying to do is to say that
there are benefits of investing in pure renewables like wind and solar - wind
energy is already almost cheap enough to compete with other conventional
energy sources even without the PTC. And as a working engineer in a tiny
startup struggling to fix the very issues that you bring up (and completely
re-imagine the wind industry as it exists if we succeed), I'm not a mouth
piece of this large wind power conglomerate that you seem to make me out to
be.

I'd highly recommend reading David MacKay's "Without the Hot Air" which is
available free on PDF at <http://www.withouthotair.com/> . David is much more
eloquent than me and has done far more research into the issues at play here.

~~~
ScotterC
Sorry, If I appeared hostile. You seemed to be quite the renewable-only
supporter and hadn't taken into context alternative nuclear fuels.

I'm not a fan of wind or solar as a form of large scale energy production.
They have there place in certain locations but I think it is downright
dangerous how a large majority of people seem to think that they can satisfy
our energy needs.

Loved DavidMacKay's book.

------
rm-rf
As someone degreed in Physics, I have far less fear of the long term
consequences of nuclear power and nuclear waste than many of the other
byproducts of western civilization.

~~~
pavs
Can you expand on that and tell us why this is so? Are we on the brink of
sanitizing nuclear waste?

~~~
pjscott
I need to go to sleep, but I'll give you the tl;dr version of how you sanitize
waste from most of the reactors currently in operation.

First, let it cool off for a while. We're doing this. Since the volume of the
waste is so small, and it's so well contained, there's really no rush to
process it right away.

Second, chemically separate it into its parts. Deal with them in different
ways:

Uranium and plutonium can be recycled and used as fuel again. Hooray for
recycling! France does this; other countries are just storing the waste for
later, since non-recycled uranium is cheap these days.

Short-lived isotopes can be left to decay. They are short-lived, after all.
This is happening as we speak.

Medium-lived isotopes are the really troublesome ones. Hit them with some
spare neutrons to transmute them into something shorter-lived.

Put the remaining, much-diminished waste in storage. It should become harmless
after a few hundred years, rather than a few hundred thousand.

Fun fact: it's a lot easier with something like a liquid fluoride thorium
reactor, which makes the chemistry really easy and prevents a lot of the nasty
isotopes from forming in the first place. You can skip most of the rigmarole.

(Huh. I guess that was longer than I thought. Oh well; who needs sleep,
anyway?)

~~~
rdl
An open fuel cycle (without reprocessing) makes nuclear power pretty
worthless, as has been shown in the US over the past 30 years.

President Carter banned reprocessing in the US over bogus weapons
proliferation concerns; IMO, one of the worst things a President has done in
the past 60 years.

I am a bit torn between "just build a lot of 3rd generation reactors" vs.
going for the fourth gen designs.

~~~
ScotterC
Quite true that Carter put the breaks on it. However, in the early 80's this
ban was actually repealed. Now the whole situation is just mired in
political/regulation muck. IMHO, (I just left my job in the nuke industry) the
NRC should be dissolved and replaced by an entirely new commission. They do
more harm then good. INPO (the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations) does a
much better job of regulating the U.S. industry.

------
ScotterC
Bernard L. Cohen wrote this book back in 1990. It's astonishingly still very
applicable.

~~~
c1sc0
Goes to show that unlike political moods, the laws of physics don't change all
that frequently. I wish more policy makers would make decisions based on facts
rather than popular opinion. Maybe govt. needs some Google engineers?

~~~
joubert
France is probably the ultimate model for how to work rationally in the
nuclear energy space. Some interesting facts and history: <http://www.world-
nuclear.org/info/inf40.html> and
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France>

~~~
pjscott
China is the one to watch right now. They're making massive investments in
nuclear. Their CPR1000 reactor (based on 70's French reactors) is now cheaper
to build than modern coal plants of the same size. They're working on doing
the same cost-reduction for the more modern Westinghouse AP1000, and they're
developing variants on the AP1000 which are the same size, don't cost much
more, but produce 40% and 70% more power.

They're working with Russia to build some BN-800 liquid metal fast breeder
reactors, a successor to the BN-600 and earlier BN-series reactors that Russia
has been operating successfully for decades. They're also importing some
Russian VVER-1000 light water reactors, apparently for variety.

They're building their first commercial pebble-bed modular reactors, and I
believe they're working on how to incorporate thorium into the fuel mix. This
isn't nearly as good as LFTRs, but it's nice to see.

They're doing some other nuclear things, but those are the big ones.

------
ars
Looks interesting, but the background color, and font makes it hard to read.

~~~
pavs
<http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/>

