On Nuclear Power...

[birdguy 3,966]

It's not dead yet, and some of us think it's the only thing reliable enough to wean us off of fossil fuel energy.

This Time Magazine article is an in depth discussion of the future of nuclear power and some new innovations like mini-plants for places like remote Alaskan villages that now have to ship in diesel fuel for their generators because no grid reaches them.

You anti-nuke guys read this objectively and tell us what you think.

https://time.com/6117041/nuclear-energy-reactors-green/

Noel

[martin-w 3,289]

The article itself contains many of the reasons why its not an answer to climate change. Omits some.

 

More later from me. 

[bic 44]

Something should be done more with energy audits at the home level and "Energy Star" specifications.  My new 65" Energy Star tv used  over 250 watts.  After a lot of power and screen optimization, I got it down to 80 watts.    One day I noticed when it was off it was using 19 watts.  There was some hidden remote feature that I disabled and worked for a while, but since various firmware updates, it started using 19 watts again.  I hooked up a wifi smart plug to turn it off. 

My house was built in the late 60s.  My first winter the basement got down 32 (one window frame was so badly broken I could an apple through the holes it had).  I filled a ton of holes and cracks since then.  The lowest I've seen is 65F.  

In NJ a lot of us have to have radon fans.  It burns 100 watts.  I'm not sure what could be done to reduce the power usage as it's probably very expensive.  But $660 billion to clean up nuclear https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/us-government-works-cocoon-nuclear-reactors-80964651 

[Penzoil3 481]

It can be done. The Navy has had nuclear powered subs since the 1950s. They have never had an accident.

 The big clean up is for weapons plants, and has nothing to do with reactors for power generation.

[birdguy 3,966]

The Navy's carriers are also nuclear powered.  Maybe some other ships too.

I've heard of these induction heating stoves.  The burners don't get hot, just the pot and pans get hot.  They are supposed be energy savers.  I've seen several single burner hotplate inductive units.  I'm thinking of getting one since I only use a single burner on the stove for making my breakfast.  They cost between 60 and 80 dollars.

Noel

[martin-w 3,289]

1 hour ago, Penzoil3 said:

The Navy has had nuclear powered subs since the 1950s. They have never had an accident.

 

If they did they wouldn't tell you.

In 2019 the Norweigans discovered a sunken Russian sub in the Barrents Sea leaking radiation at one mullion times normal levels.

 

There was also a panic with US subs, I recall 1997, when so calad penetrator were an issue. Sensors monitoring reactors on some US submarines were leaking radiation. IIRC it was ploymer seals breaking down. Aparently some engineers received radiation overdoses. 

I'll leave it to your imagination what else is in the ocean we don't know about. 

I'll say more on this topic tomorrow but it will be a repeat of the stuff I've posted before. Numerous reasons why nuclear power is not the answer to climate change. 

In terms of powering a Moon or Mars base with NASA's Killopower reactor... I'm all in favour.

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/kilopower

Edited November 21, 2021 by martin-w

[birdguy 3,966]

Only so much energy can come from wind, solar, hydro and geothermal.  It would be nice if renewables could make up all of our energy needs but at this point in time they can't. If we are to eliminate the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas then nuclear is going to have to make up what the renewables cannot produce.

The article mentioned mini-nuclear plants for remote places like Alaskan villages that now rely on diesel fuel.  They would be cleaner and cheaper.

Other than wind, solar, hydro and geothermal what would you propose to eliminate the use coal, oil, and natural gas?  Or are we to continue using them in spite of the carbon emissions?

The only option I see is nuclear if we are to wean ourselves off of what we extract from the ground.

Why can NASA's Killopower reactor be used for remote places like Alaskan villages and other places that are off the grid?

I see our choices as relying on nuclear to supplement the renewables or to continue burning hydrocarbons.  Sure, there is a risk of a nuclear accident but we are well beyond risk in emitting carbon into the atmosphere because we already are changing our climate.

Noel

   

[WarpD 824]

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

There was also a panic with US subs, I recall 1997, when so calad penetrator were an issue. Sensors monitoring reactors on some US submarines were leaking radiation. IIRC it was ploymer seals breaking down. Aparently some engineers received radiation overdoses.

That's quite a statement.  Can you provide reference(s)?

[dmwalker 614]

2 hours ago, birdguy said:

I've heard of these induction heating stoves. 

I'm sure you know already that only steel pots and pans will work with them.

[edpatino 2,000]

If nuclear plants are constructed and operated closely to its required safety operation procedures and standards, I think nuclear power is still a reliable and clean source of energy production.

[Mace 1,972]

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

Numerous reasons why nuclear power is not the answer to climate change.

There is no "answer" to climate change.   It is fact/a truism that it has changed, and will once again change, and is always changing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you are trying to say is, nuclear isn't the answer to a non-polluting, renewable energy source.

[Luke 783]

5 hours ago, birdguy said:

Only so much energy can come from wind, solar, hydro and geothermal.  It would be nice if renewables could make up all of our energy needs but at this point in time they can't. If we are to eliminate the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas then nuclear is going to have to make up what the renewables cannot produce.

I don't see why we cannot reduce and eventually eliminate our usage of fossil fuels for electricity as renewables increase. We are bringing multiple gigawatts online each year. We already do not use oil for electricity (outside of Hawaii) simply because it is not cost competitive. Thankfully the market is doing the same for coal and has already done that for nuclear. But there is plenty of energy we can obtain from wind, solar and geothermal. (Hydro is mostly tapped out in North America).

There are two giant challenges for nuclear. The first is the obvious one - the safety issue. Even if you take away the idea of nuclear proliferation, the fission by-products in the waste are a giant safety and pollution issue and I would NOT want us to have reactors scattered around lord knows where with no security or safety personnel. The waste is a huge issue - and if it is so safe and clean, why is it that the only issue that our US Senate can agree on 100-0 (beyond welcoming Santa Claus and celebrating Flag and Arbor Day) is that they do not want the nuclear waste site in their state.

Georgia Power has been trying to expand a nuclear plant at Plant Vogtle for years now. The total cost is approximately $25 billion dollars and there's no way that these can be recouped. The government has had to step in with loan guarantees of over $8b because the private sector simply refuses to lend more money. Even if these reactors are completed, they need to run 24/7/365 to make their money back and that simply isn't possible as renewables come on line and drop the price close to zero during especially sunny/windy days. As battery storage gets larger and larger that surplus power gets stored and released later, still at lower cost.

The tree-huggers didn't kill coal and nuclear. The invisible hand of the market cast the fatal blow.

Cheers!

 

[dave2013 1,161]

I think that nuclear power absolutely has a place in our electricity production.  It is indeed more expensive than other sources, but it is very reliable, emits less pollution than even renewables, and doesn't take up much land considering how much energy a single plant produces.

I have read a few articles claiming that renewable energy, specifically wind and solar, are now cheaper than nuclear, coal, and natural gas.  I don't think they are taking into account the govt. subsidies, though.  To be fair, nuclear power also receives big subsidies and has gotten more expensive over the past decade.

I do believe that wind and solar need to be a large, or even the primary, part of the energy mix, but I do not think it is practical, at least for the foreseeable future, for them to be the only part.  As common sense dictates, the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine.  This requires expensive and not-so-clean battery backup systems.

I was surprised at how much the cost of especially solar panels and lithium batteries has come down over the past 40 years.  This makes them much more viable sources of electricity.

Until fusion reactors are developed, I think we will still need nuclear, hydroelectric, and natural gas power plants as reliable backups to mostly solar and wind powered sources of electricity.  I can see a future where even natural gas and nuclear will no longer be necessary.

I'm not a fan of burning coal, and support transitioning away from it to other cleaner forms of energy.  However, I would demand that coal miners and coal power plant workers be taken care of by making sure they have free job training and guaranteed job opportunities.

Dave

 

 

[birdguy 3,966]

How many acres of ground would it take to provide a city the size of Chicago with all the power it needs without fossil fuels?   Or would each household require it's own solar array on the roof and a windmill in the back yard?  Would that work for apartment buildings?

The way I read all this is either nuclear or fossil fuel to back up the renewable sources.

Of the two I vote for developing cheaper, safer, and more efficient nuclear sources.

At my age it's not my problem anymore.  Sorry Andrew, Eliza, Jon and Laila (my great grandchildren) but I'm passing the problem on to you.

Noel

[goates 583]

6 hours ago, Luke said:

There are two giant challenges for nuclear. The first is the obvious one - the safety issue. Even if you take away the idea of nuclear proliferation, the fission by-products in the waste are a giant safety and pollution issue and I would NOT want us to have reactors scattered around lord knows where with no security or safety personnel. The waste is a huge issue - and if it is so safe and clean, why is it that the only issue that our US Senate can agree on 100-0 (beyond welcoming Santa Claus and celebrating Flag and Arbor Day) is that they do not want the nuclear waste site in their state.

We can build reactors that use up almost all of the uranium or thorium put into the reactor, or even waste fuel from older reactor designs, and leave behind far, far less waste. That waste would then be less radioactive than the original uranium ore in around 300 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

You do highlight one of the biggest issues, which is the fear of nuclear power in North America. We have the technology to build better and safer designs, but most people think all reactors are the same, and then associate all of them with Chernobyl.

Terra Power is slowly moving forward with their new designs.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/11/bill-gates-nuclear-power-company-selects-a-site-for-its-first-reactor/

Here in Western Canada there is a lot of solar and wind power potential, but they aren't reliable enough on their own (it's rather dark in the middle of winter, and the wind doesn't always blow, and sometimes even blows too much) and we still need some sort of base load power. Right now that base load is transitioning from coal to natural gas, but after that I'm not sure there are any better options other than nuclear. CANDU reactors have proven quite safe, and there is a ready supply of uranium.