Can Nuclear Be The Bridge To Purely Renewable Energy?

[Dexter Reiss]

I think everyone, especially everyone on this site, knows that renewable technology WILL take over one day. But the hurdles still have to be jumped, renewable technology just cannot do it alone at the moment. So here is my question: Can Nuclear, an emission free and astronomically high output source, be the bridge to fully renewable energy, instead of relying on coal burning plants, or foreign oil? We all know how bad coal is, and foreign oil kills hundreds of thousands through bloody battles for ownership, and insane regimes propped up to oppress people and keep it flowing.

If you have some issues with nuclear, or need to learn more, check out these great links.
http://abetterenergyplan.ca/#/news/accident-here?
http://abetterenergyplan.ca/#/news/misleading_information
http://abetterenergyplan.ca/#/news/comparison-of-canadian-candu-reactors-to-japanese-bwr-reactors

[Peter Klaassen]

Being downwind from Darlington Nuclear Station I am concerned about a nuclear accident despite all the safety assurances. Our situation in Ontario is very different than that of Japan but there are still problems with Nuclear that are unique. Until the scientists can devise a way to make the spent fuel safe I think we need to hold off on more Nukes. Storing radio active steam generators and old fuel for a thousand years - literally- does not sound cheap or even doable. How can we predict a thousand years into the future when we can't predict the stock market next week. It still seems too risky to rely on Nukes. I would rather spend those billions on Renewables.
Pete Klaassen

[Rob Beckers]

Besides one's position on nuclear or non-nuclear, to the best of my knowledge there is not a single nuclear power plant on this planet that actually made any money. They are not just economically unfeasible, they are huge money pits. Operators keep running them thanks to very generous subsidies from governments, and rate payers keep them going through taxes and rate costs such as Ontario's "debt recovery fee".

It gives pause to realize that the cleanup cost of Chernobyl has already exceeded the value of all the nuclear electricity ever produced in the ex-Soviet Union. When all is said and done, Japan's case will likely be just like that. All it takes is one incident, even a small one gets costly.

Nuclear plants that were once billed as "to cheap to meter" are being built for reasons that have nothing to do with cheap electricity (or greenhouse gas emissions, that's just a convenient hook the industry has embraced). Energy independence, lack of natural resources (as in Japan's case), prestige projects, those are reasons for building them.

-RoB-

[Dale Sheler]

I am far from being a tree hugger, but even I can see that the risk/benefit analysis for nuclear is weighted too far towards the risk side. If we keep having events like Chernoble, or Japan every thirty years or so our legacy to the humans that inhabit this rock (If there are any) Will be huge zones that will be uninhabitable for one hundred and fifty thousand years or so.
This is clearly not ethical stewardship, this rock is not ours we just ride on it for a while.

[Rob Beckers]

CNN had this article today. Very pertinent to this discussion.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/04/nuclear.debate/index.html?hpt=T1

-RoB-

[Russ Bailey]

The opinion article was from greenpeace. Not an organization I believe in.

Maybe man is not ready for something like nuclear power plants. You have too many managers/politicians without the necessary overall view that is required on one hand and on the other you have groups like greenpeace that are just plain obstructionist in nature.

I see no reason nuclear power could not be done safely really.

It would take someone like Rickover to make it be done well and safely.

That type of person and the license he operated under are unusual. Maybe in another thousand years.

Russ

[Joe Blake]

I think that human nature being what it is, there will always be someone who is willing to "cut corners" to make a few dollars for themselves, and leave the consequences for another generation. In the past, whilst this was inherently undesirable, the consequences were much less than what we see in the nuclear industry today. If a shonky bridge was built by a corrupt contractor, then certainly there may be an accident with resulting fatalities, and perhaps inconvenience for thousands of people for a time until a substitute is put in place, but having been informed that the clean up at the Fukushima site may take upwards of 50 years (one figure said 100 years), the stakes of the gamble go up and up and up.

One nuclear accident can ruin your whole day.


The quote re power "too cheap to meter" makes me think of an alternative "Nuclear electricity - too expensive to risk".

I think to build a bridge for a fully alternative energy system (or as fully as possible) I think present steps of many governments to encourage people (financially) to install home power generation need to be continued or even extended.

Our previous Prime Minister Rudd wanted 20% of all power to be generated from renewable sources. I'm meeting that target with ease almost every day. (EXcept when it rains, but that never happens here - except suddenly we're looking like a slight break in the drought next week.:D)


Joe

[Russ Bailey]

Some portion of the overall power supply can be RE - especially without storage available.

How about industry and the large percentage of the worlds population that can not use RE - bad locations etc. The last plants I managed used about 100 mW - then on the other side of the road the same company had a steel mill which was the big user. That would be a lot of solar panels.

There will always be central power and it will always provide probably 90% of the worlds power supply.

I read the green dream of distributed generation and it is neat - but impractical for much impact.

[Rob Beckers]

I'm with Joe: When lots of money is involved there will be people who don't care, that will cut corners. Somehow corporations take on a life of their own, and even if their employees are not particularly amoral, the overall organization can be (and often is). If that is not enough, humans (including the best of engineers), suffer from a profound lack of imagination and excess of hubris (especially the best of engineers). They thought they had covered all eventualities in Japan at the time that plant was designed. They knew that was not the case by today's standards, but the corporation still managed to get their operating license extended recently, and we're not talking about some corrupt third-world country here either! Q.E.D!

There may not be any reason why nuclear power cannot be done safely; at the same time there are many reasons why nuclear power will never be done safely. Human nature will intervene every time.

I'm not too interested in sticking my next 2,000 generations of grand kids with our mess. That is how long it takes for PU-239 to decay to 1/4, still very dangerous (its half-life is 24,100 year). Every nuclear plant produces lots of it, even the ones that run on uranium.

-RoB-

[Russ Bailey]

Don't disagree at all about amoral corporations - I worked in India for 15 years where amoral is normal. Other countries are often not much better.

I expect that in Japan the culture caught them - once the boss makes a decision no one can go against it - it is unthinkable and unforgivable.

That still leaves the question of where power will come from. Are peoples life styles going to change willingly? The answer to that is a big fat no. The need for power is there and it has to come from somewhere - coal I guess.

RE, as it stands today, is not capable of producing a significant share of the overall power supply. Even in Germany it is a very small amount though you read claims to the contrary from time to time by a writer trying to misinform the public.

Russ

[Rob Beckers]

Russ, agreed, the way out of the mess this world has dug itself into is not clear. Possibly a combination of much more frugal energy use, and putting into service of many more renewable sources. Not just solar/wind, but things like geothermal, biomass etc. (much more energy to be had in those areas).

As for Germany, here is their latest report (http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/files/english/pdf/application/pdf/broschuere_ee_zahlen_en_bf.pdf) from their Ministry of the Environment regarding the production and use of renewable sources in that country (it's in English). This file has some updates (http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/files/english/pdf/application/pdf/ee_zahlen_einleger_en_bf.pdf), and is also a summary of the numbers. The Government numbers state that in 2009 (the last year that they have data for) a total of 10.4% of all energy use came from renewable sources. For just electricity the number was 16.3% from renewables.

-RoB-

[Dave Turpin]

I am a nuclear engineer. So believe me when I say nuclear is NOT the ultimate solution. Nuclear is NOT renewable, nor is it particularly clean in the long run. Mother nature can absorb a little CO2. She doesn't know what to do with long-lived transuranics.

Now, nuclear is great for the Navy. It allows our submarines to stay submerged for months at a time. But that is really the limit of its usefulness.

Fusion will be the ultimate source. It is renewable so long as the universe doesn't run out of hydrogen. Unfortunately there is a small hurdle that must be jumped to make it viable.

[Tom kent]

I just came across with this interesting article about advantages and disadvantages of the using of nuclear. Hope is useful:
http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability

[Tom kent]

What about that?

"The dispute around enormous financial losses from the Finish Olkiluoto nuclear reactor project deepened yesterday, when the French nuclear giant Areva published its half-year results. Areva threatened to freeze construction if TVO does not submit to the company’s demands of shouldering a share of the cost. The latest estimate of construction costs reached €5.5 billion, which compares to the price of 2.5 billion originally presented to Finnish public and politicians.

"The fight over extra costs is a demonstration that international nuclear companies have no intention whatsoever to bear the risk of delays and cost overruns in future reactor projects, which exposes electricity users to huge liabilities," Greenpeace energy campaigner Lauri Myllyvirta said"

[Dale Sheler]

On you bill it is the "Dept retirement" charge.

[Russ Bailey]

What about that? Greenpeace energy campaigner Lauri Myllyvirta said"

That is the entire story summed up in a name - a 100% partial observer.

[Dale Sheler]

I believe wind has recently past nuclear in total output, with only a small fraction of the subsidies nukes get. My opinion is we cannot afford new nukes, put the money into wind and solar, by the time the last nuke is mothballed it won't even be missed.
As Dave said, until fusion can put out more power than is put in nukes just aint worth it.

[Russ Bailey]

I believe wind has recently past nuclear in total output, with only a small fraction of the subsidies nukes get. My opinion is we cannot afford new nukes, put the money into wind and solar, by the time the last nuke is mothballed it won't even be missed.
As Dave said, until fusion can put out more power than is put in nukes just aint worth it.

Better check your facts - You are very, very wrong about production plus the fact that nuclear power is baseline and wind is anything but baseline. I am not going to bother to dig up the data but it is easily available if you are really interested.

There is a lot of smoke being blown against nuclear with little knowledge.

[Dave Turpin]

I still think nuclear has a place in the Navy, but that's about it.

[Dale Sheler]

There are some interesting design ideas out there, the one being built right now in China by GE that theoretically can't melt down, a huge volume of water is stored above the reactor dome and it supposedly will cool by convection even in the event of a total loss of power.
Then there is the pebble bed reactor which is also supposedly run away reaction proof.
But you still cannot get away from the dangers that come with reactor proliferation in places that are just barely out of the stone age.

[Tom kent]

I completely agree with you about the Navy's one, Dave Turpin