Is Nuclear Power a Viable Option for Our Energy Needs? « Alternative Technology Assn Forums

Alternative Technology Assn Forums » Energy

Is Nuclear Power a Viable Option for Our Energy Needs?

(263 posts) (41 voices)

Started 11 years ago by IAEA
Latest reply from Bushwalker

Tags:

12…9 Next »

IAEA
Member

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/7/195721/3132

I draw heavily from the above website as this is where I obtained the heading for this new topic that I present to you.

The title presents it better than I could ever put into words for an energy source that has been around since June 27, 1954, when in the USSR an approx. 5MW electric power plant became the world's first nuclear unit to supply electric power to the grid.

I personally would embrace Generation 3 nuclear power plants here in Australia as this latest level of technology is so far removed from the world's worst disaster - Chernobyl, it is not worth even comparing the level of safety that comes with a gen3 to what existed in a plant that was built in 1970.

The author in this presentation is the same author at the website mentioned within http://www.nuclearinfo.net namely Assoc. Professor Martin Sevior. I presented Assoc. Professor Martin Sevior to another fora that I am a member of where he enunciated his views and in general replied to questions that was fielded to him from those that participated.

I have been following nuclear here in Aust. for some 13/15 years and I believe that Australia needs to seriously look at this energy source where we here have the raw resources right at our doorstep and refuse to see what we have right in from of us. We sit third in the world insofar as production of uranium, yet we ourselves do not have a fully operational nuclear industry and are prepared to sell our resource to the rest of the nuclear power generation world. This is sheer lunacy as I see it!!!

We have the personnel here in Australia to assist us and I am confident that their collective knowledge will see a world class nuclear industry that draws from 56 years of use that the rest of the nuclear world has to date.

LATEST NEWS RELATED TO PRIS AND THE STATUS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
Current status of the nuclear industry:
438 nuclear power reactors in operation with a total net installed capacity of 372.006 GW(e)
5 nuclear power reactors in long term shutdown
58 nuclear power reactors under construction

http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Occurrence ........ "The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts per billion." This snip has been added to give an idea re: the quantities that currently exist in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_Australia

I welcome your thoughts or views on this most important subject - Nuclear Power for Australia.

Cheers,
IAEA

Posted Monday 7 Jun 2010 @ 1:35:42 pm from IP #
rockabye
Member

I think viability needs to also include desirability and ongoing liability. When all of those are taken into account a better understanding of the implications of nuclear power can be obtained. There are lots of sites that talk about nuclear from a non-emotional standpoint and lots of reading about it helps the debate.

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower

That said this forum is typically focussed on low impact forms of energy generation from renewable energy sources.

Quote "There are substantial opportunities for Australia to reduce it's needs for electrical energy without lowering our standard of living. However these can only be obtained if a large fraction of the Australian population invests in energy efficiency."

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/AlterntiveToNuclearPower

Posted Monday 7 Jun 2010 @ 9:04:20 pm from IP #
swanning_it
Member

My thoughts on nuclear are fairly basic. I don't personally want it......in fact I loath the idea, but I also fail to see that it is viable this time around either.

Gen 1, 2 and 3 all have problems and Gen 4 is still a pipedream. Couple that with the fact there is still (60 years down the track) no credible way to deal with the waste, real or imagined hazards from radiation poisoning, the long build times for a reactor, skyrocketing prices and the simple fact most Australians are put off nuclear as an option here, and you have a proposal that would be political poison.

It's also interesting that the same old argument that was speeled out thirty years ago has once more been used (that of it being too cheap to meter) and once more it has been demonstrated to be absolute lies. In fact, world regarded credit agencies (ie Moodys and Standard and Poors) have both done very exhaustive costing studies and have placed new nuclear power stations as the most expensive of all options to persue. Further, they have effectively stated that the only way nuclear can be viable (loose use of the word) is for projects to be underwritten by governments (tax-payer money) as no credible finance institution would consider the option alone, as it's not good business. The world is seeing the need to use tax payer funds to "bail out" more and more uneconomical nuclear facilities already, not to mention the ongoing costs of waste management. I'll have to dig it out, but a report not so long ago from the US nuclear body suggested something like 30% (edited due to typo) of facilities were failing to set aside the future funds mandated for waste management.

But mostly for me, the debate is more just semantics. Renewable power plants are now similarly priced (even if there is a premium to be funded, it's worth it), Australia is well positioned to use wind, wave, geo and solar, we have extremely safe technologies currently available, we have the grids largely in place, we have more options available (ie major centralised power stations, small boutique centralised power stations and macro localised power plants) which effectly reduces terrorism threats and accidental damage and it doesn't mean continually digging up more fuel.

I vote for a clean, sustainable, renewable future!

Posted Monday 7 Jun 2010 @ 9:56:09 pm from IP #
dymonite69
Member

Importantly it is unlikely that we can meet current national (or world) energy consumption with nuclear, solar or anything else.

Nothing is viable because our consumption is not sustainable.

Secondly, I wonder if we have the infrastructure and basic materials (or time) to establish a renewables network before the nuclear industry installs their plants?

For all the spin put forward by the nuclear lobby their overall capability still makes our token solar industry look like amateurs. Would I trust our local solar companies to develop a commercial solution for Adelaide - I think not.

Posted Monday 7 Jun 2010 @ 11:27:00 pm from IP #
vk2tds
Member

Not many people realise that Australia started building a nuclear reactor for power generation in the 1970's. I am not talking about Lucas Heights here, but Jervis Bay. In fact, some of the earthworks are still visible if you visit the peninsula today - they form the car park.

I believe that the reactor was being built by the federal government with assistance by people working for the Electricity Commission of NSW. I have heard rumors about the foundations being laid in an incorrect location, but I have not been able to verify this.

In terms of nuclear technology, I think in 10-20 years things might be more realistic. There are two technologies for reactors that I find interesting. The first is fuel balls. Basically balls like golf balls are used instead of rods. The advantage is that you can change the ordering of the balls around so you get more efficient use of the fuel. Once the ball decays past a certain level it can be moved to a part of the reactor that requires less radioactivity.

The advantage with this design is that it has more complete use of the fuel, and less re-processing is needed. And less reprocessing means less waste.

The other technology uses a cooling system where the cooling liquid is required for the reaction. If the coolant is removed, the reaction stops.

Darryl

Posted Tuesday 8 Jun 2010 @ 2:32:42 am from IP #
IAEA
Member

vk2tds writes......

"The first is fuel balls."

I think that you are refering to this below. It is called a pebble bed nuclear reactor that uses these balls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

IAEA

Posted Tuesday 8 Jun 2010 @ 2:59:47 am from IP #
IAEA
Member

http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/product.html

Small & Modular nuclear power Reactors (SMRs)

Here in Australia there is a wave generation trial plant in WA with a future capacity of 5MW. When this is fully up and running it is expected to cost AUD$50 million.

This small & modular nuclear power reactor has a current cost of USD$50 million for 25ME(e)- (electical).

The cost per MW from wave generated power is expected to be in the range of AUD$120-140/MW.

There are many advances in nuclear and this small & modular nuclear plant is but one of them.

IAEA

Posted Tuesday 8 Jun 2010 @ 3:31:48 am from IP #
rsigmund
Member

I have a few questions

Viable option for who? Aust or the whole world?

Viable for short term or out to lets say 2050?

What problem are you trying to solve? Climate? Peak cheap oil? We can call this the 'AIM'

Construction and mining ores release CO2...

Might be hard to mine when peak cheap oil arrives...

Fussion - was an always will be twenty years away?

Uranium or Plutoneum?

If Uranium, is there enough high grade ore to meet the AIM? is there enough low grade?

If not Uranium will plutoneum reactors meet the AIM?

Could a masive civilian increase in plutoneum technology be kept out of bombs?

How much waste would be produced trying to meet the AIM? Could this nuclear waste be safely stored while still meeting the AIM and in the face of Climate change/peak oil?

Would the nuclear industry provide insurance or would that be left to the tax payer to back unimaginable costs?

I will try to answer...

The answers to most of these questions is NO.

The sun is the only nuclear source capabile of providing our energy needs out 2050 and the sooner we collectively understand that the better....

Posted Tuesday 8 Jun 2010 @ 5:22:20 am from IP #
rockabye
Member

The costs quoted for nuclear and indeed all other forms of non renewable energy always assume nothing will go wrong. If the consequences were small and containable you could probably use any energy source. But they aren't. And the BP oil spill in the gulf is a good example.

If it was just a money problem most could accept the 'price' of mistakes. However it is the destruction of our planetary ecosystems that ensure our survival that no amount of money can replace that haunts us. Our rising population is probably going to have the same effect in a fairly similar time scale regardless of the energy source, so reducing the amount of energy and resources per head is the 'cheapest' and most effective way of 'buying' time. That means reducing population very quickly and reducing consumption very quickly as well. I suspect natural events may just do what we are unable to do and I am not looking forward to it.

That doesn't mean we should give up trying to do better, it just means we must prepare for some very tough times. The billions of people who are starving right now may be the first to 'pay' the ultimate price.

Posted Tuesday 8 Jun 2010 @ 6:24:25 am from IP #
dymonite69
Member

The answer to the last statement is also NO.

It took humans 500 years to triple their per capita energy consumption. It took only the last 100 years to triple it again.

Alongside this our world population has grown 17 fold.

Total world energy consumption has grown more than 150x since the dark ages.

http://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/electricity%20generation/HistoricalPerspectives.htm

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html

Posted Tuesday 8 Jun 2010 @ 6:33:59 am from IP #
dymonite69
Member

The billions of starving probably won't notice much difference because they weren't using any of the energy in the first place. The poor people of the energy hungry countries will probably suffer first.

Posted Tuesday 8 Jun 2010 @ 6:40:43 am from IP #
IAEA
Member

rsigmund writes......

"Viable option for who? Aust or the whole world?"

A: I confine my answer to Australia.

"Viable for short term or out to lets say 2050?"

A: Long term. If I had my way it will be to a greater degree than what France experiences right now at 79% nuclear power.

"What problem are you trying to solve? Climate? Peak cheap oil? We can call this the 'AIM'"

A: Security of energy into to future, given that we are growing at a net pop. rate of one additional Australian every 1min. 10secs - ABS website for details.

"Construction and mining ores release CO2..."

A: Whole of life CO2 production from nuclear is 3.3grams CO2/kW. Compare this to approx. 700/800grams for coal (probably black). Source: Vattenfall, Sweden.

"Might be hard to mine when peak cheap oil arrives..."

A: Cannot giva an ans. as I do not know.

"Fussion - was an always will be twenty years away?"

A: Fusion is approx. 30/50yrs. away.

"Uranium or Plutoneum?"

A: ?

"If Uranium, is there enough high grade ore to meet the AIM? is there enough low grade?"

A: Yes

"If not Uranium will plutoneum reactors meet the AIM?"

A: Don't know.

"Could a masive civilian increase in plutoneum technology be kept out of bombs?"

A: Don't know. If it was my decision, all, I mean all nuke warheads would be disabled today.

"How much waste would be produced trying to meet the AIM? Could this nuclear waste be safely stored while still meeting the AIM and in the face of Climate change/peak oil?"

A: 9 tonnes/1,000MW nuclear power plant per. yr. If we had 25 x 1,000 Westinghouse nuclear power units this will be approx. 225 tonnes/ yr. of SNF. Compare this to here: http://www.theclimategroup.org/programs/greenhouse-indicator/ ...... last week's CO2 output from the Eastern seaboard of CO2 from baseload power generators alone.

"Would the nuclear industry provide insurance or would that be left to the tax payer to back unimaginable costs?"

A: As I am not from the ind. I cannot answer this question.

Posted Tuesday 8 Jun 2010 @ 7:37:13 am from IP #
dymonite69
Member

The optimistic part of me hopes we do not have to consider a nuclear solution. I can't see how anyone could guarantee the longevity of the waste disposal system. Considering the track record of most industries that involve a toxic substance, I am not hopeful that someone would be motivated to develop a solution that would outlast more than one generation. No-one can sue you once you are dead.

The driving force to consider alternative energy sources will only occur as energy prices increase (and all the other costs of living that result from this). The market will then determine the amount of renewable plant we need and what sectors of our energy-hungry industries will survive.

Continued economic growth and industrialisation will undoubtedly slow and most probably contract. Every sector of our society will be impacted. What we previously considered as necessities will become unaffordable luxuries and people will be forced to adapt their lifestyles accordingly. Renewables may help us maintain some sense of 'civilisation' but nothing close to what we enjoy now.

Posted Tuesday 8 Jun 2010 @ 10:46:52 am from IP #
CNCandy
Member

Everybody has a different opinion on this one. IAEA seems to like the idea although many on this forum won't agree with him myself included.

More efficient devices and behavioral change seem to be the way to go, we are so stuck in the idea that we must use more. Also remember you need to make the Nuclear reactor out of loads of concrete which is incredibly energy intensive. Then you have to find someplace to store the fuel rods once your done with them, and hold them there for thousands of years.

Myself I favor a 2+kw solar on every home in Aussie, this would cover peak usage! Wind, Wave and other technologies like gas and co-generation in fuel cells (bluegen) can cover the base load given time as we have plenty of gas reserves. You can then take out coal plants when you have sufficient capacity in the pipeline.

Posted Wednesday 9 Jun 2010 @ 1:00:53 am from IP #
rsigmund
Member

The AIM is the most important question because it impacts on all other qeastions/answers...

No point Australia going nuclear if the world keeps building coal fired plants (if the aim is climate)

uranium or plutonium - both can be used for civilian power generation but plutonium is good for other things (like thermonuclear war...)

As I understand it, there is not enough high grade uranium ores to meet world energy - meaning much higher CoO2 emmisions to get the lower grades.

"Whole of life CO2 production from nuclear is 3.3grams CO2/kW" If the AIM is to avert dangerous climate cahnge then 'Whole of life CO2' is not whats important. We might already be above the limit with past CO2 emmissions

Nuclear power plants emit large amount of CO2 up front in the first ten years...

Have a read of this - by caltechs professor of chemistry

http://www.ccser.caltech.edu/outreach/powering.pdf

Posted Wednesday 9 Jun 2010 @ 2:38:53 am from IP #
IAEA
Member

CNCandy writes......

"Also remember you need to make the Nuclear reactor out of loads of concrete which is incredibly energy intensive. Then you have to find someplace to store the fuel rods once your done with them, and hold them there for thousands of years."

As presented in my most recent post, a whole of life cycle against nuclear power generation is 3.3grams CO2/kW.

Have a look at this re: fuel storage for just a few yrs. before long term storage is required: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1441248.htm

Transcript: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1443829.htm

"BRITA FREUDNETHAL: This is somewhere about 4,200 tonnes of used fuel and it comes from 12 different nuclear plants.

JONATHAN HOLMES: So that represents 50 per cent of Sweden's electricity for 30 years.

BRITA FREUDNETHAL: Yes, really, and this is all of it.

JONATHAN HOLMES: Like the Americans, the Swedes decided not to reprocess their spent fuel for fear the resulting plutonium could be misused. That means they have a large quantity of highly radioactive waste to dispose of. It will be toxic to the biosphere for at least 1,000 years, and more radioactive than normal rock for a 100,000 more.

BRITA FREUDNETHAL: You have eight metres between the surface of the water and the surface of the storage canisters.

JONATHAN HOLMES: So is there any radiation coming out to us here at all?

BRITA FREUDNETHAL: No, and you could take a swim, it wouldn't hurt you.

JONATHAN HOLMES: Is that right?

BRITA FREUDNETHAL: As long as you didn't swallow the water."

Is this a fact that one can actually swim in eight metres of slightly warm water and not be "fried"?

Am willing to give it a go if Brita Freudnethal swims with me - should be very cool to be able to swim in a cooling pond. There will be not to many that can claim to have swum in a nuclear cooling pond with 300 deg. C SNF rods just eight metres below.

One should not be afraid of nuclear when three levels of safety redundancies are built into gen3 nuclear power plants.

Has anyone got any info. re: the swimming in cooling ponds, I'd very much like to read to the contary?

IAEA

Posted Wednesday 9 Jun 2010 @ 3:36:34 am from IP #
IAEA
Member

rsigmund writes......

"Nuclear power plants emit large amount of CO2 up front in the first ten years..."

A modern gen3 nuclear power plants has a total life of 60yrs. for production before it is decommissioned. Have not read the .pdf yet, but does it support the full whole of life amount?

IAEA

Posted Wednesday 9 Jun 2010 @ 3:40:31 am from IP #
rsigmund
Member

Don't know, its an interesting read...

About gen3 and 60 years - This get back to the AIM.... If reductions have to be made in ten years, making them over sixy is too late...

Posted Wednesday 9 Jun 2010 @ 4:00:45 am from IP #
rsigmund
Member

Also probably should have mentioned decomissioning.

Have any really big reactors 'ever' been decommisioned?

Posted Wednesday 9 Jun 2010 @ 4:02:17 am from IP #
IAEA
Member

rsigmund writes......

"Have any really big reactors 'ever' been decommisioned?"

Cannot verify total, but this is a few that I came up with.

# Decommissioned Power Reactors – 12 total

* Bugey – 1 540 MWe GCR reactor
* Chinon – 3 GCR reactors
* Chooz-A – 1 310 MWe PWR reactor; reactor managed by SENA (Société d'énergie nucléaire franco-belge des Ardennes).
* Marcoule – 3 38 MWe GCR reactors
* Brennilis – 1 70 MWe EL-49 heavy water reactor, the only one of its kind in France
* Saint Laurent des Eaux – 2 GCR reactors
* Superphénix, Creys-Malville – 1 1200 MWe FBR reactor

1200MW is quite big compared to modern ones.

IAEA

Posted Wednesday 9 Jun 2010 @ 4:57:39 am from IP #
IAEA
Member

"If reductions have to be made in ten years, making them over sixy is too late... "

There are 58 nuclear power reactors under construction right now. I would have hoped that they did their sums very carefully as they will have egg all over their face if it falls over if as you say "reductions have to be made in ten years".

IAEA

Posted Wednesday 9 Jun 2010 @ 5:04:39 am from IP #
rockabye
Member

BP hoped they wouldn't have an oil spill and now they have egg all over their face. And the estimated cost of rehabilitation is as high as $65billion.

Hope the environment can afford it.

Posted Wednesday 9 Jun 2010 @ 5:49:10 am from IP #
IAEA
Member

"And the estimated cost of rehabilitation is as high as $65billion. "

If this fig. is correct, I dare say that BP as I write this have called in the liquidators to wrap things up. This single incident "could" trigger a second wave of the GFC. Obama will not be to happy to have this happen on his watch.

IAEA

Posted Wednesday 9 Jun 2010 @ 6:23:09 am from IP #
rockabye
Member

I think you'll find the cost will be spread over us all and higher fuel prices which I can live with. I would have been happy to pay more for fuel to prevent the spill in the first place.

But getting back to the nuclear issue it is unforeseen costs and very long term environmental damage that is the problem. China is very earthquake and flood prone for example. They no doubt do the best they can but it is not possible to make a nuclear power station damage proof no matter how clever you are.

Posted Wednesday 9 Jun 2010 @ 7:24:57 am from IP #
IAEA
Member

Just did a quick calc. re: the total no. of years of operation based on the daily cost that BP were picking up to operate the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform if they were hit with a USD$65 billion clean-up bill.

This calcs. out to 356yrs. 59days of just contract charges alone. I'd say that tipping point has been reached and BP will/are going under as I write this.

It will be interesting to see what happens? "The rig costs about USD$500,000 per day to contract. The full drilling spread, with helicopters and support vessels and other services, will cost closer to $1,000,000 per day to operate in the course of drilling for oil and gas."

If one takes the USD$1,000,000/day cost this will be 178yrs. 29days of lost production.

IAEA

Posted Wednesday 9 Jun 2010 @ 8:43:34 am from IP #
Buzzman
Member

Apparently a 1km square solar array would provide all Australia's current power requirements.

Can anyone do the maths? I'm useless at it.

Posted Sunday 13 Jun 2010 @ 8:14:00 am from IP #
IAEA
Member

Hi Buzzman,

Great question.

The answer is that a 50klm x 50klm. square solar array will furnish the whole of Australia's energy needs. I could not tell you if this fig. is against present pop. usage or what period into the future given our growth at one net increase to our pop. every 1min. 10secs.

A frightning thought you have to admit.

Cheers,
IAEA

Posted Sunday 13 Jun 2010 @ 10:56:49 am from IP #
dymonite69
Member

Probably closer to 63kmx63 km at current consumption rates.

If you put all the panels together now it would measure 1.7x1.7km

Posted Sunday 13 Jun 2010 @ 11:26:41 am from IP #
IAEA
Member

How had you arrived at 1.7 x 1.7klm. for just the panels itself?

IAEA

Posted Sunday 13 Jun 2010 @ 12:45:49 pm from IP #
swanning_it
Member

My guess is that dymonite means the panels currently in existance across Australia = 1.7km2.

When speaking renewables, this forum does tend to bog down with just PV. There's a lot more to it than that. Also, coal fired power generation was not developed overnight. Any change now (regardless of renewable or nuclear) will be time consuming and expensive. The main point in my thinking is that neither money nor time, is wasted chasing the wrong ideal. Question is, which is the wrong ideal?

From my investigation (minor, admittedly) nuclear has just too many issues. I'm sure Howard was talking about 20 years to get even a basic nuclear supply up and running (some years down the track now and still nothing)....whereas renewable is largely available now, renewable power stations can be built in two years rather than 10 for nuclear and we here in Oz have some of the most receptive geographical attributes for renewable, compared to anywhere on Earth! 50km2 is really not that big. We have large tracks of almost worthless land, that's just perfect for solar thermal, we have oodles of rooftops available for PV, we have thousands of kms of coastline ideal for wind, wave and swell and we have some ideal geo-thermal sites as well. We have grids already in place and we know we can achieve base load with renewables.

But at some point, politicians have to stop talking about it and just bloody get on with it! I'm more disappointed with the Rudd Gov't than you can possibly imagine. I thought they would be lacking in most things political, but I had sort of convinced myself that to get some major spending on renewables would be worth short term pain at the hands of a Labor Gov't. But look what happened! Just imagine if the Rudd debacle had spent all that stimulous spending on renewable power generation across Australia rather than letting building Co's bill them $750k for school tuckshops! It would have had the same stimulous benefit, but with 2-3 year build times, we would all start to see the renewable lifestyle very shortly and be a more major player on the future world climate stage. We would have made real progress rather than just talking rhetoric.....Kruddy could have been world-renowned for progess rather than ridicule! Oh, well, yet another lost chance to lament!

Posted Sunday 13 Jun 2010 @ 9:38:06 pm from IP #

RSS feed for this topic

12…9 Next »