The Nuclear Option

Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum

Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Wolverine

Uncanny Pompadour
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
1,689
Reaction score
195
Location
Atlanta GA
Good article. Discuss. Some of the comments at the bottom crack me up, as people spout important sounding Environmental Anarchist quotes that show very little understanding of the power industry. Reminds me of Damon Wayans character on "In Living Color" that used big words without really knowing what they meant.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/236177

This Nuclear Option Is NuclearThe costs of fads and superstition.

By George F. Will | NEWSWEEK

Published Apr 9, 2010

From the magazine issue dated Apr 19, 2010

The 29 people killed last week in the West Virginia coal-mine explosion will soon be as forgotten by the nation as are the 362 miners who were killed in a 1907 explosion in that state, the worst mining disaster in American history. The costs of producing the coal that generates approximately half of America's electricity also include the hundreds of other miners who have suffered violent death in that dangerous profession, not to mention those who have suffered debilitating illnesses and premature death from ailments acquired toiling underground.

Which makes particularly pertinent the fact that the number of Americans killed by accidents in 55 years of generating electricity by nuclear power is: 0. That is the same number of Navy submariners and surface sailors injured during six decades of living in very close proximity to reactors.

America's 250-year supply of coal will be an important source of energy. But even people not much worried about the supposed climate damage done by carbon emissions should see the wisdom—cheaper electricity, less dependence on foreign sources of energy—of Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander's campaign to commit the country to building 100 more nuclear power plants in 20 years.

Today, 20 percent of America's electricity, and 69 percent of its carbon-free generation of electricity, is from nuclear plants. But it has been 30 years since America began construction on a new nuclear reactor.

France gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power; China is starting construction of a new reactor every three months. Meanwhile, America, which pioneered nuclear power, is squandering money on wind power, which provides 1.3 percent of the nation's electricity: it is slurping up $30 billion of tax breaks and other subsidies amounting to $18.82 per megawatt-hour, 25 times as much per megawatt-hour as the combined subsidies for all other forms of electricity production.

Wind power involves gargantuan "energy sprawl." To produce 20 percent of America's power by wind, which the Obama administration dreamily proposes, would require 186,000 tall turbines—40 stories tall, their flashing lights can be seen for 20 miles—covering an area the size of West Virginia. The amount of electricity that would be produced by wind turbines extending the entire 2,178 miles of the Appalachian Trail can be produced by four reactors occupying four square miles of land. And birds beware: the American Bird Conservancy estimates that the existing 25,000 turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds a year. Imagine the toll that 186,000 turbines would take.

Solar power? It produces less than a tenth of a percent of our electricity. And panels and mirrors mean more sprawl. Biomass? It is not so green when you factor in trucks to haul the stuff to the plants that burn it. Meanwhile, demand for electricity soars. Five percent of America's electricity powers gadgets no one had 30 years ago—computers.

America's nuclear industry was a casualty of the 1979 meltdown of the Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania, which was and is referred to as a "catastrophe" even though there were no measurable health effects. Chernobyl was a disaster because Russians built the reactor in a way no one builds today—without a containment vessel.

Since the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Alexander's state has played a special role in U.S. energy policy. The last commercial reactor opened in America is Watts Bar, Unit 1 in Tennessee. And, in a sense, all uses of nuclear power began in that state.

In September 1942, the federal government purchased 59,000 acres of wilderness in eastern Tennessee and built an instant city—streets, housing, schools, shops, and the world's most sophisticated scientific facilities. This was—is—Oak Ridge. Just 34 months later, a blinding flash illuminating the New Mexico desert announced the dawn of the atomic age. That is what Americans can do when motivated.

Today, a mini–Manhattan Project could find ways to recycle used nuclear fuel in a way that reduces its mass 97 percent and radioactive lifetime 98 percent. Today, Alexander says, 10 percent of America's lightbulbs are lit with electricity generated by nuclear material recycled from old Soviet weapons stocks. This is, as Alexander says, "one of the greatest swords-into-plowshares efforts in world history, although few people seem to know about it." It is a travesty that the nation that first harnessed nuclear energy has neglected it so long because of fads about supposed "green energy" and superstitions about nuclear power's dangers.

Find this article at

© 2010
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Today, a mini–Manhattan Project could find ways to recycle used nuclear fuel in a way that reduces its mass 97 percent and radioactive lifetime 98 percent.
This is the part that really strikes a chord with me. I really love the idea of nuclear power, and I'm not a NIMBY or BANANA advocate. But I have trouble throwing my full support behind nuclear until we can find something to do with the spent fuel. While we did have a "solution" in Yucca Mountain, I don't think that storing radioactive materials in a hole in the ground for a couple million years is a really practical solution (sorta like sweeping the trash under the rug). If we could figure out a way to viably recycle the fuel into more fuel, then we should absolutely move forward with not only making new reactors for future demand, but we should replace existing coal and oil power plants with them.

 
I've always been a huge fan of the nuclear option. From a purely rational point of view, it's a fantastic option. The latest generation of plants, from what I have read, are so far from the Three Mile Island plant that there is virtually no similarity (in terms of risk).

I think the country should build as many nuclear power plants as possible, focus a huge research effort on reclycling of wastes, as said, and convert to primarily electric-powered cars, or hydrogen-powered cars, with the hydrogen generated by electricity. Then, sure, add on windmills and hydroelectric and solar, as needed and available.

Then again, who's going to run all those nuclear plants? The Idiocracy generation? When Spock removed the fuel rods with his bare hands, it was heroic. When Bubba does it, it's just sad....

 
If we could figure out a way to viably recycle the fuel into more fuel, then we should absolutely move forward with not only making new reactors for future demand, but we should replace existing coal and oil power plants with them.
That was (one of) the point(s) of developing breeder reactor technology in the 70s. Too bad it got killed by Carter.

Besides, whats wrong with sticking it in a big hole in the ground we spent hundreds of millions, if not a billion, designing and building. Thats what Europe does, and we all know they do everything better over there. (Sadly enough, that might actually be true about nuclear power).

 
I'm a big fan of nuclear as well. I think that it is the most sensible option for us in order to reduce out reliance on fossil fuels for power. I think we need to get that first new plant built. After the first is built, I think we will see a large build up of new reactors. I hope that I can be a part of it cause that could mean good job security for a while. I could ride the second nuclear wave.

 
I'm a big fan of nuclear as well. I think that it is the most sensible option for us in order to reduce out reliance on fossil fuels for power. I think we need to get that first new plant built. After the first is built, I think we will see a large build up of new reactors. I hope that I can be a part of it cause that could mean good job security for a while. I could ride the second nuclear wave.
I'm involved with the first couple plants in the southeast. Unfortunately, the words "hard dollar" and "union" are also involved, so I can't say for sure that I'll be seeing any of them to completion.

I agree though. Once they're up and running, the stigma surrounding them will all but disappear. I do think that the first few will go significantly over schedule and over budget though, and the extent to which they go over may dissuade some of the utilities from building immediately rather than waiting some time.

 
I'm a big fan of nuclear as well. I think that it is the most sensible option for us in order to reduce out reliance on fossil fuels for power. I think we need to get that first new plant built. After the first is built, I think we will see a large build up of new reactors. I hope that I can be a part of it cause that could mean good job security for a while. I could ride the second nuclear wave.
I agree though. Once they're up and running, the stigma surrounding them will all but disappear. I do think that the first few will go significantly over schedule and over budget though, and the extent to which they go over may dissuade some of the utilities from building immediately rather than waiting some time.
That's the one thing that worries me. I hope that the costs and schedules can be controlled somewhat to encourage other utilities it's worth it.

 
I'd like to see the government spend a lot more money on fusion research, as well as back the construction of more conventional nuclear plants.

One thing to remember at TMI, is that the design was a success. Despite operators who couldn't have done a better job of sabataging it if they tried, no radiation was released. The core was ruined, but it failed safe.

 
The other concern I have is that there seem to be some design problems that may have been overlooked. Without going into detail, China's equivalent regulatory agency to our NRC has submitted a few considerable challenges to the plants currently going up over there.

 
I think nukes are the future, wind will die out in 10-15 years when people realize that they don't work. Solar will take off, but only in Texas, ARizona, New Mexico, and SOuthern Cali. Even then, Solar will only serve those that are right next to it.

Nukes need to figure out a good way to get rid of the spent fuel. If the space elevator ever gets developed, there is an idea, but will need looked at hard.

I still think that coal can (and will) be "clean". Not as clean as nukes, but cleaner than what coal was 5 years ago. Gen 3 and Gen 4 Low NOx burners with OFA, SNCRs, SCRs, and Gen 2 baghouses will be developed after the new EPA legislation is finished. When it does, we will see a whole new field for coal. Sure its dangerous to mine coal, but its equally dangerous to mine uranium. No one mentions uranium mining, but its not like it grows on trees, you have to dig to get to it and there isn't exactly a whole lot of it to go around (like coal).

As for biomass, the reason they truck it in right now is because most utilities are using it as a supplement to coal. If you could convert to 100% biomass on a 300MW boiler, you would have to bring it in by rail much like they bring in coal now. And the carbon footprint of todays locomotives are minimal.

 
I still think that solar is a good solution for residential applications. If the technology could be advanced just a little bit, and some development dollars could be put towards bringing the cost down and efficiency up, it would definitely be possible to economically justify solar systems on just about any house. Then, we would just need nuclear power plants to provide industrial and commercial power (although solar might work for them too with their vast flat roofs).

The problem, once again, is politicians. They don't know a damn thing about energy, but they will spend all day talking about how to "green it up". Big-ass wind farms are a political wet dream because they can point to the windmills and say "THERE's what I'm doing about green energy...what are YOU doing?". Research into efficient/cheap solar PV panels and nuclear fuel reprocessing isn't nearly as sexy.

 
No one mentions uranium mining, but its not like it grows on trees, you have to dig to get to it and there isn't exactly a whole lot of it to go around (like coal).
That depends on how much downblending happens to supply fuel, which doesn't require mining. Also, there is a lot (a whole lot) more energy in a pound of U than in a pound of coal.

 
The problem, once again, is politicians. They don't know a damn thing about energy, but they will spend all day talking about how to "green it up".
I think one problem with our political system is we don't have very much career diversity in our elected offficials. Most of them have back ground in law. Very few engineers, doctors, farmers, retailers, etc go into politics. The result is a bunch of people making laws that have no idea of the consequences or ramificatrions of the legislation they pass.

 
So was Hoover.

Edit: Carter's undergraduate degree was in physics.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No one mentions uranium mining, but its not like it grows on trees, you have to dig to get to it and there isn't exactly a whole lot of it to go around (like coal).
That depends on how much downblending happens to supply fuel, which doesn't require mining. Also, there is a lot (a whole lot) more energy in a pound of U than in a pound of coal.
Sorry, I meant that as a question/looking for comments. I assume that you still need to get more U as the rods become spent. I know little about the nuclear reaction process, I know the basic operation, but not how they refuel or process the ore.

 
The problem, once again, is politicians. They don't know a damn thing about energy, but they will spend all day talking about how to "green it up".
I think one problem with our political system is we don't have very much career diversity in our elected offficials. Most of them have back ground in law. Very few engineers, doctors, farmers, retailers, etc go into politics. The result is a bunch of people making laws that have no idea of the consequences or ramificatrions of the legislation they pass.
I'm debating going back to school part time for a public policy degree. I doubt I have the patience for a career in politics because I am rational and have morals. I'm probably considered a far-lefty in our screwed up political system.

 

Latest posts

Back
Top