Safety of Nuclear Power Plants

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

I truly believe the question of nuclear plants or not is a non-issue, in light of the fact that absolutely no capitalist economy will commit itself to an energy source that can't be commercialized as a commodity (ie, solar energy). So we're back to expendable fuel sources which all, in some way or another, can or have been the cause of deaths and environment poisoning.

So the question is not only about nuclear power. It's about every other form of commoditized energy source.

Extractive technologies has been the "easy way" for thousands of years... I think the acquisition and delivery of non-recoverables (geothermal, solar, wind, etc) is a good long term business model... but you're fighting some very comfortable powers-that-be to change modes.

[Zetsubo]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironme...htm?goto=songs

This one is an hour or so from where I live. I'm not worried at all that it's there. Wish we had a few more, maybe electricity would be cheaper and we wouldn't have electricity black outs during the summer months.

A kilogram of uranium-235 (U-235) converted via nuclear processes releases approximately three million times more energy than a kilogram of coal burned conventionally (7.2 × 1013 joules per kilogram of uranium-235 versus 2.4 × 107 joules per kilogram of coal).

--original source wikipedia--

[WanderingKnight]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Extractive technologies has been the "easy way" for thousands of years... I think the acquisition and delivery of non-recoverables (geothermal, solar, wind, etc) is a good long term business model... but you're fighting some very comfortable powers-that-be to change modes.

Exactly. So the bottom issue is not "nuke power is BAD BAD BAD japanese people are stupid rabble rabble rabble".

You can't sell solar energy like you would sell barrels of oil or nuclear energy sources, so the people who thrive on the price of raw materials are really to blame here. You can't really blame the Japanese for building nuclear plants. What else are you going to do in such a restricted environment? Same goes for any other country. Oil, coal, nuke, they're all versions of the same root problem. They all lead to statistically significant deaths and environment poisoning.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Exactly. So the bottom issue is not "nuke power is BAD BAD BAD japanese people are stupid rabble rabble rabble".

You can't sell solar energy like you would sell barrels of oil or nuclear energy sources, so the people who thrive on the price of raw materials are really to blame here. You can't really blame the Japanese for building nuclear plants. What else are you going to do in such a restricted environment? Same goes for any other country. Oil, coal, nuke, they're all versions of the same root problem. They all lead to statistically significant deaths and environment poisoning.

You should check out a little RTS game called "Greed Corp.". It uses extractive resource tech and finite resources to have competing "country/corporation" groups have at each other. Of course, in the end they all lose but being the last one seems to consume them ... its on Steam as well. Creates quite a different dynamic than, say, Total Annihilation, an RTS game where the resources were sun and wind.

[valet]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

You can't sell solar energy like you would sell barrels of oil or nuclear energy sources

It's not that you technically can't, it's just that there are some technical hurdles and no infrastructure for it right now. I personally think solving that problem is the future of global energy. Like you say, oil is the only universally fungible form of energy for the moment. Everybody knows how to buy it, sell it, use it, and it comes by the barrel no matter where on Earth you live. If you could generalize that barrel of oil into a battery that, just like a barrel, were always the same size, capacity, had the same standard interface and could always be purchased the same way all across the globe, then it wouldn't matter how you filled it up. You could fill it with solar power, hydro, nuclear, oil, or you could charge one in your basement with a hamster wheel and a bicycle. If the entire world were trading in those instead of barrels, every nation to a man would be an energy-producer to the extent that it chose to participate. The critical breakthrough in the energy market isn't incrementally cheaper sources of alternative fuel, it's a 'barrel' that stores generic energy instead of oil. Creating that global marketplace would provide all the drive the world could ever need to investigate alternative sources. Everyone could tailor their means of production to their geographic strengths. Energy could be as plentiful as oxygen if anybody were able to make (or convert-and-store if you can't stand the sight of certain verbs near the word 'energy') and sell it, and cheap energy is a rising tide that lifts every boat on the planet.

[WanderingKnight]

It's not that you technically can't, it's just that there are some technical hurdles and no infrastructure for it right now.

But it's not the same. Once you have a solar panel you don't need anyone selling you anything to keep it going. I understand the battery analogy but this is just not the same situation. If I make a nuclear plant, I still need people to supply me with base fuel. If I make a solar panel, then the rest of the world can literally go fuck itself and I'll still have my energy.

[Athena]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

But it's not the same. Once you have a solar panel you don't need anyone selling you anything to keep it going. I understand the battery analogy but this is just not the same situation. If I make a nuclear plant, I still need people to supply me with base fuel. If I make a solar panel, then the rest of the world can literally go fuck itself and I'll still have my energy.

Well, if I'm not mistaken, it might be profitable to use nuclear energy than solar energy. A stick of uranium (do we call that a stick?) with a reactor CANDU-PW is equal to 807 kg of coal, 677 liters of fuel oil and 476m3 of natural gas. It means that it's a LOT of energy.

Also, Japan seems to be using a rich uranium, providing more energy.

[Random32]

Originally Posted by kira0802

Well, if I'm not mistaken, it might be profitable to use nuclear energy than solar energy. A stick of uranium (do we call that a stick?) with a reactor CANDU-PW is equal to 807 kg of coal, 677 liters of fuel oil and 476m3 of natural gas. It means that it's a LOT of energy.

Also, Japan seems to be using a rich uranium, providing more energy.

We often call them fuel rods in English. Stick is closer to the English word than "centrale" is to "power plant" though...

If one only takes into account fuel costs, nuclear is more cost efficient than fossil fuels. A 2008 document says that nuclear power is at 1.87 cents per kilowatt hour, with coal coming in at about 50% more cents per kilowatt hour, and gas and oil at several times less efficiency per cent. That said, nuclear power plants tend to be big investments to build compared to fossil fuel plants, and I think the non-fuel costs of operating one safely are probably higher as well.

[WanderingKnight]

The fuel is more efficient but it's still the same thing, a commodity fuel that can be sold en masse and by whose price you can grab a lot of countries by the balls. The ones in control of the natural fuel sources simply monopolize the access to the resources.

And that's notwithstanding the environmental hazards.

What's the status on fusion plants, by the way? What sort of fuel do they need?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

The fuel is more efficient but it's still the same thing, a commodity fuel that can be sold en masse and by whose price you can grab a lot of countries by the balls. The ones in control of the natural fuel sources simply monopolize the access to the resources.

And that's notwithstanding the environmental hazards.

What's the status on fusion plants, by the way? What sort of fuel do they need?

Fusion plants need a special type of hydrogen. But that's not really relevant until we actually have a fusion powerplant; we can create fusion already, the question is how to make power we can actually use.

Uranium is cheaper to buy than coal, if you don't have a good local source of either. Because shipping costs of coal is prohibitive compared to shipping a much smaller amount of uranium.

Keep in mind that places like Australia could run on coal and gas power plants, because we are a coal export nation. We get coal cheap. Not so in Japan. And you NEED affordable powerplants, because you need affordable electricity. Electricity becoming a luxury good = riots in the streets.

[WanderingKnight]

Uranium is cheaper to buy than coal, if you don't have a good local source of either. Because shipping costs of coal is prohibitive compared to shipping a much smaller amount of uranium.

It is cheaper RIGHT NOW. Remember that prices are dynamic. If nuclear plants become the norm and the demand increases then it might not be so cheap in the future. This is why we need to get the hell away from commodity fuels.

[Random32]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

The fuel is more efficient but it's still the same thing, a commodity fuel that can be sold en masse and by whose price you can grab a lot of countries by the balls. The ones in control of the natural fuel sources simply monopolize the access to the resources.

And that's notwithstanding the environmental hazards.

What's the status on fusion plants, by the way? What sort of fuel do they need?

We do not have a fusion reactor that makes more energy than it consumes as of yet. Most fusion designs use either, deuterium (Hydrogen 2), tritium (Hydrogen 3), or a combination of the two. There are designs that use Helium 3 and Lithium 6, Deuterium and Helium 3, among many others though.

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

It is cheaper RIGHT NOW. Remember that prices are dynamic. If nuclear plants become the norm and the demand increases then it might not be so cheap in the future. This is why we need to get the hell away from commodity fuels.

I do agree that the end goal should be to get away from commodity fuels, but I don't see a threat of running out of uranium any time soon, considering you don't really need much of it to make loads of power.

[Tri-ring]

Uranium needs to be processed before you can use it as a fuel source and there only handful of nations that can process them due to various reasons including security.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

It is cheaper RIGHT NOW. Remember that prices are dynamic. If nuclear plants become the norm and the demand increases then it might not be so cheap in the future. This is why we need to get the hell away from commodity fuels.

We need cheap electricity RIGHT NOW as well. Or are you suggestion Japan doesn't need electricity for the next decade?

This is what gets me annoyed; the idea that somehow it is fine to suddenly cut off electrical supply to all but the super-rich.

Cheap electricity isn't about making power companies wealthy; it is about making sure the average citizen can heat their homes, cook their meals, and light their houses at night. I say this before and I will say it again; if you cut off affordable electricity, the poorest people will be the first to die.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

The fuel is more efficient but it's still the same thing, a commodity fuel that can be sold en masse and by whose price you can grab a lot of countries by the balls. The ones in control of the natural fuel sources simply monopolize the access to the resources.

And that's notwithstanding the environmental hazards.

What's the status on fusion plants, by the way? What sort of fuel do they need?

Wind, Solar, and Water are not capable of supplying the needs of energy that we require, without the help of fossil fuels and nuclear power. So what pray tell, do you suggest we do?

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Wind, Solar, and Water are not capable of supplying the needs of energy that we require, without the help of fossil fuels and nuclear power. So what pray tell, do you suggest we do?

Actually, that's only the case because the generating plants and storage stabilizers are not deployed. They're not deployed because the financials aren't quite there. As soon as the two vectors of cost/benefit intersect and solar/wind becomes cheaper (or less painful) than extracting the fossil fuels you'll see the energy industry spin like a dervish. Actually-we're already seeing the positioning in active gear.

In the Northwest, the power company in my area distributes power generation like this:
http://www.portlandgeneral.com/our_c...te_energy.aspx
21%hydro, 9%wind, 26%natural gas, 24%coal, 20% purchased from the inter-utility power grids. They have an active program developing geothermal power generation as well.
One should balance "maximization of profit" with "community supportive" .... something many corporations utterly fail at.

The only drag on the boat is that humans tend to get comfortable in certain frameworks... even if it is clear the framework is unsustainable. Not til they are uncomfortable do you see paradigm shifts. There is the additional complication of the scoundrel factor ("loot the treasury and soil the grain while the people are sandbagging the flood, its okay *I'll* get away"). There's nothing in a corporate charter about being a good team player in the community... its why they fail as "good citizens" without tight oversight from the community. Naturally, the corporations will attempt to corrupt that process and install overseers more friendly to them than to the community. Back and forth it goes...

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Actually, that's only the case because the generating plants and storage stabilizers are not deployed. As soon as the two vectors of cost/benefit intersect and solar/wind becomes cheaper (or less painful) than extracting the fossil fuels you'll see the energy industry spin like a dervish. Actually-we're already seeing the positioning in active gear.

The only drag on the boat is that humans tend to get comfortable in certain frameworks... even if it is clear the framework is unsustainable. Not til they are uncomfortable do you see paradigm shifts. There is the additional complication of the scoundrel factor ("loot the treasury and soil the grain while the people are sandbagging the flood, its okay *I'll* get away").

"As soon as the wind/solar become cheaper", indeed...

When is that "soon"?

Because if that "soon" isn't "right now", then we are stuck with nuclear.

I have no doubt that eventually we would rely on renewables for energy one day, but it simply doesn't make any sense to abandon nuclear when the alternative does not yet exist. It doesn't matter if it isn't sustainable in the future, what matters is what is sustainable in the present. Solar and wind are not sustainable in the present, and that's a fact. You said it yourself; once it is economical, it will happen by itself. But isn't it then also a fact that since it is described in the future-tense, you are acknowledging that it isn't any good for the people who are currently alive?

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

"As soon as the wind/solar become cheaper", indeed...

When is that "soon"?

Because if that "soon" isn't "right now", then we are stuck with nuclear.

I have no doubt that eventually we would rely on renewables for energy one day, but it simply doesn't make any sense to abandon nuclear when the alternative does not yet exist. It doesn't matter if it isn't sustainable in the future, what matters is what is sustainable in the present. Solar and wind are not sustainable in the present, and that's a fact. You said it yourself; once it is economical, it will happen by itself. But isn't it then also a fact that since it is described in the future-tense, you are acknowledging that it isn't any good for the people who are currently alive?

I agree with you that nuclear is unavoidable as a transitional technology... one that might serve for 20-50 years. I didn't say to "abandon nuclear".
I *will* say it isn't a good *long term* solution (>50yrs) unless we can address the garbage problem and keep tight oversight on the "scoundrel" or "competency" problem.

As for windpower, I didn't say "it isn't any good for the people who are currently alive" because that is false. *All* my home electricity is currently paid to be wind power generated - as a customer I get to choose where my power comes from (yes, its really a spreadsheet that says something like 9% of PGE customers will pay for wind, PGE will have at least 9% of total sourcing from wind). The cost difference is quite tolerable.

At the moment over 20% of the customer base pays for what PGE calls "green" power (wind, solar, hydro, geo, wave, biomass, biogas).
Solar power in the PGE grid: http://www.portlandgeneral.com/our_c...est_in_na.aspx


I get the feeling when you and I use the phrases "short term" and "long term", you have a much tinier spread of time in mind. Power engineers tend to plan and think in decades if not centuries. Power generation and delivery is simply not the kind of business where a "five year plan" suffices. Some of my college research was in Solar Power Generating Satellites (see the 1970s line in the timeline) ... huge concept, probably won't be a production reality for another 50 years unless things change.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

I think I better spell out my views in a nutshell, it is simpler that way.

Nations will use whatever source of electricity they can afford. Currently this is either coal, gas, oil, or nuclear. You use nuclear generally when you don't have enough fossil fuels locally.

Solar and wind are heavily subsidised. They are not quite affordable yet. So that's where they will stay until either they become cheaper, or the alternatives become more expensive. There is also serious doubts on how much total power solar and wind can supply, as they take up a lot of land without generating as much electricity as conventional means. Saturation can result, in which you don't have anywhere to put new plants.

Geothermal is nice, but they are location-based so you can't put them just everywhere. And again, there is only so much power you can get because of a limit in locations.

Hydro exists globally because most nations need dams for drinking water anyway. Once again, situational, as they are extremely limited in location. Also essential for even out power generation/supply, by pumping water during light usage hours. Wave and tide generation is still being worked on, but long term I don't see how you can avoid blocking the oceans with structures and affect ocean life.

The bottom line is, in the modern world a steady supply of electricity is nearly as important as tap water. A nation will get their electricity in anyway they can. When renewables could compete without subsidisation by governments, then we can consider using them more.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I think I better spell out my views in a nutshell, it is simpler that way.

Nations will use whatever source of electricity they can afford. Currently this is either coal, gas, oil, or nuclear. You use nuclear generally when you don't have enough fossil fuels locally.

Solar and wind are heavily subsidised. They are not quite affordable yet. So that's where they will stay until either they become cheaper, or the alternatives become more expensive. There is also serious doubts on how much total power solar and wind can supply, as they take up a lot of land without generating as much electricity as conventional means. Saturation can result, in which you don't have anywhere to put new plants.

Geothermal is nice, but they are location-based so you can't put them just everywhere. And again, there is only so much power you can get because of a limit in locations.

Hydro exists globally because most nations need dams for drinking water anyway. Once again, situational, as they are extremely limited in location. Also essential for even out power generation/supply, by pumping water during light usage hours. Wave and tide generation is still being worked on, but long term I don't see how you can avoid blocking the oceans with structures and affect ocean life.

The bottom line is, in the modern world a steady supply of electricity is nearly as important as tap water. A nation will get their electricity in anyway they can. When renewables could compete without subsidisation by governments, then we can consider using them more.

I think we're on the same page. What needs to be kept in front and center is always analyzing the big picture and using the most appropriate technologies balancing cost and benefit... and I don't mean "profit to a few fat tycoons" by benefit, I mean best balanced solution for the community being served.

Example: we have constant debates between the salmon industry and the hydro people... there's no *great* solution but both sides understand ya gotta have electricity but ya gotta also have salmon (and all the ecosystem that indicator species represents). So we have inter-disciplinary groups that try to sort those things out on an ongoing basis.