Gates discussing new nuclear reactor with China - Yahoo! News
Locked
Gates discussing new nuclear reactor with China - Yahoo! News
 
Administrator
|
From the "I Like Nukes" department we have new designs that look interesting:
They run on depleted uranium and apparently are safer. Ironically, nukes are apparently the greenest critters around too. -- Owen
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Gates discussing new nuclear reactor with China - Yahoo! News
|
|
Yeah, greenest only if you ignore the environmental/human/dollar costs of getting the uranium out of the ground and then you forget about that whole messy decommissioning component (which usually relies on the assumption that national government must ultimately underwrite/pick up the tab and is therefore free)—R
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote: From the "I Like Nukes" department we have new designs that look interesting: ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Gates discussing new nuclear reactor with China - Yahoo! News
|
Administrator
|
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Robert Holmes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yeah, greenest only if you ignore the environmental/human/dollar costs of getting the uranium out of the ground and then you forget about that whole messy decommissioning component (which usually relies on the assumption that national government must ultimately underwrite/pick up the tab and is therefore free)—R I'd like to know the details here. Coal, Oil, Gas are all subsidized too. Also the "waste" material is becoming valuable, being used in new reactors as core covers producing radiation needed in the reaction.
Don't get me wrong, there are lots of problems. But if we really are concerned about CO2, I believe nukes still are "cleanest". I'm also concerned that we are falling behind in nuke research, thus not discovering even more ways to make nukes more palatable. I'm also concerned that PC is trumping science.
-- Owen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Gates discussing new nuclear reactor with China - Yahoo! News
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert Holmes
More here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/22/twr-vs-ifr
There appears to be some sentiment that Gate's TWR is not as good as
the IFR designs. I don't know enough to judge.
Also, Monbiot has a new screed out on GE-Hitachi's proposal for an IFR: "...last week GE Hitachi (GEH) told the British government that it could build a fast reactor within five years to use up the waste plutonium at Sellafield, and if it doesn’t work, the UK won’t have to pay." You can raise your personal BP by reading about it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/05/sellafield-nuclear-energy-solution A somewhat more bloodless description of the project is here: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Prism_proposed_for_UK_plutonium_disposal-0112114.html Now, you may not believe that the design can work, but if it works as they say, the "getting the uranium out of the ground" part would be marginal. On the surface, it sounds better than MOX, I suppose, which is what the UK says they'll do if they don't do this. And "if it doesn't work, the UK won't have to pay" is not necessarily the same as "free", but it's in the ballpark. As to safer, Gen IV reactors are indeed "safer", but only under current definitions of "safe". Just about anything is safer than coal, so that's not saying much. On 12/7/11 9:27 PM, Robert Holmes wrote: Yeah, greenest only if you ignore the environmental/human/dollar costs of getting the uranium out of the ground and then you forget about that whole messy decommissioning component (which usually relies on the assumption that national government must ultimately underwrite/pick up the tab and is therefore free)—R ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Gates discussing new nuclear reactor with China - Yahoo! News
|
|
Hmm... LANL built the world's first experimental fast reactor (Clementine, 1946). Hard to say which was strictly the world's first "commercial" one (Dounreay? Super-Phenix?) but the big problem they've all had is that cost of operation >> price of electricity generated. Which is why after >60 years there's ~5 of them in the world. Five. (see wikipedia for details). In theory, they're the greatest thing since sliced bread (free fuel! How can that be bad?), but in practice... less so.
—R
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Carl Tollander <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Gates discussing new nuclear reactor with China - Yahoo! News
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert Holmes
If everything is taken into consideration, the carbon footprint of nukes is really very high, much higher than the alternate forms of energy such as wind, solar, hydroelectric and even some thermal sources. France is paying dearly for its nukes. One of the innovative sources of energy that is being installed in Europe is slow moving hydro-turbines placed in riverbeds.
cheers, Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Holmes <[hidden email]> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 4:29 pm Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Gates discussing new nuclear reactor with China - Yahoo! News
Yeah, greenest only if you ignore the environmental/human/dollar costs of getting the uranium out of the ground and then you forget about that whole messy decommissioning component (which usually relies on the assumption that national government must ultimately underwrite/pick up the tab and is therefore free)—R
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
From the "I Like Nukes" department we have new designs that look interesting: ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Gates discussing new nuclear reactor with China - Yahoo! News
|
Administrator
|
I hate to say it, but I think the nuke issue has turned into a very PC conversation. They're Just Wrong. Basically a sort of Science vs Religion discussion. Saying Nuke's are OK or maybe even Nukes might be OK has all your friends sighing and shaking their heads in dismay.
I guess I'm in the middle. I basically think we walked from serious nuke energy research, it was too sensitive an issue in terms of safety and we didn't want rogue nations making bombs.
As for "where's the science" on nukes, Carl sent out a lot of great links.
Here's what may be an urban legend, but I've heard it from more than one source: More radiation is emitted from a coal plant than a nuke reactor! How is that possible? Well, coal has uranium and other elements in it. They are not eliminated during processing so are free to exit into the air during burning. Nukes, on the other hand, have standards for radiation emission, while coal plants do not. Odd but I think its true.
The real answer is likely Diversity: just say "yes" to Solar, Wind, Hydro, Geo thermal, Tidal and so on. And indeed, as Kim Sorvig has pointed out .. create small ones .. like a neighborhood sized solar installation. Why? Get rid of transmission losses and increase local robustness and add to the "smart grid".
But boy, windfarms have a lot going against them: they are a visual blight. We used to drive through one in California several times a year commuting to Santa Fe from Palo Alto.
-- Owen
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Paul Paryski <[hidden email]> wrote: If everything is taken into consideration, the carbon footprint of nukes is really very high, much higher than the alternate forms of energy such as wind, solar, hydroelectric and even some thermal sources. France is paying dearly for its nukes. One of the innovative sources of energy that is being installed in Europe is slow moving hydro-turbines placed in riverbeds. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Gates discussing new nuclear reactor with China - Yahoo! News
|
|
In reply to this post by Paul Paryski
I believe France is a net energy exporter, quite possibly
increasingly to Germany. Could you say more what this "paying
dearly" business is about?
The slow moving hydro turbine thing is interesting, but I don't know of any that aren't experimental. There would of course be a gov't subsidy per kWh, as for other solutions. Wind farms are very steel intensive (transmission lines), and of course there's the niobium mining issue, so you might want to factor those things in. As with all of these technologies, there's the balance you have at the time you make the decision. Newer solar could be less environmentally problematic than old solar. Gen II nuclear plants are way different animals than Gen IV plants (whatever their merits), but they are lumped together as "nukes", which I think is somewhat disingenuous. I don't think, e.g. a Hyperion module is subject to quite the same arguments (pro or con) as a BWR. On 12/8/11 9:32 AM, Paul Paryski wrote: If everything is taken into consideration, the carbon footprint of nukes is really very high, much higher than the alternate forms of energy such as wind, solar, hydroelectric and even some thermal sources. France is paying dearly for its nukes. One of the innovative sources of energy that is being installed in Europe is slow moving hydro-turbines placed in riverbeds. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Gates discussing new nuclear reactor with China - Yahoo! News
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
I disagree, although there is a PC aspect to the discussion about nukes. I believe that there are studies indicating that nukes are not cost effective if all the related costs (construction, mining, transportation of materials, water use, impact studies, decommissioning, etc.) are included. The risk factor is significant; there has been one very serious incident every ten years. France and Germany have spent billions trying to decommission some of there older plants.
This being said I think that research is important and newer technologies might address some of these problems. Again nukes are a very complex issues. The esthetics of a nuke plant are really yucky more so than wind turbines.
Coal has very significant environmental issues, as most people are aware. But then slowing the construction of coal plants in China by replacing them with small, more innovative nukes might be a solution.
Energy conservation and efficiency is a must. And most people don't realize that the energy-water nexus is very real (every time one opens a faucet energy is being used and every time one turns on a light water is being used in a chain of impacts).
There is no free lunch......
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Sent: Thu, Dec 8, 2011 5:15 am Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Gates discussing new nuclear reactor with China - Yahoo! News
I hate to say it, but I think the nuke issue has turned into a very PC conversation. They're Just Wrong. Basically a sort of Science vs Religion discussion. Saying Nuke's are OK or maybe even Nukes might be OK has all your friends sighing and shaking their heads in dismay.
I guess I'm in the middle. I basically think we walked from serious nuke energy research, it was too sensitive an issue in terms of safety and we didn't want rogue nations making bombs.
As for "where's the science" on nukes, Carl sent out a lot of great links.
Here's what may be an urban legend, but I've heard it from more than one source: More radiation is emitted from a coal plant than a nuke reactor! How is that possible? Well, coal has uranium and other elements in it. They are not eliminated during processing so are free to exit into the air during burning. Nukes, on the other hand, have standards for radiation emission, while coal plants do not. Odd but I think its true.
The real answer is likely Diversity: just say "yes" to Solar, Wind, Hydro, Geo thermal, Tidal and so on. And indeed, as Kim Sorvig has pointed out .. create small ones .. like a neighborhood sized solar installation. Why? Get rid of transmission losses and increase local robustness and add to the "smart grid".
But boy, windfarms have a lot going against them: they are a visual blight. We used to drive through one in California several times a year commuting to Santa Fe from Palo Alto.
-- Owen
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Paul Paryski <[hidden email]> wrote:
If everything is taken into consideration, the carbon footprint of nukes is really very high, much higher than the alternate forms of energy such as wind, solar, hydroelectric and even some thermal sources. France is paying dearly for its nukes. One of the innovative sources of energy that is being installed in Europe is slow moving hydro-turbines placed in riverbeds. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Gates discussing new nuclear reactor with China - Yahoo! News
|
|
Greetings, all -- Bill McKibben probably said it best - there's no such thing as a silver bullet, only silver buckshot. We're going to need a variety of sources for energy, and we're going to need to be creative about efficiency and conservation. They're not mutually exclusive. Indeed, the US could do a lot more in efficiency and conservation - the "negawatts" approach of Amory Lovins and the RMI, for example - and continue to fund basic research into other energy options. A geophysicist I heard recently noted that there are three sources of energy: solar radiation (leading to fossil fuels over time), radioactive decay (nuclear/geothermal), and the motion of the planet. Of the three, solar radiation appears to have the best long-term application. We need to figure out how (no small feat, I grant you), and we'll want to use everything including the oink, as we say in sausage-making. - Claiborne -
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |