Why Not Nuclear Power?

nesf

SeanW wrote: »

It is true that CANDU reactors have a higher capital cost than more usual reactor types such as Light Water Reactor, Pressurised Water Reactors etc - this is due primarily due to the reactors size and the need for heavy water moderator - but that cost could in theory be offset by the greater fuel flexibilty that reactor type offers.

It can use cheaper unenriched fuel too which is a big plus cost wise. Enriching fuel is a very expensive business. Being able to use a wide variety of fuel would also have the less immediate but more important benefit of not making us reliant on any one source for our fuel which from a medium term geopolitical point of view would be a smart hedge bet.

Kama wrote: »

Yep, I'm operating on the assumption (be very glad if anyone can dispel it) that cheap energy is gone, and prices will ramp up and not smoothly.

Oil prices might moderate once they pass the point of being usable for private transport. The initial oil peaks of the 70's and 80's are what moved oil from being the primary source of power generation, gas, nuclear, coal and hydro all became far more attractive simply because of relative prices, I would put a large sum of money on the same being the case in private transport. We are over the next decade going to hit oil prices that make the petrol/diesel engine a thing of the past, the problem at the moment is that there's no clear successor.

Black Swan

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

If the risks are so bad, why are you not out protesting...?

Every chance I get in forums such as these, and whatnot, while across the pond at university.

Rojomcdojo wrote:

And to all the conspiracy people who think that NUCLEAR PHYSICISTS cant be trusted...Good lord...

Not sure I would class it as a conspiracy, when bureaucratic incompetence will suffice. For example, I know of two nearby nuclear electric generating stations in So Cal that are built near fault lines, which, if there was a significant earthquake, might result in a China Syndrome (San Luis Obispo and San Onifre ...spelling?). Further, I would not make an all inclusive sweeping statement about "NUCLEAR PHYSICISTS" (although, there may be some with a vested-interest when categorizing them as "NUCLEAR?").

In a recent issue of WIRED magazine, they reviewed present and future sources of energy in the USA and overseas. It was recommended that, instead of spending huge amounts of money on the construction of nuclear power plants, why not take the billions (trillions world-wide) that would be spent building a nuclear power infrastructure over the next 5 to 10 years, and invest it in research and development of clean, alternative sources of power (without waste with a 10,000 year radioactive decay half-life)?

I saw my first completely hydrogen-powered SUV the other day, which zipped by me at speed (unlike those battery-heavy, slow petrol-electric hybrids). It did not have a conventional exhaust pipe that emitted poisonous gas into the atmosphere, but rather a vent that emitted clean water vapor. Maybe some of those "PHYSICISTS" that you trust could work on something new, rather than old-tech that produces highly dangerous toxic waste that can contaminate our environment for thousands of years, or can be transformed into bombs? Then again, my Da would sing from his college days:

"We can be thankful,
Tranquil and proud,
That man's been endowed
With the mushroomed shaped cloud.

And I know for certain,
That some L-O-V-E-L-Y day,
Someone will touch the spark off,
And we will all be blown away!"
(Kingston Trio)

nesf

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

In a recent issue of WIRED magazine, they reviewed present and future sources of energy in the USA and overseas. It was recommended that, instead of spending huge amounts of money on the construction of nuclear power plants, why not take the billions (trillions world-wide) that would be spent building a nuclear power infrastructure over the next 5 to 10 years, and invest it in research and development of clean, alternative sources of power (without waste with a 10,000 year radioactive decay half-life)?

So we'd take a bunch of money that was earmarked for building a proven a technology that would be guaranteed to produce power and spend it on research in the the hope that it might just generate a usable alternative? That's idiotic. We definitely should increase funding for alternatives but we should build enough plants to guarantee power first. Then again WIRED ain't exactly known for sensible economic policy recommendations.

Kama

Speaking of governments and clean technologies:
this 2 year moratorium on any solar development of public land just annoyed me. USA has fantastic solar resources, and I hear great geothermal too.

*blames big oil for holding us back*

As to WIRED, I'm not a tech-cornucopian, so I don't generally buy their boosterism.
Just because there is a demand for Santa Claus can't make him real, is how I phrase it to friends who think science or the market will reliably 'make' something. Hoping for Santa is fine; depending on him coming for Xmas is folly, moreso if public policy.

Scaling up production of stuff we can do already > hoping we can find something better = my 2c
Its a bit unfortunate if your research lab runs out of power while developing the Next Big Thing...

Blue, I agree competence is a factor; nuclear industries have not generally endeared themselves to the public. But its not sufficient for environmentalists to merely assume on that basis that nuclear is innately wrong. The question we had earlier was what currently available power source should we be substituting for fossil fuels for generation (most of us agree, all feasible as soon as possible). A hydrogen powered SUV (sounds awful to me, small is beautiful and all that) is still burning fossil fuel, albeit indirectly, to split the hydrogen from water initially. The obligation which is on any 'green' is to provide an alternative to nuclear; business-as-usual will be that oil will be substituted for by dirtier coal and oil shale with consequent health and CO2 effects, hardly an ideal ecological outcome. An anti-nuclear argument is necessarily strong if it can show an alternative, weak if it cannot.

Oh, and in case really worried, every contributor here thinks nuclear implementation utterly unlikely due to being unacceptable to the public. We differ over whether thats justified or not, whether risks are perceived irrationally, but not over the fact.

We are over the next decade going to hit oil prices that make the petrol/diesel engine a thing of the past, the problem at the moment is that there's no clear successor.

In theory, demand reduction would kick in; depends on elasticity and fungibility. Personal transport has significant elasticity, industry less so. Given planning, infrastructure, the whole kit and kaboodle, a certain level of oil usage is currently obligate. The OPEC shocks moved some off load generation, but isn't transports dependence just short of total? Yes, once the price is high enough, the trucks won't be using it, but at that point we may well be starving outside Tesco, waiting for a hydrogen economy, or Factor Four transport efficiencies, or whatever.

Something like Venter's 3rd-gen algal fuel could change that (engineered bugs are one of my hopeful 'Santa Claus' fixes, along with replicator technology) but my suspicion is if we have to mine that oil shale to drive the proverbial Hummer, by Jingo we will. Alberta's getting pretty nasty...I'd find it quite plausible to see petrol as increasingly having Veblen good qualities; increasingly expensive, increasingly exclusive, without demand slack on the personal transport side. The equation private transport = freedom runs pretty deep.

The tech for electronic vehicles has been around long enough, and a supply infrastructure relatively easy to institute, which for personal transport does the trick...but I'd hate to see the size of the battery on an electric goods vehicle >.<


Shorter supply chains! Localization! 2 cheers for Dear Oil?

Black Swan

nesf wrote: »

So we'd take a bunch of money that was earmarked for building a proven a technology that would be guaranteed to produce power and spend it on research in the the hope that it might just generate a usable alternative? That's idiotic.

The same could be said about creating highly radioactive waste from nuclear power generation that's dangerous for thousands of years?

nesf

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

The same could be said about creating highly radioactive waste from nuclear power generation that's dangerous for thousands of years?

It would be true if that waste didn't come neatly packed into solid bars. If it was released into the atmosphere like the pollutants of a coal plant then yes, it would be the height of idiocy. The good side of nuclear pollution is that while it is highly dangerous is it also contained so it can actually be dealt with. Also most of that waste can be reprocessed and reused to generate power.

The key difference between fossil fuel and nuclear power plants is that in the former the pollutants are released directly into the atmosphere and can only be partly mitigated, with the latter the pollutants come tightly contained and can be dealt with and even recycled to an extent. As is, with present technology we can deal with it by simply burying it deep in a mountain or similar where the radiation will be harmlessly blocked by the soil/stone/earth of the surrounding ground along with thick heavy metal shielding around the bunker itself.

Black Swan

nesf wrote: »

The key difference between fossil fuel and nuclear power plants is that in the former the pollutants are released directly into the atmosphere and can only be partly mitigated, with the latter the pollutants come tightly contained and can be dealt with and even recycled to an extent. As is, with present technology we can deal with it by simply burying it deep in a mountain or similar where the radiation will be harmlessly blocked by the soil/stone/earth of the surrounding ground along with thick heavy metal shielding around the bunker itself.

While I agree with you that fossil fuel emissions are a serious and immediate threat that needs to be solved, the process of burying the byproducts of nuclear power generation for thousands of years is also problematic.

nesf

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

While I agree with you that fossil fuel emissions are a serious and immediate threat that needs to be solved, the process of burying the byproducts of nuclear power generation for thousands of years is also problematic.

Sure, but it's nowhere close to as problematic as fossil fuel emissions. Radioactive waste isn't nice stuff but the pollution is containable. Radiation is both well understood and relatively easy to deal with once you put the resources into it. By encasing the waste in certain materials you can essentially isolate it away from everything else on the planet. It provides a challenge to ensure that storage of it is done right, but again this is surmountable and can be done on a co-operative international level.

Edit: The second point is that burying it is the most basic method for dealing with it. We might figure out much better ways of dealing with it in medium to long term and in that case we need simply to take it out from where we put it and do whatever it is we've figured out to it. The key part of the whole thing is that the entire pollutant effect can be contained and if it can be contained we can store it somewhere until we figure out some way to neutralise it or at worst simply just store it so it can't damage anything.

Kama

Came across this piece on cognitive bias in relation to risk assessment, ironically while trying to find info on nuclear that seemed relatively objective. Unsurprisingly, our brains seem to fail on cost-benefit analysis; rather than appraising and rationally weighing, chunking as a good/bad affect-gestalt seems to be the rule. Bit off-topic, but rings true to me in terms of how arguments like this tend to track.

Finucane et al (2000) wondered if people conflated their assessments of the possible benefits of a technology such as nuclear power, and their assessments of possible risks, into an overall good or bad feeling about the technology. Finucane et al. tested this hypothesis by providing four kinds of information that would increase or decrease perceived risk or perceived benefit. There was no logical relation between the information provided (eg. about risks) and the nonmanipulated variable (eg. benefits). In each case, the manipulated information produced an inverse effect on the affectively inverse characteristic. Providing information that decreased perception of benefit, increased perception of risk.

Damn our human irrationality! Ironically, this no doubt makes us feel our positions are more consistent...The implication would seem to be that those with a positive view, of high benefits, are likely to considerably underestimate risk, while those with a high perception of risk are likely to consistently underestimate the benefits:

'of course nuclear can't help us, its too dangerous!' or 'waste storage won't be a problem, we need the power!'

Kama

The 2 strong arguments for nuclear being A: cost efficiency and B: energy security, I'm currently looking at the Olkiluoto plant in Finland as an example, concentrating on the economic-implementation side rather than possible downstream costs for decommissioning, waste, etc, or the energy security issue (which is admittedly huge).

It was to be a flagship station for nuclear in a liberalised energy market. Its an interesting example imo because the Finns have a generally good record in nuclear power, in safety terms and maintaining high reactor efficiency, and have to my mind a pretty good culture of transparency.

Since capital costs are such a large percentage of total cost, usually requiring heavy state intervention due to risk perception of nuclear by the markets, cost and buildtime over-runs have a clear effect on cost efficiency. The tendency of new builds to suffer price ballooning, standard large infrastructure cost inflation, and regulatory delays on safety grounds all factor.

The Finns-TVO got a turnkey contract from Areva for Olkiluoto 3, in a tightly competitive bid, with the vendor internalising the risk of overrun costs. Unsurprisingly, this led to attempts to do it as cheaply as reasonably possible: significant problems have emerged in relation to subcontractors being unaware of nuclear build practices, and deficient quality control practices. STUK Transparency and communication by the subcontractor to TVO and the regulator was also cited as deficient.

At the same time, cost over-runs to date have run to 1.5bn, or ballpark 50% of initial capital cost, and the plant is 2 years behind schedule to come onstream, with consequent increase in projected price/kWh and necessitating buying the power shortfall on the markets. Overly optimistic estimates for construction cost are considered the primary factor, and Areva/Siemens etc are taking losses and legally contesting their liability.

nesf

Kama wrote: »

Came across this piece on cognitive bias in relation to risk assessment, ironically while trying to find info on nuclear that seemed relatively objective. Unsurprisingly, our brains seem to fail on cost-benefit analysis; rather than appraising and rationally weighing, chunking as a good/bad affect-gestalt seems to be the rule. Bit off-topic, but rings true to me in terms of how arguments like this tend to track.
Damn our human irrationality! Ironically, this no doubt makes us feel our positions are more consistent...The implication would seem to be that those with a positive view, of high benefits, are likely to considerably underestimate risk, while those with a high perception of risk are likely to consistently underestimate the benefits:

'of course nuclear can't help us, its too dangerous!' or 'waste storage won't be a problem, we need the power!'

Irrationality is unfortunately a problem for anyone deciding where they stand on an issue. Probabilities in general are something people suck at grasping. Waste storage will be a problem, the thing is, how much of a problem? Burying it isn't very high-tech but if you want to contain radiation encasing it in meters of dense material, be it lead or earth or whatever you want, it can be done. It's a fact of nature that alpha, beta and gamma radiation can't pass through surfaces very well. Alpha is extremely dangerous but extremely short ranged. It doesn't penetrate very well. Gamma does and you need meters of earth of earth to stop it but it can be done. Radioactive material isn't some poorly understood quantity; we've been studying it in extraordinary close detail for almost a century. We know how to stop radiation from escaping, the problematic question is whether we can trust countries to dispose of this waste in the correct fashion because let's face it, that isn't a given in many countries. The problem is that most people don't have even a basic understanding of radiation so it's very easy to scaremonger by over-estimating the risks or lull them into a false sense of security by under-estimating them. Which makes it a bit of a time bomb politically.

Kama

We know how to stop radiation from escaping, the problematic question is whether we can trust countries to dispose of this waste in the correct fashion because let's face it, that isn't a given in many countries.

Yeh, this is the rub of the waste argument in my eyes, and why to my mind the transparency required for the facilities should be so very high, and why criticism is rightly attracted by opaque practices. Given best practice and strong regulatory oversight, as a technical-scientific pro-argument assumes, waste seems less of an issue than the perception is. But taking historical tendencies as guides, as enviromentalists tend to narrate, the the higher risk-perception seems more justified.

SimpleSam06

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

While I agree with you that fossil fuel emissions are a serious and immediate threat that needs to be solved, the process of burying the byproducts of nuclear power generation for thousands of years is also problematic.

Eh anything with a long half life usually isn't that dangerous, and vice-versa. Anyway nuclear is a huge waste of time for Ireland, we should be building offshore deep water wind farms. Yes indeed.

sussed

renewable energy is defo the way 2 go imo, itll NEVER run out!!!
tou can get your own wind turbines, solar panels pretty cheaply and eventually tho power generated will pay off their cost with the savings on electricity you make and then you will have free electricity!!! you can even sell it back to the grid if you generat enough!!! that is imoo the way forward for ireland as we are lagging behind countries like germany by a mile in terms of our energy efficiency!!!
EDIT: GuanYin: No advertising.