Comments on: U.S. Going Nuke-ular? http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/12/18/us-going-nuke-ular/ Dispatches from the Youth Climate Movement Wed, 08 Oct 2008 07:09:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: R Margolis http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/12/18/us-going-nuke-ular/#comment-60726 R Margolis Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:16:19 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/12/18/us-going-nuke-ular/#comment-60726 Editor - As an engineer for over 20 years I can clearly state that the UCS risk assessment does NOT represent the consensus of engineers who are experts in nuclear energy. I found technical errors in their report (e.g., their temperature for graphite oxidation was far too low for the graphites used in the current gas-cooled designs). The American Nuclear Society is the scientific and engineering organization for the nuclear profession (not to be confused with NEI which is the industry lobbying and regulatory coordination group). The ANS position statements can be accessed here: http://ans.org/pi/ps/ I realize that nuclear is controversial and that most of the climate youth movement is opposed to nuclear, but engineering professionals primarily look to the ANS as the principal source of accurate information on nuclear energy. Editor -

As an engineer for over 20 years I can clearly state that the UCS risk assessment does NOT represent the consensus of engineers who are experts in nuclear energy. I found technical errors in their report (e.g., their temperature for graphite oxidation was far too low for the graphites used in the current gas-cooled designs).

The American Nuclear Society is the scientific and engineering organization for the nuclear profession (not to be confused with NEI which is the industry lobbying and regulatory coordination group). The ANS position statements can be accessed here:

http://ans.org/pi/ps/

I realize that nuclear is controversial and that most of the climate youth movement is opposed to nuclear, but engineering professionals primarily look to the ANS as the principal source of accurate information on nuclear energy.

]]> By: Drewbach8 http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/12/18/us-going-nuke-ular/#comment-60705 Drewbach8 Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:44:26 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/12/18/us-going-nuke-ular/#comment-60705 "Already proven dangerous nuclear option." What information do you have to prove that nuclear power is dangerous? The following website lists the main energy related accidents since 1977; http://www.uic.com.au/nip14app.htm. As you can see, the Russian Designed RBMK-1000 in Chernobyl was the only reactor to produce catastrophic results and fatalities, far less than the other popular forms of energy. <em>[Editor's Note: For a much more accurate assessment of the risk from Nuclear Energy - go <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/nuclearandclimate.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>] </em>The light water reactors used in the United States and most other parts of the world are far superior to this design, and completely eliminate this type of accident in their design through improved engineering. Even emission-free hydro-electric energy has produced more fatalities than nuclear power. Renewable sources such as wind are just not practical. Wind power requires three times the amount of installed generation to meet energy demands. Also, wind towers are completely dependent on the weather and climate, which as we know, is not consistent. This doesn't even take into account the incredible amount of wind towers required to produce the amount of energy a typical nuclear power plant produces. For example, at Altamont Pass in California, 6000 wind turbines produce approximately 125 MW of energy, <em>[Editor's Note: The Altamont Pass Turbines are from a much earlier period and don't remotely resemble modern wind turbines in capacity, which would take fewer than 70 for that level of capacity] </em>while a single plant such as the Millstone power station in Connecticut produces 2,020 MW of energy using only two reactor units. It would take nearly 97,000 of these wind turbines to produce this amount of energy. Nuclear is the safest, cleanest, and cheapest form of energy currently available. Why else would the nuclear industry be terming this time period as the "Nuclear Renaissance." Please think practically. “Already proven dangerous nuclear option.” What information do you have to prove that nuclear power is dangerous? The following website lists the main energy related accidents since 1977; http://www.uic.com.au/nip14app.htm. As you can see, the Russian Designed RBMK-1000 in Chernobyl was the only reactor to produce catastrophic results and fatalities, far less than the other popular forms of energy. [Editor's Note: For a much more accurate assessment of the risk from Nuclear Energy - go here] The light water reactors used in the United States and most other parts of the world are far superior to this design, and completely eliminate this type of accident in their design through improved engineering. Even emission-free hydro-electric energy has produced more fatalities than nuclear power. Renewable sources such as wind are just not practical. Wind power requires three times the amount of installed generation to meet energy demands. Also, wind towers are completely dependent on the weather and climate, which as we know, is not consistent. This doesn’t even take into account the incredible amount of wind towers required to produce the amount of energy a typical nuclear power plant produces. For example, at Altamont Pass in California, 6000 wind turbines produce approximately 125 MW of energy, [Editor's Note: The Altamont Pass Turbines are from a much earlier period and don't remotely resemble modern wind turbines in capacity, which would take fewer than 70 for that level of capacity] while a single plant such as the Millstone power station in Connecticut produces 2,020 MW of energy using only two reactor units. It would take nearly 97,000 of these wind turbines to produce this amount of energy. Nuclear is the safest, cleanest, and cheapest form of energy currently available. Why else would the nuclear industry be terming this time period as the “Nuclear Renaissance.” Please think practically.

]]> By: R Margolis http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/12/18/us-going-nuke-ular/#comment-60449 R Margolis Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:43:25 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/12/18/us-going-nuke-ular/#comment-60449 While this is an industry weblink, the numbers look reasonable: http://www.uic.com.au/nip57.htm Even going from 0.234% U to 0.01% U, the EROEI is a strong positive (overall 58 drops to 34 on energy return). Also, note that the change from diffusion enrichment to centrifuge more than compensates for the additional energy input from the drop in ore concentration. Mining and milling occur relatively close to the mine (i.e., ore is not shipped all the way to the enrichment plant, just the yellowcake). Nuclear is controversial and not without problems, but U scarcity is not one of them. While this is an industry weblink, the numbers look reasonable:

http://www.uic.com.au/nip57.htm

Even going from 0.234% U to 0.01% U, the EROEI is a strong positive (overall 58 drops to 34 on energy return). Also, note that the change from diffusion enrichment to centrifuge more than compensates for the additional energy input from the drop in ore concentration. Mining and milling occur relatively close to the mine (i.e., ore is not shipped all the way to the enrichment plant, just the yellowcake). Nuclear is controversial and not without problems, but U scarcity is not one of them.

]]> By: gary senier http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/12/18/us-going-nuke-ular/#comment-60287 gary senier Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:03:17 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/12/18/us-going-nuke-ular/#comment-60287 i dont like nuclear either. but if the predictions of global warming are correct it maybe the quickest way out of the co2 problem for short term. of coarse we are not going to cut back on our usage of energy so the problem will just be postponed till we are out of options. using energy effiecent light bulbs and making sure your tires are inflated aint gonna get it folks. we have got to totally change our way of thinking in a very very serious way. some how, i hate to say it, but i think the only way it will happen is economy driven. our economy is a consumer driven economy. owning less stuff and using less energy just doesnt work. at least not for those at the top of our society and goverment. i dont like nuclear either. but if the predictions of global warming are correct it maybe the quickest way out of the co2 problem for short term. of coarse we are not going to cut back on our usage of energy so the problem will just be postponed till we are out of options. using energy effiecent light bulbs and making sure your tires are inflated aint gonna get it folks. we have got to totally change our way of thinking in a very very serious way. some how, i hate to say it, but i think the only way it will happen is economy driven. our economy is a consumer driven economy. owning less stuff and using less energy just doesnt work. at least not for those at the top of our society and goverment.

]]> By: John Chaney, SCC http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/12/18/us-going-nuke-ular/#comment-60220 John Chaney, SCC Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:18:56 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/12/18/us-going-nuke-ular/#comment-60220 Could somebody please give me the EROEI of the actual mining of uranium. Multi-national and local corporations are trying again (after 25 years) to start mining it here in a rural, but populous and rainy area in southwestern Virginia.The corporate mouthpieces say it will be a real boon to VA's energy usage and will help sway the international balance of payments for the USA while bringing down the price of gasoline! WOW, what a deal! Could somebody please give me the EROEI of the actual mining of uranium. Multi-national and local corporations are trying again (after 25 years) to start mining it here in a rural, but populous and rainy area in southwestern Virginia.The corporate mouthpieces say it will be a real boon to VA’s energy usage and will help sway the international balance of payments for the USA while bringing down the price of gasoline! WOW, what a deal!

]]> By: R Margolis http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/12/18/us-going-nuke-ular/#comment-59134 R Margolis Mon, 24 Dec 2007 01:49:09 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/12/18/us-going-nuke-ular/#comment-59134 My only concern then becomes: if the IPCC is mistaken on nuclear, then can they be mistaken on climate change? If a group that is supposed to have such powerful credentials is off base on one of its options, what about the others? As a 42 year old concerned citizen and parent, I may not be a strong activist, but I know that if a scientific phenomenon can be brushed off as just an excuse for someone else's social revolution, then the real problems of climate change will be ignored and we will face bigger problems than a few extra reactors. My only concern then becomes: if the IPCC is mistaken on nuclear, then can they be mistaken on climate change? If a group that is supposed to have such powerful credentials is off base on one of its options, what about the others? As a 42 year old concerned citizen and parent, I may not be a strong activist, but I know that if a scientific phenomenon can be brushed off as just an excuse for someone else’s social revolution, then the real problems of climate change will be ignored and we will face bigger problems than a few extra reactors.

]]> By: Amy Ortiz http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/12/18/us-going-nuke-ular/#comment-58996 Amy Ortiz Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:37:29 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/12/18/us-going-nuke-ular/#comment-58996 Just because the IPCC has put nuclear on their list of solutions doesn't mean that it IS a solution. Living in South Florida, I've watched coal plant proposals getting blocked, turned down and withdrawn. Once I got over my initial elation, it was to realize that these coal proposals were going to be replaced by nuclear. As a 20 year old activist, I will never support a world where when I am 40 we have doubled or tripled the amount of nuclear power plants in operation. It is a false solution, like so many others. I could go on and on about WHY nuclear is NOT a solution, but I would recommend the short film "Climate of Hope on Nuclear," you can watch it on youtube in three parts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_NLdRUELjo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVyEibbnWUU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeCCBvz_XwA NO NUKES, NO COAL, NO KIDDING Just because the IPCC has put nuclear on their list of solutions doesn’t mean that it IS a solution. Living in South Florida, I’ve watched coal plant proposals getting blocked, turned down and withdrawn. Once I got over my initial elation, it was to realize that these coal proposals were going to be replaced by nuclear. As a 20 year old activist, I will never support a world where when I am 40 we have doubled or tripled the amount of nuclear power plants in operation.
It is a false solution, like so many others. I could go on and on about WHY nuclear is NOT a solution, but I would recommend the short film “Climate of Hope on Nuclear,” you can watch it on youtube in three parts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_NLdRUELjo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVyEibbnWUU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeCCBvz_XwA
NO NUKES, NO COAL, NO KIDDING

]]> By: Dwindling Excuses for False Solutions « It’s Getting Hot In Here http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/12/18/us-going-nuke-ular/#comment-58832 Dwindling Excuses for False Solutions « It’s Getting Hot In Here Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:29:57 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/12/18/us-going-nuke-ular/#comment-58832 [...] With industry and government still pushing false solutions like “clean” dirty coal and nuclear power, ignoring the consequences for the health of our planet and our bodies, the news yesterday [...] [...] With industry and government still pushing false solutions like “clean” dirty coal and nuclear power, ignoring the consequences for the health of our planet and our bodies, the news yesterday [...]

]]> By: R Margolis http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/12/18/us-going-nuke-ular/#comment-58783 R Margolis Wed, 19 Dec 2007 06:12:34 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/12/18/us-going-nuke-ular/#comment-58783 Funny, the IPCC has put nuclear on the list of options for dealing with the carbon issue. As for EROEI, the biggest chunk of input energy is from gaseous diffusion enrichment. Construction and decommissioning are relatively small (e.g., a nuclear plant pays back its construction energy in less than a year). The biggest issue with renewables is not the energy devices themselves (e.g., windmills are dropping in price) it is the cost to restructure the grid. You need energy storage that can allow one to have electricity when the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow. If renewables AND associated energy storage can be done cheaper than nuclear or coal w/sequestration, then it will happen. Personally, I cannot see why it cannot be some combination of each. Countries such as South Korea and China are building nuclear AND solar. Funny, the IPCC has put nuclear on the list of options for dealing with the carbon issue.

As for EROEI, the biggest chunk of input energy is from gaseous diffusion enrichment. Construction and decommissioning are relatively small (e.g., a nuclear plant pays back its construction energy in less than a year).

The biggest issue with renewables is not the energy devices themselves (e.g., windmills are dropping in price) it is the cost to restructure the grid. You need energy storage that can allow one to have electricity when the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow. If renewables AND associated energy storage can be done cheaper than nuclear or coal w/sequestration, then it will happen.

Personally, I cannot see why it cannot be some combination of each. Countries such as South Korea and China are building nuclear AND solar.

]]> By: Ken http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/12/18/us-going-nuke-ular/#comment-58769 Ken Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:34:59 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/12/18/us-going-nuke-ular/#comment-58769 Nuclear has never been cost effective - look at any literature claiming the contrary, and you'll notice that they exclusively focus on *operating costs," rather than full life-cycle costs which would include not only decommissioning, but also spent fuel and waste storage for the next 10-20K years. Truth is, we wouldn't have a tenth of the reactors (or the problems) we do now, without Price-Anderson subsidies for the past 40+ years. Nuclear power is the most anti-democratic boondoggle ever invented. Nuclear has never been cost effective - look at any literature claiming the contrary, and you’ll notice that they exclusively focus on *operating costs,” rather than full life-cycle costs which would include not only decommissioning, but also spent fuel and waste storage for the next 10-20K years.

Truth is, we wouldn’t have a tenth of the reactors (or the problems) we do now, without Price-Anderson subsidies for the past 40+ years.

Nuclear power is the most anti-democratic boondoggle ever invented.

]]>