Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement
« Back 1 [2]

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Nuclear Energy Revs Up

Continued from page 1

By Peter Fairley
smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Even conventional projects could face delays if NRC is overwhelmed by the anticipated flurry of applications.

A study released in August by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress's research arm, lauded NRC's aggressive hiring to staff its new Office of New Reactors, raising NRC's overall workforce from 3,100 in 2004 to 3,500 today (the agency expects to hit 4,000 by 2010). But GAO also advised NRC to plan for trouble, setting criteria by which it will triage applications if it becomes overstretched.

If NRC becomes overwhelmed, the first projects in the pipeline are likely to win out. That could mean delays for Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, which notified NRC in August that it intends to seek certification for its latest pressurized water-reactor design. Mitsubishi hopes to file its application in early 2008, but Ganthner says that NRC needs more notice to plan for major projects such as reactor-design reviews. "They came into the NRC's picture for the budgeting process about a year late in the cycle," he says.

Watchdog groups, for their part, worry that safety quality will get lost in the shuffle if NRC shifts focus and resources away from enforcement. "NRC is approaching new reactor licensing with a near-exclusive focus on schedule, not quality," says David Lochbaum, director of nuclear safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists, in Washington. He believes that NRC is already stretched too thin. "The NRC lacks sufficient resources to undertake too many tasks," Lochbaum says. "They can cover any half they want but can never cover it all."
« Back 1 [2]

Tags

energy nulcear

Comments

  • Go Nuclear!
    bkshilo on 10/09/2007 at 11:25 AM
    Posts:
    15
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    Want to burn less coal?  Build more nuclear plants. 
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Go Nuclear!
      heprv on 10/09/2007 at 11:50 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
      This nuclear travesty is brought to you by the same folks who brought you the Iraq "liberation". They wasted a trillion of your tax dollars on that undeclared war so far and now they figure that stuffing a few hundred billion more into the pockets of nuclear investors must also be a good idea. This has nothing to do with science. It doesn't have anything to do with global warming or even with energy. It's 100% about money. Taking from the poor to give to the rich is the philosophy behind this taxpayer subsidized nuclear renaissance.

      Go ahead and forget about all the fossil fuels required to produce the concrete and steel needed to build these plants. Forget about the required energy for mining and enrichment of the fuel. Forget about the fossil fuel required for decommissioning and "cleaning up" which is of course impossible. And most importantly, forget about the fact that after all these years no one has a clue what to do with the very long-lasting and very toxic nuclear byproducts. And of course, Yucca Mountain isn't unlikely to store anything but wasted taxpayer money.

      There are too many better and truly renewable options to even begin listing them here. But with the Bush administration behind anything that takes from the poor and gives to the rich, nuclear power looks like the last gasp of the Kleptocrats of nonrenewable life threatening energy.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Go Nuclear!
        Siphon on 10/09/2007 at 1:23 PM
        Posts:
        104
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        Agreed 100%. Notice the following sentence:

        "NRG Energy says that the law's loan guarantees and tax incentives could cover up to 80 percent of the cost of its $5.4 to $6.8 billion project."

        Loan guarantees. Tax incentives. Eighty percent!

        Um, I thought nuclear fission was so "competitive".

        There should be no remaining doubts now, that nuclear fission is a socialist form of power.

        Those who would claim to be capitalistic would do well to leave this source of power alone.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: Go Nuclear Amplification
          smithpm on 10/09/2007 at 2:19 PM
          Posts:
          1
          EDF and Constellation set up their joint venture in 2007 to develop the plants.  Previously, Constellation set up a technology joint venture with AREVA in 2005.  AREVA is the preferred techology provider for EDF with whom they have a strategic alliance.  EDF is considered a French National Champion, with AREVA (34% owned by Siemens) being considered for consolidation by France's President Sarkozy as a future champion combined with Alstom or Bouygues or both.
          Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: Go Nuclear!
          mtbrown on 10/09/2007 at 2:55 PM
          Posts:
          2
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
          I for one am a huge proponent of nuclear energy.  The fact of the matter is, we are in a position where we need to come up with 15 terawatts of cleaner energy in the next 50 years, or humanity is facing a major catastrophe.  And, even if we were to come up with something like fusion, global warming is nothing compared to what we are doing to the oceans and forests.  Regardless, cheap energy is about to become one of the greatest business ventures in history.  The problem with the energy supply field is, it takes huge economies of scale to enter it and compete.  Personally, I am an advocate for solar startup companies and small-scale biomass plants which are recently able to compete, but nuclear fission is a very promising source.  I’ve studied all the newer forms of energy production and unless we use all of them combined, petroleum and coal will still play huge roles in the market. 

          Now if everyone could get over his or her fears of nuclear waste and war, we could make nuclear power supply a large portion of this planet.  True, nuclear waste is harmful, radiation can kill you, but the safety systems are excessive and in comparison to fossil fuels, it is nothing.  Thousands of people die from coal plants a year, be it workers in the mines or the radiation and particles the emissions give to the surrounding cities.  Aside from the fact that coal pollution is far more dangerous to the world than nuclear, people’s basements and slabs of concrete on buildings emit more radiation from radon than any nuclear power plant would ever give off.  We’ve seen things like Chernobyl and had evacuations even in our own country. It’s true, if a meltdown were to occur, entire cities could be contaminated.  But, something like Chernobyl would never happen again, the modern safety systems along with government regulations make these plants so sophisticated and clean, a disaster is just not even a possibility.  5 levels of near impossible scenarios make a safety system impenetrable even to a terrorist. 

          In terms of it not being ‘renewable’, we know how to make breeder reactors that turn 99.9% of the waste back into fuel creating a nearly inexhaustible source. This remaining .1% can be dealt by simply burying it in a single mountain for a million years and I’m sure we can eventually just shoot it into space when it becomes a cheaper alternative.  The waste transport and storage systems are so effective at blocking radiation, any fear of poisoning the surrounding cities is purely media driven.

          The only real problem with nuclear power is the political ethics of sharing it with other countries.  Regan banned breeder reactors in the US because the same plutonium used in bombs comes along in the process and he didn’t want other countries to have the same technology, so he promised we wouldn’t use it either.  But even without breeder reactors, nuclear waste would be minimal and manageable for the next few thousand years even if the whole world ran on it.

          As for saying the huge tax incentives prove that they are not competitive and highly profitable. It goes back to the whole economies of scale thing.  It’s not that nuclear power isn’t competitive with fossil fuels; it’s that building a nuclear plant costs billions of dollars and takes years.  It’s not like a casino where you can build it in a few months and start making money to make it worth taking a loan out for a few hundred million.  The government needs to step in and bolster these companies or they wouldn’t survive the 10 years of interest payments on 20 billion dollars when they are not making a return.  Once producing power though, don’t think that Mr. Burns is making any less money than God. 
          Rate this comment: 12345
          • Re: Go Nuclear!
            dsluis on 10/09/2007 at 4:55 PM
            Posts:
            2
            The important issue mtbrown points out is that civilization needs to meet its huge engergy demands.  We need lots of it! while reducing CO2 emissions. 15 Tera watts is probably too conservative an estimate. The alternative is far fewer people, an unacceptable alternative most would agree.

            Nuclear may not be the most attractive long term alternative, but it is probably a key technology in the interim, while other renewable sources develop. I agree we can't dismiss nuclear.
            Rate this comment: 12345
            • Re: Go Nuclear!
              Siphon on 10/09/2007 at 7:16 PM
              Posts:
              104
              Avg Rating:
              3/5
              15TW? That's 15,000 GW. With 1350MWe units, that's 11,111 nukes. In 50 years. That's at least 222 nuclear power plants per year. Every year, starting right now.

              They are going to build 0 over the next three years. If all goes well, they can build two in the three years after that. Then they will have built 2.7 GW. Only 1329.3 GW behind schedule. That's 0.2 percent of the six year target, and a bit more than 0.02 percent of the 50 year goal.

              What are other countries going to do? Also build a few nuclear fisson power plants. A few GW here, a few GW there. Some of these countries, however will be those that are not on friendly terms with us. Iran is the proliferation 101 example. Would there be such serious international concern, even mention of going to war, if Ahmedinnejad built his deserts full of solar thermal electric plants? That's one other problem with nuclear power: that it's often not about electrical power, but about political power. About provoking. About ambition. Not always about creating clean, safe, competitive electricity.

              But meanwhile, 6 years have passed. Most renewables will have made considerable progress. PV will have grown exponentially from today's levels. Ausra will likely have built Gigawatts of solar thermal plants by this time. And those will be load-following plants, far more useful than nuclear. Because nuclear fission can only be pure baseload. It cannot compete at all in intermediate markets, let alone peaking.

              That's right we do not need baseload. The average capacity factor in the US is typically 40-60 percent or so. If you build a nuke, you have to compensate for the high capacity factor (90+%) with an expensive peaking plant. Unless this can all be done with biomass, these will likely be a natural gas fired plants, not exactly good for the climate. We wouldn't have any need for that CO2 emitting peaking plant if the nuke didn't have such a high capacity factor.

              Wouldn't it be great to have load following technologies, so that expensive peaking plants can be eliminated? And technologies that are dispatchable, and can ramp quickly to respond to renewables? Nuclear fission plants cannot do this. They do not integrate well with wind and solar. We stand at a crossroads: do we choose a renewable grid, or a nuclear grid? We cannot plausibly do both, at least not on a major scale.

              And nuclear has not proven to be very competitive in a liberal market, without subsidies. The problem is, that private funding will not likely be available on favourable terms for nuclear power plants in the US. And no private funding, no rapid expansion. Or high interest rates, ie venture capitalists. Nuclear power does not compete very well under high interest rates.

              Solar thermal is load following technology. The concept is very simple, in particular the new CLFR design by Ausra. It can scale much faster than nuclear power. It can deal with other renewables, and respond to them, ramping up quickly. It eliminates expensive peaking plants. It is safe, clean, and has very little social resilience. There are no geopolitical security issues. There is no resource issue. It is all commercially proven technology, unlike breeders. It works very well on hot days, when nuclear power plants sometimes fail. It provides more in-state jobs than nuclear fission plants. There is no price volatility. There is no mining of fuel and the environmental impact this implies. It will show other countries how it should be done. USA can take the lead, exporting the technology, making big $ without worrying about proliferation or security implications. It gives the US energy independence on a relatively short timeframe, unlike nuclear fission, which may one day be produced through seawater mining or otherwise, but these technologies are long ways from mass scale commercialization and right now the fuel is imported from other countries right now. We will not have energy independence very soon with nuclear fission.

              And what proof do we have that these subsidies are for jump-starting the industry, one time only?

              Why, for that matter, does an industry that is already mature, indeed one that provides one-fifth of electrical demand, need any jump starting in the first place!?

              Let nuclear swim on it's own. Or also subsidize all renewables 80%. After all, why would the nuclear industry be eligible for such a large subsidy, when the other low carbon options are not? Jumpstarting or other reason, this is unfair competition.

              It's not like nuclear fission is the shining winner. This is a democracy, an a lot of people are opposed to nuclear power plants, for the above reasons and many more, such as human error and Murphy's law.

              And anyway, the government should not be in the business of picking winners. Let the market handle it, or else there will be the risk of making the wrong choice, that is an unaffordable one. It has to be affordable, because eventually, someone has to pay for the kWh's. Whether directly or via taxes. Saving the climate by making America a socialist agency? Dubious trade-off.

              Seriously, all nuclear fission has proven is that it can supply most of the electric needs of a socialist economy. Mandatory picking any power source as big part of the energy mix and stimulating it with heavy financing can put the entire economy at risk, possibly harming the international competitive position of the US on the long run.
              Rate this comment: 12345
              • Re: Go Nuclear!
                CarlHitchon on 10/12/2007 at 1:41 AM
                Posts:
                14
                Avg Rating:
                5/5
                Please, you are reciting oil company / eco-nut propaganda.

                Nuclear is very practical and cost effective.  In France, 80% of electric power comes from nukes. A good portion of the transport sector (trains) runs on nuke electricity.
                Rate this comment: 12345
                • Re: Go Nuclear!
                  Siphon on 10/12/2007 at 4:35 AM
                  Posts:
                  104
                  Avg Rating:
                  3/5
                  France has already been disected elsewhere.

                  State enacted, State run, unfair competition, government subsidies, government insurance, loan guarantees.

                  Oh yes! That's progress.

                  If you're so fond of that, go live in France.

                  Nuclear has never proven to work well in a completely liberal environment.
                  Rate this comment: 12345
              • Re: Go Nuclear!
                doteman on 11/10/2007 at 9:10 PM
                Posts:
                5
                Avg Rating:
                5/5
                Buddy,
                How can you suggest that we don't need baseload?  If we want to eliminate the CO2 problem, we are going to have to find a new stalwart baseload technology and eventually shut down the coal- fired plants.
                Rate this comment: 12345
            • Re: Go Nuclear!
              TomArnberg on 04/17/2008 at 10:26 PM
              Posts:
              7
              Thank you dsluis. As long as we agree that nuclear power must move forward now, and rapidly in my opinion, it makes little difference whether we see the same future in our crystal balls. But it is fun, and I will return to this. But first, we are fortunate that inspite of U.S. political "leadership" (or absence thereof)nuclear is presently developed to such an advanced state that we can standardize and deploy a new generation of power plants with confidence. Think of how far we have advanced since France standardized and ran their percentage of nuclear power up to 80%. If any country wants to go up to that percentage nuclear they should plan more pumped hydro and/or compressed energy storage so that the nuclear plants are "base loaded", rather than becoming partly "load following". But even so, nuclear power is the way to go.
                   Now for the fun stuff (crystal balls). I noted recently that "big money" is moving into thin film flexible substrate PV solar panels in silicon valley. They are developing with private funds proprietary manufacturing methods by adapting rotary printing press technology and think they can reduce the cost by a factor of 10x. If so, I hope it will be in time for Swartzeneger's one million panels on California's roofs (or is it panels on a million roofs?), because without it solar is not energy or cost effective. My crystal ball reads that even with massive distributed solar we will still need central station plants and distribution networks for the months when we are socked in by bad weather. The cows cannot wait for the sun to come out for the twice daily milking. (I am a country boy at heart.) We need to develop superconducting coast to coast power transmission to help keep the nuclear plants operating full time. Links of DC superconducting cables in the system might also help to stop the power surges that wipe us out occasionally. I would advocate a lot of storage in with this mix except for one thing. My favorite, compressed air energy storage (which I invented) has one major disadvantage. To operate best the compressed air is delivered to a burner, which at present uses natural gas, before delivery to the "peaking power" gas turbine. And our natural gas should be conserved for more important uses. Regards, and thanks again.
              Rate this comment: 12345
          • Re: Go Nuclear!
            TomArnberg on 04/17/2008 at 5:24 PM
            Posts:
            7
            Thank you M.T.Brown
            I agree totally.
            I think it was Gerald Ford, followed by Jimmy Carter who stopped the Clinch River Breeder Reactor project. Regan tried to start it back up, but conditions had changed too much. And then there was the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR). Quoting Max Carbon, Nuclear Power: Villain or Victim? page 79, "Officials under President Clinton have chosen to stop breeder reactor development in the United States. ... I believe this action was misguided and unfortunate."  As it turns out, all is well that ends well. Our nuclear program is eons ahead of where it was then. But if the incoming party stops the implementation of nuclear power it will be a disaster. Tom Arnberg
            Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Go Nuclear!
        stoolhandluke on 10/10/2007 at 11:25 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Just commenting on the political side of this issue.  The enabling legislation was the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which was approved by the Senate 85-12 with 35 Democrats for and only 7 against.  Those voting for it include both Hillary and Barack.  Noted liberals such as Carl Levin, Ted Kennedy, and Barbara Boxer voted for it.  To say the GOP administration shoved it through is not correct.  Bear this in mind when you go to the Primary and see  Obama, Clinton, Biden, and Brownback's names.
        Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Go Nuclear!
        JF111 on 10/24/2007 at 12:59 PM
        Posts:
        1
        Given the Renewable/alternative Energy Technology that is available today, can someone estimate what kind of power equipment, PV, CHP, or other can we buy for $6.8 billion for home owners. How much energy will it produce over what period of time. What kind of positive effects on the environment will it have, pollutions, cost of cleanup, etc.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: Go Nuclear!
          TomArnberg on 04/18/2008 at 11:08 PM
          Posts:
          7
          You have an interest in solar, JF111. I have had an interest for many decades, with my hopes mostly dashed. The power tower at Barstow CA was built and operated and the power generated was so expensive it was shut down. It was then redesigned with thermal storage, operated for a few years and shut down. It has been idle since 1999. Huge solar cylindrical collectors arrays are being built, with CA laws guaranteeing that the power will be purchased regardless of cost. The electric bills will continue to go up in CA.PV as presently marketed is uneconomic. Professor Borenstein showed that "the cost of a solar PV installation today is three to four times greater than the benefits of the electricity it will produce." {Press Release: “Study finds cloudy outlook for solar panels”, by Ronna Kelly, Hass School of Business, 20 February 2008} However, matters may be looking up for PV. See my reply to dsluis above.
          Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Go Nuclear!
      Rand on 10/09/2007 at 3:30 PM
      Posts:
      4
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      The cleanest and safest power for the last 30 years, and probably the next 30 or more is nuclear.
      I agree with bkshilo.  As far as the other comments, I agree it is sad that government has to subsidize them to counteract the absurd impediments imposed on them by - government.

      For those worried about nuclear waste disposal,
      most can be recycled now.  And, with the logarithmic growth in technology, we will be making baby food out of the rest in this century.  Yet people are concerned that we can only absolutely guarantee it's safety for 10,000 years in Yucca Mountain.  God willing, we will be populating the universe in 100 years, and Earth will just be an historical landmark on a forgotten highway.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Go Nuclear!
        Siphon on 10/09/2007 at 7:33 PM
        Posts:
        104
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        Recycling of nuclear waste is not possible anywhere on Planet Earth. You mean reprocessing, which does not solve the problem of high level nuclear waste.

        And it's not being done it he USA anyway. Breeders are illegal, for good reasons such as safety.

        Nuclear fission might be sustainable one day, but no one really knows when that day will come. Betting on some future technology to be ready in time is not my idea of a strategic energy policy.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: Go Nuclear!
          CarlHitchon on 10/12/2007 at 1:48 AM
          Posts:
          14
          Avg Rating:
          5/5
          Exactly why is it not possible to store the tiny amount of nucear waste resulting from a nuclear economy? 

          We currently store coal and oil waste by the millions of tons in the atmosphere.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          • Re: Go Nuclear!
            DJTal on 10/12/2007 at 3:41 AM
            Posts:
            116
            Avg Rating:
            3/5
            How does nuclear deal with the problem of coal and oil waste in the atmosphere ? Do you think that waste is a good thing ?
            Rate this comment: 12345
            • Re: Go Nuclear!
              Siphon on 10/12/2007 at 5:33 AM
              Posts:
              104
              Avg Rating:
              3/5
              First, let me just say that comparing CO2 with radiotoxic materials is silly. We all breathe CO2; it is not poisonous unless in insanely high concentrations. The only problem is that it's a GHG. So, we can't emit any more of the stuff.

              What are our options? Well it would be mighty easy if we could just sequester the stuff. Unfortunately, that's rather costly. Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle is highly uneconomical.

              Direct Carbon Fuel Cells show some promise. We could try that. Just take the pulverized coal, desulphurize and de-ash it, and then just put it directly in the DCFC. Very efficient, more than 70% already and it's getting better. That means much less coal used, and thus much less CO2. Which will also be easier to sequester, because DCFC's are very clean: no nasty pollutants, the exhaust stream is high purity CO2, which makes it easier to sequester. And they're coming down in price nicely. All we have to do, is scale up their deployment. They don't contain rare elements so this won't be an issue. And they don't have to come in GW sizes, as they are just as efficient in smaller sizes. That means more manageable logistics in fuel delivery and power managment, less societal objection as they're just small buildings, and as an added bonus, they could deliver heat to companies and residents nearby, to displace CO2 spewing space and water heating. And distributed generation also lowers transmission losses.

              It gets even better. DCFC's offer a very interesting transitional route to bio-energy. Biomass can be pyrolised, which yields various useful products, one of them looks surprisingly like... pulverized coal. But it's not. It's bio-energy. It's agrichar. Put some of it in the ground to increase crop yield in a sustainable manner. Which, at the same time, is a form of carbon sequestration as well. Put the rest of it in the DCFC together with the pulverized coal, and guess what... you're carbon negative. Even though you're burning a lot of coal. Because you're still sequestering. As time wears on, and more biomass becomes available on an industrial scale to pyrolize, more and more bio-energy could be utilized, and less and less coal. That means we're getting more and more carbon negative, as the carbon can still be sequestered.

              It gets better still, because by this time, other renewables have penetrated the energy market, and can take care of most of the energy required. That means we won't need all that much biomass, just for back-up and extra peaking etc. Which is good, as that will leave plenty of land to produce food. So we've essentially solved bio-energy's problems (such as food competition when you use too much of it) with other renewables, and solved the other renewables' problems (such as intermittency and unreliability) with bio-energy.

              This strategy gives no long term waste. Which implies that this is actually a REAL strategy, contrary to producing highly lethal dangerous waste for which there is no real solution. 

              Sure, nuclear waste is a small amount. But it stays very dangerous for tens of thousands of years. The USA is just three centuries old. We can't make insane ten thousand year commitments.

              And when you're going to build enough nukes for it to matter anything on the scale that will be required, the amount of waste will not be small anymore anyway.

              Then there's terrorism. Who knows how this phenomenon will develop during the course of this century? Another liability for nuclear fission power.

              Finally there's proliferation. Imagine every country in the world powered by nuclear fission. Imagine the global security and environmental management diffulties.

              If we can make do without nuclear fission, then we must certainly give that a try.
              Rate this comment: 12345
  • Nuclear power plant proliferation.
    martinaatayo on 10/09/2007 at 3:15 PM
    Posts:
    34
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    Problems of energy supply, suffered few years ago
    by residents of west coast and middle belt, and
    ENERGY, considered, a critical fulcrum of any modern economy, inevitably support government censored strategic proliferation of nuclear energy generating power plants, at the same time, pursuing and funding other known and available
    energy options, without any compromise to quality
    standard in structure and functionality operations and in absence of any politiking.
    It could be a colossal mistake to dismiss the move outright as politically motivated, or at best, capitalistic.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Nuclear Insider Speaks
    James Aach on 10/09/2007 at 6:17 PM
    Posts:
    1
    While overview articles like 'Nuclear Energy Revs Up' have some value,there is little understanding among the general public of our various electric energy supplies and their pros and cons (safety, reliability, output) - - and in the abscence of understanding, the "gut" reaction is that nuclear is too dangerous to compare favorably with other sources. 

    Frankly, few among the press, politicians, and pundits on the topic have a strong grasp of the real, day-to-day world of nuclear, and how an accident might progress.  I can safely say that, having both worked in nuclear plants over twenty years, and kept a close eye on the public discussion.

    If readers would like an entertaining look at the real world on nuclear power in the US (both the good and the bad), I invite them to read my novel "Rad Decision".  It is available online at no cost at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com and is also in paperback at online retailers.  (I get no royalties.)  You'll find many reader reviews in the homepage comments. 

    "I'd like to see Rad Decision widely read." - Stewart Brand. 

    Mr Brand is author of "Environmental Heresies" in the April, 2005 Technology Review, is the founder of The Whole Earth Catalog, and is also a National Book Award winner.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • go nuclear
    phoenix on 10/09/2007 at 8:17 PM
    Posts:
    133
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    I hope that all those proponents of nuclear power are signing up to have the radioactive waste, which is the inevitable byproduct of the costly process, trucked into their back yards. That would solve at least one problem. 
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: go nuclear
      mbloore on 10/11/2007 at 4:18 PM
      Posts:
      21
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      and will you sign up to have coal mine tailings and power-plant fly ash dumped in your back yard?
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: go nuclear
      kfsorensen on 10/11/2007 at 11:03 PM
      Posts:
      4
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      Well, your suggestion got me curious, so I went to a well-known anti-nuclear website (figuring they'd give me the worst possible scenario) and tried to figure out how much nuclear waste my personal electrical energy consumption generates.

      Here's the website:

      Nuclear Fuel Energy Balance Calculator

      Then I went to this website to find out how much the average American uses in electricity each year. They said it was about 12,343 kilowatt-hours.

      So I went to the calculator, down to the spot where it says "Electricity Production" and tried to type in 0.012343 GW*hr (12,343 kW*hr) and hit calculate. The calculator then told me that each year I would personally be responsible for 0.000041 metric tonnes of spent nuclear fuel. I did some simple math and arrived at the knowledge that my actions, as a semi-average American, resulted in the production of 41 grams of spent nuclear fuel each year.

      Now, since I know that most spent nuclear fuel is uranium oxide, and that uranium oxide is fairly dense (~11 g/cc), I wondered a bit about how much volume 41 grams is. Turns out it's about 4 sugar cubes (each sugar cube is 1 cubic centimeter).

      Well, I've got four people in my household, and let's assume that we all live to the goodly age of 75 years. In such a case I had better multiply these numbers by 300. Now I'm up to about 1200 sugar cubes.

      Now, it's entirely possible that I've made some mathematical error, so I included all the websites and numbers so that you can check my work. But the idea that my family of four, over 75 years, will produce about 12 kilos of nuclear waste with a volume of about one liter is somewhat reassuring!

      If I had to fit it in my basement I probably could.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: go nuclear
        CarlHitchon on 10/12/2007 at 2:01 AM
        Posts:
        14
        Avg Rating:
        5/5
        It's nice to see someone calculate instead of expound.  Did you happen to calculate the equivalent quantity of C02, mercury and ash that would be produced using coal?
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: go nuclear
          Siphon on 10/12/2007 at 5:54 AM
          Posts:
          104
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
          You should calculate how many people you could kill, in a "worst-case scenario", with 12 kilograms of high level radiotoxic waste.

          I also hope your basement is well built. It will have to last several tens of thousand of years, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of years, to last the life of the waste.

          Imagine every basement having a package of nuclear waste. Imagine a terrorist stealing just one of these packages for use in a nasty dirty bomb.

          Or imagine just one of the packages failing. Murphy's law dictates that if the n is big enough (lots of basements) and t is big enough (tens of thousands of years), things will go wrong.

          Maybe you would also have your kids play American football with the package?
          Rate this comment: 12345
          • Re: go nuclear
            kfsorensen on 10/12/2007 at 8:35 AM
            Posts:
            4
            Avg Rating:
            4/5
            Well, I already have things in my garage that would kill everyone in my neighborhood in a "worst-case scenario". I store them on the top shelf and tell my kids not to mess with them. Their toxicity does not change with time, but the radiotoxicity of spent nuclear fuel decreases rapidly. I built a simulation to allow one to see just how quickly radioisotopes from a typical fission product distribution decay