Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 Next
Comments 10551 to 10600:
-
barry17781 at 12:05 PM on 23 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
The reference to the quote seem to have dropped off
"The high cost and low availability of hafnium limit its use in civilian reactors, although it is used in some US Navy reactors."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_rod
-
michael sweet at 11:15 AM on 23 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Ritchieb1234,
Ten years ago I had little hope for change. The situation has completely changed because wind and solar energy are now the cheapest energy on the planet. Very few new coal plants are being started. Unfortunately, coal plants planned 5-10 years ago are being fiished.
Even with Trump trying to support coal, more coal plants have shut down in Trumps first two years than Obama's first 4 years. Gas is only cheaper because of fracking. I think fracking is a Ponzi scheme, they have never made a profit. Once fracking crashes, renewable will be by far the cheapest energy.
As you know, energy planing is generally long range. It takes 5-10 years to build baseload fossil and nuclear plants. That means it takes 5-10 years to stop the train and get renewable energy on board. Renewable has only been cheapest for 3 or 4 years. No-one anticipated the phenominal drop in wind and solar power.
Over 50% of all new electricity in the world in 2017 was renewable energy IEA report for 2018. 10 years ago that looked impossible. Plans like Jacobson 2018 and Connelly 2016 linked above show that it is possible to generate all power using renewables. It saves money compared to BAU!! More heat and industry is being converted to electricity. The IEA report linked describes large increases in bioenergy which Jacobson does not use at all (he thinks it is too polluting). I like the idea of electrofuels to store excess power long term and power industries like airplanes and ships.
Renewable energy also avoids much of the pollution we are exposed to every day. That is especially important in developing countries and is a great reason by itself to convert to renewables.
I think that if we go all in with renewable energy we can reduce the damage caused by fossil fuel use. The sooner we start the more damage we dodge. Unfortunately, the Republicans stand in the way. Every record hot day in summer or record flood more people are convinced we need to do something. Will it be enough by 2020??
I do not think nuclear will be able to help out. It is too costly and takes too long to build. Even if NuScale works out it will be 2030 before they are in limited production, and I doubt it will be as cheap as solar and wind. That is too late. I think Abbott is correct that enough materials to build the plants do not exist. If nuclear provides less than 5% of all power it is simply a distraction. (currently nuclear is about 2-3% of all power).
We should put all our money on the cheapest energy today: wind and solar PV. Using existing gas peaker plants 90% of electricity can be generated using wind and solar. Then we convert all cars, industry and heat to electric. Once we have 90% of the economy renewable we will have to figure out the last 10%. Perhaps some electrofuels.
-
barry17781 at 11:00 AM on 23 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
My considered comment
"as for hafnium in civilian reactors I stand by it that it is currently not used to any significant extent"
Barry 6:25 11 June 2019
Yet Mr sweets comment were
"Your primary objeciton to Abbott and here 2011 is your claim that hafnium is not used in civilian reactors.
michael sweet at 21:28 PM on 14 June 2019"
A compete distortion of my post which was to point out that halfnium was just one element that can be used as a control or scram rod and there were pleanty of other materials available and boron was cheap cheerful and abundant, and readily obtainable, and so there was no restraint on the availbilty of absorber materials, which seemd to go agaist the preconceptions that if it was mentioned in Abbott, peer review paper then it must be essential!
"The high cost and low availability of hafnium limit its use in civilian reactors, although it is used in some US Navy reactors."
Indeed we may well regard ourselves be in asituation, now in where Halfnium being limited simply by the military having the first pick and deeper pockets than the civilians
-
Philippe Chantreau at 10:45 AM on 23 June 2019In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
OPOF is right, it is impossible to predict the minimum extent that far in advance with any kind of accuracy. From what I have seen while following sea ice over the years, it appears that weather events, especially winds that scatter the ice and flush it to the South, are major determinants of the final minimum.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:29 AM on 23 June 2019In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
bozzza @3,
I check the NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis reasonably regularly, particularly their Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph. And I occasionally look at the Arctic ROOS data presentations.
Comparing the current year at this date with other years in the easy to work with Charctic interactive tool, this year at this time is very similar to 2010, 2011, 2012, 2016, 2017 and 2018.
Each of those years have very different final minimums. And some years that had less ice area loss by this time of year ended up with very low minimums (2015 and 2007).
A lot of variation of rate of ice loss can happen. This year's ice area loss rate recently levelled off from June 12 to June 17 (almost no change of extent through those dates. So if you were looking at data before June 12 it certainly would have looked like 2019 was on track to have a lower minimum than 2012.
A long time ago I read a caution about forecasting sea ice minimums based on the data up to this time of year. I would wait at least one more month before feeling fairly sure about what the minimum would likely be this year.
-
barry17781 at 10:06 AM on 23 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Mr sweet,
"As you can see from Barry and Dpeppigrass's posts on this thread, the normal level of discussion of nuclear on line is very low. In my mind it makes nuclear look bad when the only people who favor nuclear are so uninformed. If the nuclear industry wants to start over they need to address people like SkS who want to make informed decisions."
Mr sweet , I am a nuclear engineer with over 35 years experience as an advisor in the industry in 5 countries, yet your great experience seems to be in holding a yttrium source in the hand and distorting any viewpoint that you do not like.
I am afraid that your continued insulting and misepresentationhas not had any usefull ness in raising the tone of this what you would loosely call a discussion, but seems to be a platform for your prejudiced views.
Richie has not yet referenced a singe Peer reviewd
-
nigelj at 08:11 AM on 23 June 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #25
Corn based ethanol and similar crop based ethanols look increasingly like a failed idea. Looking at the article above the majority of the studies appear to suggest corn ethanol has no advantages over other options, or at best a small advantage. Displacing millions of hectares of forests and other crops for at best a possible small advantage looks like insanity to me.The risks of losing considerable areas of cropland and forests do not justify this.
Corn is claimed but not proven to sequester good levels of carbon, and is also used as cattle feed in intensive farming, but there is also some evidence that the alternative of feeding cattle on open grasslands with rotational grazing sequesters soil carbon and is an alternative to corn feed. So this alternative should at least be considered in the 'modelling'. Of course it does put pressure on land so this needs to be also considered.
We need to be asking what do we 'really' need biofuels for? Perhaps aviation fuel, and to power shipping and long haul trucking because electrifying these things is going to be challenging. Blending corn ethanol in petrol for cars is stupidity, because we have electric cars and once you get above a token blend of about 20% ethanol engine's cant handle it. Token blends simply dont achieve anything of significance to my way of thinking.
We have other options for biofuels that don't compromise forests and crop lands. I recall reading biofuels can be made from scrub grown on waste land, harvesting grasses, growing algae and from various other waste materials. This may not be as economic short term as corn biofuels, but in the long term this doesn't disrupt other essential land uses. It may be enough to fuel things that cannot be electrified. Someone needs to work that one out, and it will give a better picture of whether corn biofuels are of any use.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 06:53 AM on 23 June 2019In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
Bozzza @5: There is nothing normal about this. The immense area of free water North of Siberia, the one next to Severnya Zemlya, all of the Alaskan and Yukon coasts ice free, most of that of the Northwest Territories except for the vicinity of Victoria Island. Although things slowed down a bit in June this year, the extent is pretty much on par with the 2012 extent after it had experienced its abrupt June decline. Add to that the nearly absent ice in the Bering sea through the winter. As NSIDC says, the stage is set. Even though it is early in the season, it is hard to see how this year could not be very close to 2012. Any major wind event will likely yield to a new record low.
-
nigelj at 06:47 AM on 23 June 2019In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
Washinton Post :Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June melting
Sure is quite something. Seems to be a big stationary high over the arctic. I wonder if the reduction in temperature differential from equator to the arctic due to climate change is causing highs to build up and hang around over the arctic? Absolute pure speculation.
-
richieb1234 at 06:46 AM on 23 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet
I am on a steep learning curve. I started out to create a simple course on climate change for my 12 year old granddaughter, but I keep getting more deeply interested in the science.
Since my retirement from NRC, I have done extensive consulting and training in developing countries and at the IAEA. The perspective I have is that the interests of climate change activists, and those of reactor vendors and those of countries looking for future energy do not necessarily line up. I don't see any of these countries buying a Gen IV reactor until it has been successfully operated in a country with real nuclear experience. Each country has its own decision process, its own regulatory process and its own financial challenges. As you know, there is no global authority empowered to deal with global warming.
Call me a pessimist, but global warming is not going to be on a fast track to resolution in the next decade. It would not surprise me to see CO2 emissions rising every year from now until then. In the meantime, the vendors and the potential customers will pursue their own interests, not solution to warming. If nuclear can be added to plans like the Green New Deal, I would suggest the most productive area of emphasis would be aggressive regulatory reform; i.e. to develop a regulatory framework designed for a climate change strategy for nuclear rather than an electicity grid strategy for nuclear. By a climate change strategy I mean large numbers of nuclear plants sited in remote locations for the express purpose of producing synthetic fuels from CO2 in the atmosphere.
I need to sign off now. I would be interested in your view of that perspective.
Best regards
-
michael sweet at 22:52 PM on 22 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Richied1234,
I look forward to your responses to Abbott's paper. I have grave doubts that NuScale can deliver on their claims. It will be interesting to see what the response is to Abbotts remaining issues.
As you can see from Barry and Dpeppigrass's posts on this thread, the normal level of discussion of nuclear on line is very low. In my mind it makes nuclear look bad when the only people who favor nuclear are so uninformed. If the nuclear industry wants to start over they need to address people like SkS who want to make informed decisions.
I have only read a handful of academic renewable all power plans (like Jacobson 2018, Connelly 2016 and Aghahosseai et al 2019 (Connelly and Aghahosseai use electrofuels). My impression is that all of those plans incorporate zero nuclear power. If all the long range plans by skilled engineers omit nuclear it is hard for me to see a path where significant nuclear is used. An industry that can lose $2 billion on the cancelled Wales plant Barry references and $1.5 billlion on a plant at Crystal River, Florida (near where I live) where they never even applied for a permit to build, should be able to find a few million to produce academic papers that show it is a real option for the future.
Many newspaper articles I see make nuclear builds look like a giant scam to rip off utility customers (for example Crystal River and large numbers of generals selling nuclear plans to Saudi Arabia).
I think the logarithmic relationship of CO2 concentration to temperature comes from Beers Law. Concentration = k[-log(transmission of light)]. There are some different formulations of Beers law, the key is log transmission is proportional to concentration. (Absorbance is directly proportional to concentration).
One important point to recognize is the concentration of CO2 at the surface is not as important as the concentration at the escape altitude of radiation (about 10 km up in the atmosphere). The escape altitude is very important.
-
richieb1234 at 22:11 PM on 22 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet
"In your first post you said the current fleet of nuclear reactors has an accident rate of 1 per 10,000 reactor-years."
I believe there are two tiers of operating Gen III plants: those where the operating company has a strong safety culture, and the regulatory body is independent and competent; and those where these two criteria are not met. In round numbers, I think operating experience justifies a core damage frequency in the range of 1 in 10,000 reactor years for the former group and 1 in 1,000 reactor years for the latter group. The historical data includes full and partial core melt accidents, as well as precursor events; i.e. close calls. The TMI, Fukushima and Chernobyl accidents fall into the second category. So, I am in general agreement with Abbott. I believe that most nuclear countries today fall into my first catagory, but I cannot provide evidence to support that claim. I am pretty confident that the curent situation in the US is favorable, and there is good reason to believe the US Gen III plants can complete their life cycles wihout another core damage accident. [But I have been wrong before. :-)]
"If you built out 50,000 modular reactors with an accident rate of 1 in 100,000 reactor years, you would have a big accident every other year somewhere. That would be 100 times safer than Abbott claims. How safe are those modular reactor designs?"
My basis for believing that [at least some] small modular reactors are qualitatively safer than GEN III plants is outlined in previous posts; i.e., elimination of the most challenging accident sequences, much slower accident progression and heat removal by natural processes.
Yes, with a postulated 50,000 plants spread around the world, it is easy to imagine core damage accidents occurring on a more regular basis, although I would be reluctant to assign a frequency number. As I have said elsewhere, I believe the greatest threat to SMRs is deliberate sabotage. Great pains will have to be taken to assure security.
Best regards
-
bozzza at 17:37 PM on 22 June 2019In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
Should fast-ice along the north eastern sea route br disappearing this fast?
-
bozzza at 17:11 PM on 22 June 2019In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
I will note, however, that the volume figures don't seem as bad- which I must admit I can't explain.
-
bozzza at 17:06 PM on 22 June 2019In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
Has anyone seen the Global Sea Ice figures lately? I think we should call 911 ...
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:08 PM on 22 June 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #24
An enlightening item in BBC June 21 discusses a rather effective representation of global warming thta was developed by Prof Ed Hawkins of Reading University.
The chart that defines our warming world by Jonathan Amos, Science and Environment, BBC, June 21, 2019.
-
richieb1234 at 12:12 PM on 22 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet
"If you could comment on one more section of Abbott each week we eventually would have discussed them all."
I have enjoyed the dialogue with you, and I will be happy to take a stab a some of the other topics.
"Does Nuscale have more data that was not available to the French in 2015? Does the US NRC differ from the French analysis?"
I retired from NRC in 2007, so I am not in on the most recent thinking. However, I know that NuScale Power has submitted its application for Design Certification. The application covers every aspect of reactor safety and comprises multiple volumes of information. The contents of the application are specifically mandated in NRC documents RG 1.71 and RG 1.205. The NRC has nearly completed its technical review of the NuScale application in accordance with the agency's Standard Review Plan (SRP). The SRP is an exhaustive procedure for reviewing a design, comprising thousands of pages of guidance and covering nearly 300 distinct technical topics from reactor physics to materials effects to radiation protection. The safety review takes three and a half years and involves dozens of technical experts. I will see if I can get my hands on the NRC's preliminary safety evaluation report (SER).
I have worked with IRSN during my NRC tenure, and it is a very credible organization. But I cannot speak to which design they were discussing.
"The Union of Concerned Scientists was concerned that safety is not much better in modular reactors. The savings in manufacture and operations came mainly from leaving out current safety mechanisms"
Some of the savings in small modular designs are probably from eliminating safety systems that are designed to respond to specific accidents. But if those accidents are precluded by the design, it makes sense not to design for them. For example, the most challenging accident in a GEN III plant is the postulated rupture of one of the 30" diameter reactor coolant pipes, and the provisions to mitigate this accident are a major part of the safety design. The NuScale design has no reactor coolant pipes. I think it is safer to eliminate a challenging accident than to have a system to mitigate it.
Best regards
-
barry17781 at 10:30 AM on 22 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Halfnium is neutron absorber, it says so in Abbott
Beryllium is a reflector likewise.
There are well over a dozen other neutron absorbers available boron is probably the commonst used.
There i hardly any shortage of boron and it can be readily extracted from the sea water
-
michael sweet at 10:23 AM on 22 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Richieb1234,
In your first post you said the current fleet of nuclear reactors has an accident rate of 1 per 10,000 reactor-years. Abbott claims 11 accidents (before Fukushima) in 14,000 commercial reactor years so his rate is about ten times yours. How many reactor years do you use for your calculation? It must be much higher than Abbott's number. Just Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island is 5 accidents.
If you built out 50,000 modular reactors with an accident rate of 1 in 100,000 reactor years, you would have a big accident every other year somewhere. That would be 100 times safer than Abbott claims. How safe are those modular reactor designs?
-
michael sweet at 09:50 AM on 22 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Richieb 1234,
They are now much more water stressed in Arizona than they were in 1988 when the Pao Verde plant was built. From your reference:
"Palo Verde is the only nuclear generating facility in the world that is not located adjacent to a large body of above-ground water."
As water is running low in most locations I doubt that many plants like Palo Verde will be built in the future. They would repurify the water and drink it today.
There is a small nuclear plant in Siberia that is completely air cooled. It is cold in Siberia.
I cannot imagine building 12,000 small nuclear plants in the USA. Most would have to be built on ocean front property that is not threatened by sea level rise. Even with 20 reactors per site it would be hard to find enough locations.
-
michael sweet at 09:48 AM on 22 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Richieb1234,
Thank you for your informed comments. I think you can contribute a lot more to the conversation. We have great difficulty finding anyone who can comment positively on nuclear and make sense.
Your approach of posting on one topic at a time works very well. If you could comment on one more section of Abbott each week we eventually would have discussed them all.
On safety I have these two references. In 2015 the French Nuclear Regulatory Agency (IRSN) said:
"At the present stage of development, IRSN does not have all the necessary data to determine whether the systems under review [generation IV reactors] are likely to offer a significantly improved level of safety compared with Generation III reactors"
The Union of Concerned Scientists was concerned that safety is not much better in modular reactors. The savings in manufacture and operations came mainly from leaving out current safety mechanisms.
What do you think about these positions? Does Nuscale have more data that was not available to the French in 2015? Does the US NRC differ from the French analysis?
-
richieb1234 at 04:53 AM on 22 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet
Thank you for bringing my attention to the Abbott 2011 paper. I have tried to comment on those ares where I have expertise and leave the rest for others to evaluate. Nevertheless, I can see that the paper outlines many important problems which must be addressed by anyone advocating a nuclear solution to climate change.
My original reason for seeking out Skeptical Science.com was to find out the basis for the logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration and global temperature, but got diverted when I saw the commenting on nuclear energy. I want to get back to that original question. I will continue to follow the nuclear energy string, but will probably not be a prolific commenter.
Best regards
-
richieb1234 at 04:38 AM on 22 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet
I continue to study Abbott 2011. Here are my commens on his topic VI: "The accident rate problem." In this section, Abbott uses historical accident data from the nuclear industry to conclude that there would be a full or partial core melt accident every month if nuclear plants were used to meet the entire worldwide energy demand. I think the rate would be closer to one accident a year, but that is still unacceptable. Thus, Gen III nuclear reactors should not be used to address the global warming issue.
Gen IV reactors are qualitatively more safe. They do not used electrically powered systems to respond to accidents, as Gen III plants do. They do not even use passively powered systems, as Gen III+ plants do. They respond to accidents with natural cooling. No systems are used. A well designed Gen IV plant requires little or no intervention.
For these reasons, the principal threat would be deliberate acts of sabotage. It is difficult to estimate the likelihood of these because they are inherently non-random. Security measures would/will be most important for these plants. This includes design measures as well as a security force.
Best regards
-
richieb1234 at 01:35 AM on 22 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet
I am still studying Abbott 2011. Here are my views on topics III: "The Embrittlement Problem" and IV: "The Entropy Problem."
These two topics focus on materials issues with nuclear power, and conclude that these issues will limit average life of a plant to about 50 years.
The situation related to materials issues is not as alarming as it might seem. The embrittlement problem relates only to older plants. Changes to weld metallurgy have solved it for new plants. Other cracking mechanisms are managed via non destructive examination during outages. For metal-cooled reactors, there is no pressure in the vessel, and experience with sodium cooled reactors has been that degradation is not a problem. Gas cooled reactors are at high temperature and pressure, but the cooling medium is Helium, a non-reactive gas.
Nevertheless, Abbott is right, the lifetime of a facility will be measured in decades [although probably longer than 50 years]. And then it becomes a decommissioning problem. If each reactor is only 300 MWe, there would be 50,000 reactors worldwide. That would mean between 2 and 3 reactors going into decommissioning every day!! I don't see how that would be sustainable. Maybe someone can correct my math or my logic.
Best regards
-
richieb1234 at 23:06 PM on 21 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet:
I have read Abbott 2011 several times since my last post. It is very well researched and well written. It will take me a while to get up to speed. I will add Jacobson to my reading list.
"I am surprised the NRC is not aware of Abbott. Don't they read the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists?"
The NRC is not concerned with the development of nuclear power, just the regulation of safety, security and emergency response. Under US law, the Department of Energy is concerned with nuclear development.
"Why should I believe that generation IV will succeed when generation III failed? The fact that nuclear is starting over with generation 4 suggests the technology is too complicated to work."
The new nuclear technologies are far simpler than the Gen III designs. They use far fewer systems, have eliminated the most challenging accident sources and use natural cooling processes. Here is an overview of the NuScale system: https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/technology-overview. Time will tell whether these innovations lead to commercial success. That kind of question will be determined over time by free markets. There are dozens of companies in several countries who are betting their own money and effort that GEN IV has a bright future.
Getting back to Abbott 2011, here is my view of his first objection to nuclear power; namely that there are not enough sites in the world with large enough water supplies. The Palo Verde plant in the southwest US has 4,200 MWe of installed nuclear power on a desert site. It uses municipal wastewater piped in from nearby cities for process water and emergency cooling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station. The Gen IV plants have low capacities (300 MWe or less) and can be installed in clusters that are sized to the available water sources. Where there's a will, there's a way.
This is great fun. I will continue to study the many excellent issues that Abbott has raised, and I will take a look at Jacobson.
Best regards.
-
Phaedrus1 at 21:29 PM on 21 June 2019Holocene Optimum was warmer
From the National Climate Data Center:
Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period. Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed.
What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them. It appears clear that changes in Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month. These orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter. The combination of warmer summers and colder winters is apparent for some regions in the proxy records and model simulations. There are some important exceptions to this pattern, however, including colder summers in the monsoon regions of Africa and Asia due to stronger monsoons with associated increased cloud cover during the mid-Holocene, and warmer winters at high latitudes due to reduction of winter sea ice cover caused by more summer melting.
In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere. In some locations, this could be true for winter as well. Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/mid-holocene-warm-period
-
michael sweet at 20:14 PM on 21 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Richieb1234,
Abbott 2011 and Abbott 2012 are available at these links (also linked in the OP). The links are free. They are very similar. They are easy to read. I am surprised the NRC is not aware of Abbott. Don't they read the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists?
Jacobson 2009, cited 1200 times, rates 12 different technologies. Nuclear comes in about 9th for different reasons from Abbott. These issues need to be addresssed.
I remember nuclear proponents claiming that generation III plants would be built much faster because sections would be built in factories, similar to your description of Japan. The plants in Georgia and South Carolina were supposed to demonstrate this success. Obviously this did not happen.
Why should I believe that generation IV will succeed when generation III failed? The fact that nuclear is starting over with generation 4 suggests the technology is too complicated to work.
Some of the plans I have read for future energy systems use electrofuels. Connolly 2016, Smart Energy Europe uses methane (or methanol) as storage and fuel for some parts of the economy. Nuclear power would have to be as cheap as renewable energy and overcome the issues Abbott and Jacobson describe.
In a renewable energy system the most valuable energy is stored energy for windless nights. Most of the time there will be extra energy that needs to be stored for the slow nights. Baseload is therefor low value. Nuclear will be competing at the lowest level of the energy system most of the time. Do they realize they will be bottom feeding and not top feeding?
If nuclear can only generate 2-5% of all power (all power is about 5-6 times current electrical power) is it worth dealing with the problems of uranium supply, safety, waste and weapon expansion? We need look no further than current Iran and North Korea problems to see these future issues.
-
richieb1234 at 19:13 PM on 21 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet:
Lots of great questions. I will have to do some research to get the answers. And I will have to read Abbott. Here are some partial replies:
"How will the factory be different from the manufacturing unit for the generation III reactors?"
Gen III plants are not built in factories; they are constructed on the site, which is an inefficient, costly and untimely process that involves armies of skilled workers crawling around a hugh site. Some countries, notably Japan, have perfected modular construction techniques to improve the costs and scheduling of construction. The Japanese assemble large sections of the plant in factories on site and lift them into place. I have seen one of these opertions at Shika, where they were using a 1,000 Ton crane! The new modular reactors will be completely assembled in factories and delivered to the site on trucks or barges. The site will require some construction to accommodate the reactor, and I believe the nuclear fuel will not be added until the reactor is installed (although theoretically the entire package could be assembled in the factory, given prior regulatory approval).
"Can you coment on how much it would cost to build a reactor factory?"
"I saw a comment by someone at NuScale that in order to buiild their factory they needed to have a very large number of reactors on order (hundreds of billions of dollars worth), presumably from the government."
I am not familiar with the costs of the factories. I will see what I can find out.
"Can you comment on Abbott's 13 reasons why nuclear is not practical? I am especially interested in Abbott's claim that rare materials like hafnium and beryllium do not exist in sufficient quantity to build out a sigificant quantity (enough to supply more than 5% of all power) of reactors."
"Why has the nuclear industry chosen not to reply to Abbott?"
I will get a copy of Abbott and see what I can find out. Regarding the industry's lack of response to Abbott, that is not surprising. The operating companies are focused on sustaining the viability of the current fleet of reactors in an unfavorable economic environment, and the reactor vendors are focused on getting new construction orders. Starting a dialogue on using nuclear power to address climate change would not be a priority for them right now.
"What fraction of all power (all power, not electricity only) do you think could be delivered by reactors by 2050?"
Answering this question will require some research, which I am happy to do. The concept that I have been reading about is the "carbon-negative" approach, which would use nuclear power plants in remote locations to make gaseous and liquid fuels by combining CO2 extracted from the air with Hydrogen from water. The concept is to keep our current infrastructure for using fuels, but to supply the fuels by recycling CO2. The plan also calls for seqestering CO2 in order to get some reduction in the current atmospheric concentrations. Proponents of this approach believe it is the only way to stop global warming, because they believe that all other plans involve continuing indefinitly to take fossil fuels from the earth. Carbon-negative technology is under development in the UK and in the US/Canada. [I realize that most Skeptical Science commenters are probably already familiar with carbon-negative]
Thanks for the positive feedback. I will be back when I have some answers.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:02 PM on 21 June 2019In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
nigelj,
I agree, and would add that 'popularity' as a measure of success also shares in the blame for the harmful things that have been happening.
Being Helpful to Others, being altruistic, is a way of thinking and behaving that every human can develop.
Competition for status based on popularity and profitability without Helpful Altruism effectively governing what is going on is destined to develop harmful unsutainable results. And being able to get away with misleading marketing 'unpenalized', can amplify how harmful the results will be, especially by increasing the resistance to correction of awareness and understanding.
Advertising/Marketing/Education (similar things), that helpfully altruisticly honestly improve awareness and understanding are Great. Any other type of promotion/teaching can obviously be incredibly harmful.
The climate science case makes that rather common sense understanding undeniably clear, at least to anyone who is not divisively confirmation biased into motivated reasoning, critically trying to think of a way to get away from that awareness and understanding.
-
michael sweet at 09:48 AM on 21 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Richieb1234,
It is very interesting to have someone who has reactor experience commenting.
I saw a comment by someone at NuScale that in order to buiild their factory they needed to have a very large number of reactors on order (hundreds of billions of dollars worth), presumably from the government.
Can you coment on how much it would cost to build a reactor factory?
How will the factory be different from the manufacturing unit for the generation III reactors?
Can you comment on Abbott's 13 reasons why nuclear is not practical? I am especially interested in Abbott's claim that rare materials like hafnium and beryllium do not exist in sufficient quantity to build out a sigificant quantity (enough to supply more than 5% of all power) of reactors.
Why has the nuclear industry chosen not to reply to Abbott?
What fraction of all power (all power, not electricity only) do you think could be delivered by reactors by 2050?
Thanks for your help.
-
nigelj at 07:21 AM on 21 June 2019In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
You would think that a fossil fuels company like Exonn knowing there was a global warming problem while knowingly funding think tanks pretending there wasn't a global warming problem infringes some form of law because it's making a misleading representation. I suppose Exonn Mobil would claim they didnt instruct the think tanks on what findings to make and sneak out of culpability that way. Its all so annoying, and some people probably think Exonn was being clever which annoys me even further.
One can infer Exonn thought humanity could live with the warming they predicted, and so decided on a sort of bargain with the devil, but Exonn probably had a very limited idea on the implications of that warming. Only an exercise on the scale of the IPCC can really determine the full picture and we know its worse than originally thought.
It certainly brings home how companies are driven purely by profit and have no ethical standards or conscience. While I generally support capitalism in principle, all this looks increasingly unsustainable as an economic model.
-
scaddenp at 06:49 AM on 21 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Richieb1234 - thank you for your insights. Citing supporting literature is very much encouraged but an NRC perspective is welcome.
-
richieb1234 at 05:29 AM on 21 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Hi: New member here. I have been reading comments and articles on various sections of Skeptical Scientist, and I feel as if I have hit the mother lode of good information on all aspects of climate change.
Regarding "is nuclear the answer," I have some experience and expertise, having served for 25 years on the technical staff of the USNRC, with specialties in engineering analysis, risk assessment and emegency response. I would offer the following thoughts:
1. The current world wide fleet of nuclear plants is safe, but not safe enough to meet the requirements of the climate crisis. Experience of the past decades indicates a core melt frequency of 1 in 10,000 reactor-years if the reactor is operated by a company with a good safety culture and regulated by a competent and assertive regulatory body. Otherwise, the core damage frequency is higher. That is not good enough in a world envisioned to have thousands of reactors. The good news is that there is a new generation of reactors under development with more inherently safe characteristics. One of these, the NuScale small modular reactor is approaching regulatory design approval in the U.S. Other designs based on non-light water reactor physics are in the development stage.
2. The economics of the current designs are not good enough. Recent experience with new construction shows that new plants built with current technology will carry a debt burden that will make them non-competitive. Future plants will have to be built in factories rather than constructed on site. Also future plants will have to be designed so as to justify a less burdensome approach to safety regulation; another reason for the importance of inherently safe design.
3. Many if not most countries lack the technical and industrial infrastructure, and the skilled workforce required to build, maintain and operate a fleet of nuclear plants. That is why nuclear has been confined to a relatively small group of countries. Modular, factory-based construction can help here.
My bottom line would be that nuclear is not ready to meet the climate challenge, but that it could be an important part of the answer in a decade or so if public and private commitment to development is sustained.
[I have tried to follow the commenting rules. I apologize if I still need improvement :-).]
-
MA Rodger at 04:37 AM on 21 June 2019Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Eclectic @74,
This particular "drive-by-er" does have a history in the SkS comment threads. As far as I can see, he doesn't stick around to discuss points he raises but there is perhaps evidence of 'lurking' in this comment as it is replying to a previous in-thread comment.
-
Ari Jokimäki at 04:01 AM on 21 June 2019New Research for Week #24, 2019
Thanks, all! :-)
Let's hope that others will carry the torch long after me.
-
Jonas at 03:59 AM on 21 June 2019New Research for Week #24, 2019
Hooray, it is back again! :-)
Thanks to the SkS team and thanks to Ari! -
Eclectic at 21:01 PM on 20 June 2019Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
MA Rodger @73 & prior,
thank you for the depth of knowledge which you add (to this and other threads) .
Being more than 48 hours, it is very likely that the commenter will not return to elaborate or dispute over his original comment.
( Each time there is a "drive-by" , I am yet again amazed at the chutzpah of a "drive-by-er" who chooses to raise his head above the parapet while possessing only a thumbnail of information/misinformation on the topic in question. How does a large bucketful of chutzpah manage to evaporate so quickly, before the making of a second comment? It seems the liquid chutzpah must be a highly volatile substance.
-
MA Rodger at 18:59 PM on 20 June 2019Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
With the absence of any further comment from commenter bruce, it might be worthwhile joining a few dots to make sense of his intervention @70.
The insistence that Arcric SIE annual minimums have "not decreased since 2007" follows from denialist insistence that there has been an Arctic version of the 'hiatus' - Arctic Sea Ice has not been diminishing as it did in previous AGW years and the trend is now flat. Swart et ak (2015) 'Influence of internal variability on Arctic sea-ice trends' has been cited as showing evidence of this 'hiatus' operating over the 6-year period 2007-13 and which is now assertedly extended for significantly more years. Thus the "not decreased since 2007" is not interested in the 2012 minimum as the denialist assertion concerns the multi-year trend not the individual years.
The data used for IPCC FAR Fig20 is described thus:-
"Sea-ice conditions are now reported regularly in marine synoptic observations, as well as by special reconnaissance flights, and coastal radar. Especially importantly, satellite observations have been used to map sea-ice extent routinelysince the early 1970s.The American Navy Joint Ice Center has produced weekly charts which have been digitised by NOAA. These data are summarized in Figure 7.20 which is based on analyses carried out on a 1°latitude x 2.5° longitude grid."
It is obviously not the best of data given it shows such a small drop in SIE 1979-1990. It may be possible to find this data within literature of the time (the likes of say Mysak & Manak (1998) also use some JIC data) but it doesn't in anyway resemble modern satellite SIE data.
The AMO's "close correlation with Arctic ice" is probably simple nonsense. Even denialists like Connolly et al (2017) found it difficult to fabricate an Arctic SIE racord based on Arctic temperature that was much different to more respectable records using similar methods. The graphic below is from Cea-Pirón & Cano-Pasalodos presented within a Judith Curry blog-comment-thread. SIE records such as HadISST & Marsh et al (2016) developed from historical ice records show significantly higher SIE over the earlier pre-1950 years, perhaps 2M sq km higher. None of these show any AMO-like wobbles.
But what Connolly et al did manage to achieve was to present a graphic to the world (below) from Alekseev et al (2016) [paywalled] (but without the actual post-1979 SIE data plotted as in Alekseev et al (2015) Fig3b) and without mentioning the finding predicting of an ice-free Arctic summers by 2030.
If you are happy with the most basic of similarities being considered as being a "close correlation", the likes of this Alekseev et al (2016) graph may be assumed as an upside-down AMO graph but the assertion doesn't actually pass muster. Firstly the Alekseev et al graph is simply an upside-down version of a rather crude Arctic summer temperature record which are then no more than assumed as a proxy for Arctic summer SIE minimums. And even then, the upside-down AMO does have a very different shape. The 1950 AMO(us-d) was the same value as recent values with a peak inbetween in the 1970s (rather than 1960s) and a 'hiatus' since 1999. So AMO(us-d) is a long way off from being a proxy for Arctic SIE values.
-
TVC15 at 14:22 PM on 20 June 2019Climate's changed before
@ 750 MA Rodger
WOW MA Roger what would I do without your knowledge and brilliance?
I immensely thank you for your response!
-
KR at 13:04 PM on 20 June 2019New Research for Week #24, 2019
Thank you, Ari!
-
barry17781 at 12:42 PM on 20 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
My stament was and is
"Typically 6 reactors are nowerdays placed in a facility for infrastructure savings"
Here is a list of sites with 6 operational reactors and with plans or other reactors in construction to make 6 or more reactor.
however Mr Sweet appears to dispute the statement.
Can anyone tell me with the following list in which way is my statement incorrect?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors
1/ Pickering 6 operational
2/ Bunce 8 operational
3/ Changgian 2 operational + 4 more planned
4/ Frangchernggang 2 operational 2 under construction 2 more planned
5/ Fuqing 4 operational 2 more planned
6/ Haiyang 2 op 6 more planned
7/ Hongyanhe 2 op 6 more planned
8/ Ningdel 4 op 2 more planned
9/ Quinshan 7 reactors
10/ Tianwen 4 oper, 2 under construt, 2 more planned
11/ yangjiang 5 operational 1 uner construction
12/ Gravelines 6 operational
13/ Paks 4 operational +2 planned
14/ Kaiga 4 operational + 2 planned
15/ Kudankulan 2 operational +2 under construction + 8 more planned
16/ Rajastan 6 operational + 2 more planned
17/ Kashiwazah 7 on shut down
18/ Thyspunt 2 operational + 4 more planned
19/ Beloyarsk 2 shut down +2 operational + 2 planned
20/ Hanbit 6 operational
21/ Hanul 6 operational
22/ Shin kori 3 operational + 3 under construction
23/ Zaporizhia 6 operational
-
barry17781 at 11:30 AM on 20 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
barry at 10:27 AM on 14 June, 2019
Michael,
Abbott is not a definitive paper, it is an engieering "solution".
his 20.5 km^2 number as the requirement of a single reactor is false. It is based 70 % of the area being a buffer Zone, It also is based on only one reactor being placed in this site,
The paractce is much higher and a single reactor is the exception. Typically 6 reactors are nowerdays placed in a facility for infrastructure savings. He also does not take into account hat this buffer Zone is only applied in the USA not in the rest of the world.
Please could you be more circumspect when quoting Abbott
Work it out yourself
0 0
Moderator Response:
[PS] We are desparately wanting an definiitive paper. Abbott is best we have unless you can provide something else. You are also making statements without providing sources to back them. Any further posts without supporting publications will be deleted.
[JH] Argumentative statement struck.Moderator could you please tell me where in this statment have I not been justified?
Moderator Response:[PS] Moderation complaints are always offtopic. However, I ampleased to see a better approach to stating your case.
-
barry17781 at 11:27 AM on 20 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
his topic is about whether nuclear energy can be answer to global warming. Economic and technical aspects are welcome. Particularly welcome would be a peer-reviewed response to Abbott from the industry but apparently you are also unable to find one.
Ah but original source material is being found and we did find that Abbotts area is not traceable.
-
barry17781 at 11:23 AM on 20 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
"You are apparently arguing that renewables cannot generate enough power so we are stuck with nuclear. This is a completely false argment. Even if renewables could not generate enough energy that does not mean that nuclear can."
No I am not, please show your evidence for such an inflammatory and scurrulious remark or withdraw it.
thank you
-
RBFOLLETT at 10:06 AM on 20 June 2019New Research for Week #24, 2019
Wow, that is a lot of research and reports, but just the tip of the iceberg I would guess of the tens of thousands of other Global Warming (GW) ongoing research studies that seem to fall mainly within the following three main GW Study Areas.
The first of these Areas would probably fall under "PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING" with ongoing studies of global temperature rise, sea level rise and increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Thousands of scientific research studies, costing billions of dollars around the world, just to PROVE Global Warming is ACTUALLY HAPPENING.
Secondly we would likely have the "RESULTS OF GLOBAL WARMING" with ongoing research that essentially lays out what they think will happen to people, animals and the environment IF we allow Global Warming to continue. Again thousands of ongoing scientific studies and research and billions of more to PREDICT what COULD happen.
And finally we would have "STOPPING GLOBAL WARMING" with all the ongoing scientific research and recommendations on simply how to REDUCE anthropogenic CO2 emissions or more simply how to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. I am now guessing we are into the trillions of tax dollars and private funding on these avenues. So those are the main 3 areas responsible for 99.9% of ALL the ongoing scientific research and spending on the current Environmental Crisis of Global Warming. Billions and Billions, maybe even into the Trillions of dollars spent into the Scientific Study and Prevention of Global Warming caused solely by the suspected burning of fossil fuels.
I did however almost forget that stupid fourth" NOT ONGOING" study, covering the "CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING". That would be the more than a century old "Greenhouse Gas Warming Theory" that, maybe because it was so old, there was thought to be NO NEED to do further scientific research and study of it. NO, they have a very good "EXPLANATION" of how the Theory works and pretty well all the GW Climate Scientists agree with an overwhelming consensus of the "EXPLANATION" that it is causing some amount of warming, they just don't know admittedly "HOW MUCH". And it seems they don't want to know how much or even do any further research to "prove it" or spend another dime on it. When was the last time a scientific research study was conducted to "Quantitatively Measure Global Temperature Rise with Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations"? Billions of dollars spent on thousands of scientific studies to prove the Existence and Results of GW and not a single dime to prove the one thing that everything hinges on. -
scaddenp at 08:07 AM on 20 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
in no way is this peer-reviewed, but here at least is one attempt to answer Abbott.
-
scaddenp at 07:41 AM on 20 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I would offer this paper as another source for land source usage by nuclear plants.
Summary point:
"Nuclear energy has the lowest land requirements, if we do not consider the land required for long-term waste disposal. The inclusion of this use of land would seriously increase the land requirements, because a small area of land is needed, but for many thousands of years. For example, if 0.1 km/TWh is required for waste disposal, multiplied by 30 000 years, applied to 30 years of generation, the factor would increase from 0.5 km/TWh to 100 km/TWh)."
-
barry17781 at 07:06 AM on 20 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
It seems that ABBOT 1 and ABBOTT 2 are the topic and that economics is elsewere
"Abbott 2011 and Abbott 2012 doesn’t think so but perhaps there are better analyses? For discussions of economics, levelized cost estimates of various electricity technologies can be found here and here".
I also seem to have had a photo of Graveslines deleted, could anyone give reason
Moderator, could you be specific?
barry at 08:32 AM on 19 June, 2019
0 0
Moderator Response:
[PS] Over the line. Note comments policy on No inflammatory line. You have pushed this hard enough.Moderator Response:[PS] Your comment was deleted because of your inflammatory discussion style. Michael Sweet identified your photo as Gravelines before it was deleted and provided detail on typical no. of reactors which you did not appear to have read. You attacked a strawman. Other comments in inflammatory style have also been deleted.
This topic is about whether nuclear energy can be answer to global warming. Economic and technical aspects are welcome. Particularly welcome would be a peer-reviewed response to Abbott from the industry but apparently you are also unable to find one.
If you are going to continue posting here, then I suggest a change of tone and more emphasis on substance and published reviews. Your style so far does the nuclear argument no favour
-
barry17781 at 06:15 AM on 20 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Skeptical Science asks that you review the comments policy. Thank you.
"You are apparently arguing that renewables cannot generate enough power so we are stuck with nuclear. This is a completely false argment. Even if renewables could not generate enough energy that does not mean that nuclear can."
NO I AM NOT, I AM LIMITING MY DISCUSSION ENTIRELY ON THE ABOTT PAPERS
THE ABBOTT PAPERS ONLY MENTION RENEWABLE?SOLAR IN PASSING, SIMILARLy WITH ECONOMICS/COSTS THEY ARE ONLY IN PASSING.
If you stuck to the Abbott and did not spread about spurious arguments we could proceed.
NOW TO THE POINT did you see the Graveslines photo
1/ six reactors
2/ no buffer zone
Both of which those who recklessly quote Abbott completly ignore do not consider.
Moderator Response:[DB] All-caps usage and inflammatory tone snipped. If you wish to re-post it without the all-caps, please do so.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
michael sweet at 00:52 AM on 20 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Barry,
The Wikipedia article you linked has the warning
"This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (June 2016)
This article needs to be updated. (October 2013)"This Reuters report from January 2019 shows that in 2018 Renewable energy generated over 40% of electrical power in Germany. Coal generated 38%. Nuclear was obviously very low.
You are apparently arguing that renewables cannot generate enough power so we are stuck with nuclear. This is a completely false argment. Even if renewables could not generate enough energy that does not mean that nuclear can.
According to the Lazard report added to the OP, renewable energy has only been the cheapest option for a couple of years. Utility companies did not inistall renewable to replace fossil fuels becasue it cost too much.
The situation is completely different today. Renewable energy is the cheapest option. Experience has shown that up to 80% renewable energy can be added to existing grids using existing gas peaker plants for storage and production on windless nights. Most currenty building plants are renewable wind and solar. In the future virtually all new build will be renewable since it is cheapest.
The question is: how long will it take for renewable energy plants to replace existing fossil and nuclear plants? Existing gas peaker plants will likely be kept as storage for windless nights.
According to the Lazard report linked above, new build renewable energy includig the mortgage is currently cheaper than about half of existing nuclear that has no mortgage. (Nuclear with a mortgage is triple the cost of renewable energy). Probably all the single reactors i the USA are not economic. Future builds of
Prev 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 Next
