- ‹ previous
- 82 of 2794
- next ›
What's the Deal With Nukes?
I've long wondered just why conservatives are so obsessed with nuclear power. If nukes had the potential to do away with our climate change problem entirely, then I could see it. Hooray, no new regulations! But even cheerleaders for nuclear power don't suggest that it could produce more than a small fraction of our electricity in the next 20 or 30 years. So why has it become such a hobbyhorse?
Brad Plumer investigates today and basically says he's not sure either. But it seems to boil down to yet another culture war issue: since hippy lefty types are against 'em, all right-thinking patriots are apparently for 'em. Dreary stuff. But it is what it is, and if it might serve as the basis for a bipartisan compromise on a climate change bill, maybe it's worth playing along. But will it? Here's Brad with the bottom line:
There's little point in acceding to the GOP's nuclear demands without getting anything in return. [Lamar] Alexander, for one, recently admitted that, even though he's taking part in talks over new nuclear provisions, nothing will persuade him to support a cap on carbon — which is the crux of any climate bill. "That's something to watch out for," grumbles one observer. "Is [the Nuclear Energy Institute] actually going to work to bring new votes to the table?" Perhaps it's finally time to see just how much this love affair is worth.
I have a guess about that, but I'll keep quiet about it for now. There's no need for puerile cynicism while more optimistic negotiators are still taking a crack at getting a nonnegative answer, after all. There'll be plenty of time for that later.
It's quite a Rube Goldberg way to Boil Water
Oh, and it's radioactive too. Isn't Dupont about to come out with Solar Roof Shingles? - I'd rather help pay for millions of installs of those in the south and southwest and a few dozen Nuke plants.
You could say that about
You could say that about coal plants as well. However, the latest nuke plants actually don't use water anymore to generate power - they're gas-driven.
If nukes had the potential
In the long run, they could largely replace coal. That is doing something.
You have to start somewhere, and at least nukes are a relatively tried-and-true technology (we have France, for example, which draws the majority of its electrical power from nuclear plants), as opposed to most of the "alternative energy" ideas (all of which depend heavily on subsidies and tax credits as well).
It's also got to do with the
It's also got to do with the same kind of reason that hippies are against it: because it seems really dangerous. It's the most macho form of energy generation there is, so NUKE BABY NUKE!
Not quite true
Actually, if we simply copied the French reactor design (which is very, very well tested) we could build an awful lot of reactors very quickly. Seems to me that it would be a great jobs bill, and would supply baseload power with vastly lower greenhouse gas emissions.
I mean, everybody wonders why we can't adopt France's health care system. Why not adopt their electrical power generation system?
I know, it's not cost free or easy. But if you are truly serious about reducing greenhouse gases, you support nuclear. Otherwise, unfortunately, you are pissing in the wind.
I would LOVE it if we could realistically - REALISTICALLY - reduce greenhouse gas emissions without nuclear power. But I simply don't believe it's going to happen.
Why are the GOP all over it? You might as well ask why the Democrats tend to oppose it.
What rhinoman said.
What rhinoman said.
You could never simply copy
You could never simply copy the French design unless President Obama made it an issue of National Security.
There are far too many entrenched interests all eager to sue over environment, seismic, new standards, amount of documentation, number of jobs created, number of minority jobs created, number of female minority jobs created plus the usual graft where we have to give this to Halliburton to oversea it to Bechtel to implement a untested GE design to be offshored and built by 2000 Chinese creating 30 permanent US Jobs.
Optics mainly.
Optics should be the first consideration for why the rubes would do something. They would love to split the lefties from the centrists. Supporting nukes sound reasonable to the independents, but drives some lefties nuts. Then they can point at those lefties with the exploded heads while pretending to be the party of reasonable people to the centrists.
Honestly though if we did follow up on rhinoman's suggestion -with a followup Thorium based program we could have a good baseline power supply for a long time to come. And nukes and renewables should be considered to be complimentary not in opposition. The former supplies the baseline, the later cheap -but time-variable power. And natural gas peaking plants can absorb much of the supply/demand mismatches. But thats only if we choose to have a sensible program. Political calculus, and sensible programs are almost always in opposition.
Not What DonBoy Said
It seems to me that some on the left have their own irrational cultural reactions to nukes:
"It's the most macho form of energy generation there is"
That's a reason to oppose nuclear energy? The wrong gender identity?
Not quite what rhinoman said
It's not as if the nuclear industry doesn't get subsidies from the government, in the form of big-time research, a national effort to find a place to put their waste, and liability limits on plant operators. The subsidies are a problem, in the same way that unregulated "banks" that expect to receive bailouts are a problem.
There are also fuel-cycle issues, meaning that for reasons that must have seemed good-enough at the time, we don't do breeder reactors, and that will have us running through the available uranium a little faster than seems prudent. Long term, if we do nukes, we've got to do a better job of stretching the fuel.
As to the why-nukes enthusiasm, may I suggest:
- that it's no so much an issue of opposing the DFHs, as simply believing that their judgement is unwise;
- an enthusiasm for concentrated corporate power;
- some conservatives surely do recognize that global warming might be a problem;
- or that peak oil might be a problem;
- or that we get our fossil fuel energy from stable friendly nations like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iran, Iraq, and Russia.
Whether we go with nukes or wind, we would benefit a lot from better continental power transmission infrastructure, so we can either ship power from where the wind is blowing/sun is shining, or at least locate the nuclear plants a safe distance from population centers and closer to any fuel reprocessing plants. I just now spent a few minutes trying to figure out how efficient the Pacific Intertie is, and couldn't, but, wow, that is a heck of a hunk of engineering (wikipedia's a decent source).
According to ABB (a major
According to ABB (a major HVDC vendor) a 1 GW, 1000 km link looses about 75 MW, so that's about a 7.5% loss.
See slide 6 of this powerpoint: http://cohesion.rice.edu/CentersAndInst/CNST/emplibrary/Hartley%2004May0...
That's not strictly apples-to-apples as the Pacific Intertie is actually an old system using a mere 500 kV, whereas the slide is for the newer 800 kV systems, as well as somewhat different distances and power levels. Still it gives you an idea of long distance HVDC efficiencies.
Other fun stuff: they now have direct burial HVDC for "low power" (200-300 MW) systems, and that avoids the need for wide rights-of-way. Direct burial high voltage is impractical for AC because the close spacing of the conductors makes the capacitance too high (HVDC was first used for undersea cables for just that reason).
Here on Long Island we even have a couple of undersea HVDC links now - one to Connecticut and one to NJ. For some reason they're only a few hundred MW, but it's a start.
More fun: we have an operational superconducting link here too. Only short distance, but still interesting. You think this electricity stuff will catch on, or should I invest in kerosene lanterns?
If Mother Jones had halfway
If Mother Jones had halfway decent and humane blogging software, we wouldn't be forced to see alex's humiliating typo "looses".
Damn you Mother Jones for your oppressive ways!
/shakes tiny fist
Wow, thanks very much
BTW, you've seen this, haven't you?
http://jwz.livejournal.com/94645.html
"My curiosity got the best of me yesterday when they brought in the giant tanks full of liquid nitrogen."
This happened right around the time I first read about the Pacific Intertie. There's big engineering out there, and every once in a while, "inconceivable!" shit happens.
Cost
There are other reasons that conservatives like nukes.
The biggest is cost. The cost per kilowatt hour is potentially far cheaper then wind and renewable. And conservatives don't tend to see government jobs as real work (unless they're the ones getting them). So when the issue is raised on lowering emissions they tend to side with the cheaper alternative.
Another is NIMBY, Conservatives seem to be far less concerned with those issues.
This looked at conservatives love for nukes as a reaction to the hippies, but what about the left leaning people who advocate environmental policy based on eco-utopia fantasies? We've already seen how that has worked out with ethanol.
Conservatives like nuculer
Conservatives like nuculer breeder reactors so's we can make lots of plutonium for nuculer bombs.
Don't be a jerk
Breeder reactors are a good way to more energy out of fuel, too, and we have in fact been reducing our nuclear stockpile over time.
Choosing up sides
I suspect that the "if the hippies are ag'in it, I'm fer it" theory is closer to the truth than anyone wishes to admit. And, to be honest, the converse is probably true, as well; that is, if Rush Limbaugh is for something, the "hippies" are automatically against it.
As a species, we seem to be naturally inclined to choose up sides and root for the "home team" pretty much whether it makes any sense or not. It explains the "My Country, right or wrong" mindset and probably a hundred other things, as well.
The only answer I can come up with is "fie on both your houses". But, of course, that's effectively choosing a side as well.
Has the word 'power' right
Has the word 'power' right in it so Republicans just quiver all over.
It's Both
It's culture war for the culture warriors and its business war for the business warriors. Nukes are the preferred solution for the established electricity providers because its the solution they know and understand, in a familiar package (big centralized capital-intensive installations that bar new entrants, the production from which is easy to meter and sell).
it's what you call a polarized issue
It’s a highly polarized issue, with lots of zealots on both sides. I am modestly pro nuke (go ahead, flame away if you must), but I am impressed how the arguments on both sides seem to represent deeply held emotional positions totally impervious to argument or experience. Part of the problem is that radiation is invisible, with most health impacts showing up years later. Initially this was an advantage in that it encouraged nuclear advocates to regard it as largely innocuous, but the situation is now reversed in that there are no measures that can be taken that will make nuclear foes fill safe from this invisible menace. Long term storage for nuclear waste is widely considered impossible, while the accepted standard for eternal storage of dioxin (which has an infinite half life) is six feet of clay and .06 inches of PVC.
I'm one of those pro-nuke
I'm one of those pro-nuke people, and the reason I think that is that nukes need more emphasis is that it seems, to me, like the only thing that will scale up rapidly enough to displace a significant amount of coal-fired base load generation in the 20-30 year time frame. Wind is probably not yet ready for prime time -- my understanding is that it can go up to about 20% of the grid before you start getting into reliability issues and start losing greenhouse gas benefits due to the need to maintain fossil units in spinning reserve. You also need to build a lot more nameplate capacity, due to lower availability factors due to the variability of wind.
Solar thermal is very promising, but likely only economic in the southwest in the near term. Photovoltaic does not yet seem ready for base-load service on a utility scale, although it is likely economic to offset peak load periods in sunny areas. I've heard people talk about geothermal as being a base load option in many places, but am somewhat skeptical.
By the way, this article struck me as largely analysis-free. Other then referencing nuclear subsidies -- which I suspect are far less than subsidies to alternative energy on a per-megawatt-of-actual-generation basis -- its mostly a discussion of the politics, not the real issues. For example, of course nuclear can't get real funding right now -- that's because coal plants are very similar and much, much cheaper to build and run. That's the whole climate change problem.
If you want greenhouse emissions to be materially lower in 2030, building nuke plants instead of coal is a straightforward way to get to that result using proven technology. You can, for sure, using existing technology, build a 1000 MW nuke plant and get almost 1000 megawatts of reliable base load generation. Right now, you can't say the same for wind, for example. Other alternatives are not as well demonstrated.
Anyway, it's not about machismo, or the dirty hippies. It is a straightforward, practical solution to reduce emissions based on demonstrated technology. Are there issues? Of course. Is it the best choice? Debatable. Is the only way to understand it based on strange psychological speculations? No -- at least, not to me.
I'm one of those pro-nuke
I'm one of those pro-nuke people, and the reason I think that is that nukes need more emphasis is that it seems, to me, like the only thing that will scale up rapidly enough to displace a significant amount of coal-fired base load generation in the 20-30 year time frame. Wind is probably not yet ready for prime time -- my understanding is that it can go up to about 20% of the grid before you start getting into reliability issues and start losing greenhouse gas benefits due to the need to maintain fossil units in spinning reserve. You also need to build a lot more nameplate capacity, due to lower availability factors due to the variability of wind.
Solar thermal is very promising, but likely only economic in the southwest in the near term. Photovoltaic does not yet seem ready for base-load service on a utility scale, although it is likely economic to offset peak load periods in sunny areas. I've heard people talk about geothermal as being a base load option in many places, but am somewhat skeptical.
By the way, this article struck me as largely analysis-free. Other then referencing nuclear subsidies -- which I suspect are far less than subsidies to alternative energy on a per-megawatt-of-actual-generation basis -- its mostly a discussion of the politics, not the real issues. For example, of course nuclear can't get real funding right now -- that's because coal plants are very similar and much, much cheaper to build and run. That's the whole climate change problem.
If you want greenhouse emissions to be materially lower in 2030, building nuke plants instead of coal is a straightforward way to get to that result using proven technology. You can, for sure, using existing technology, build a 1000 MW nuke plant and get almost 1000 megawatts of reliable base load generation. Right now, you can't say the same for wind, for example. Other alternatives are not as well demonstrated.
Anyway, it's not about machismo, or the dirty hippies. It is a straightforward, practical solution to reduce emissions based on demonstrated technology. Are there issues? Of course. Is it the best choice? Debatable. Is the only way to understand it based on strange psychological speculations? No -- at least, not to me.
Apologies for double post.
Apologies for double post. Captcha issues had me confused...
Republicans Trust Government?
The only rational basis for favoring nuclear power is that you trust government regulators to ensure operating safety, to find adequate solutions for the waste disposal problem, and to protect nuclear sites from terrorists. But nobody has accused Republicans of being rational, lately.
Perhaps they favor nuclear power because it's something that certain businesses want,and there's no business opposition. What business wants, the Republicans want.
If you think it's all about
If you think it's all about "the hippies are fer it so us rubes must be agin it", well there's an easy way to find out.
But I bet yer chicken.
More Nukes Less Kooks
was a very popular bumper sticker in these parts during the protests over the building of a nuclear plant in Seabroook, NH.
I'd be in favor of expanded
I'd be in favor of expanded use of nuke as laid out by rhinoman. What I'd really like is to see a combination of wind/solar/nuke. I think it would be wise to not rely on any single source of power generation, especially something as big a terrorism target as a nuke plant. If we can capture renewables like wind and sun, they should be the preferred choice. Whatever we do, we need to not let ourselves become energy slaves to a finite resource we do not own, as we are now with oil.
Reliance on the Middle East for our energy needs has cost us dearly. It's time we learned from that mistake.
Nukes are only large scale non carbon spewing power generation..
I am a moderate to liberal, and am for nuke power. I worked in the Radiation Safety field for many years, and we can technically handle the waste, it is mainly a political, NIMBY issue now..
I live in Tennessee, we had last year the coal ash flood that contaminated a major river and many acres of private land. A coal plant generates something like 16 acres worth of heavy metal and radioactive mineral contaminated coal ash each year.. One estimate I saw said we could store all the radioactive waste produced since the Manhattan project in a football stadium size area. Practically, that requires bulk reduction due to criticallity issues for fissionable wastes, but that can be addressed.
Some new reactor designs are also based on "inherently safe". ie, if the cooling fails, the nuclear reaction will stop.. Example, the helium gas cooled, ceramic "pool ball" reactor. He gas cools the reactor. The uranium fuel is a pellet encased in a pool ball" made of ceramic. As long as the cooling works, the centers of the pool balls where the fuel is are close enough to each other for the chain reaction to occur. If the cooling fails, the ceramic ball expands due to heat build up, and the fuel centers are too far from each other to continue the chain reaction. Pretty neat, and its already been tested in a research reactor in Germany.
Humans have the technical means to do this, as demonstrated by the French. Or the US Navy, which has nearly 60 years of safe operation. It is the fear of anything nuclear and the NIMBY factor that is blocking nuclear power...
Don't Bother, Jack
The all-consuming evil of godless radiation is another article of faith amongst the enviros. They speak of the heavenly gifts of power and will wait until we are freezing in the dark before they acknowledge that their windmills and solar panels will never have the scale to keep an industrial country running. If they have their way we'll soon by down-building to the 19th century, with life spans suitably shortened on the way to sustainability.
Right
It's one of the few things they are right about. I'm not sure about the wisdom of holdinig out on something we ought to be doing. OTOH, when I imagine the horror of a rebooted nuclear industry under Bush, makes me think we ought to hold off till Glen Beck isn't the leader of the Republicans.
What skeptics and conservatives really think
I just ran a survey that got 3,000 responses. When analysing skeptics as a group alone, this is what I found:
Skeptics are not monolithic, and they are not diametrically opposed to various strategies put forward by Barack Obama and environmentalists to addressing environmental and energy issues.
The survey asked respondents to identify initiatives that they would be willing to fund with an additional annual tax payment of $150.
47% of skeptics in this survey would pay $150 extra in taxes to fund 'improving the efficiency of homes and offices with better insulation and lighting/heating alternatives'
35% would fund 'Making public transportation a more attractive option for more people'
17% would fund higher automotive mileage standards
24% would fund 'subsidizing research into green energy sources, including wind, solar, biomass and nuclear
An astonishing 64% would fund with their tax dollars 'Making the electricity grid more efficient and responsive'
However, less than one percent (0.2%) would fund cap and trade, and only 1% would fund a straightforward tax on CO2 emissions
Only 1% would fund building dykes and protected areas at the water's edge, and only 2% would fund 'geo-engineering' to remediate carbon emissions
But 15% would fund "Helping the world--especially the poorest part of the world--prepare for the consequences of climate change through economic development, and letting them use their own intelligence and resources to solve the local problems it brings"
So skeptics are not monolithic, not against conservation, not against some of Obama's planks for the energy and environmental future of this country. If a program was atomized instead of agglomerated, individual initiatives could, if properly presented, receive significant support from climate skeptics. Leading with Cap and Trade may have been a serious policy misjudgment, and putting all of Obama's energy policies into one grab-bag just insured that skeptics would oppose the entire package because of one or two elements within it.
pro nuke
tagged as:- solution
I'm impressed that so many comm enters here are - like me - pro nuke. We could retire all fossil fuel plants and generate enough extra to power all our automobiles in much less than 30 years if there were the public and political will. The new reactor designs are very safe. Agreeing on a standard model would vastly reduce engineering and regulatory problems. Waste management is also fairly easy.
I could become pro-nuke, but
I could become pro-nuke, but you have to demonstrate that:
a) a nuke plant can actually be built economically in this regulatory/lawsuit happy land
b) the industry and the government will operate in a much more transparent and open manner than they ever did before
I don't think today's nuke plants can be built economically anywhere anymore. Perhaps some of these self-contained neighborhood batteries we've heard about the past few years.
I find it very difficult to believe that industry and government will ever operate their nuke plants in a transparent and open manner wrt safety.
And because of that, gov't and the nuke industry deserve what they get.
I grew up in spitting distance of the world's first nuke accident(s) at Santa Susana. I doubt much has changed in terms of the natural inclination to bury/dump/hide nuclear accidents.
Affordability is the issue.
I think anon (above) hits it with his point a
[can] "a nuke plant can actually be built economically in this regulatory/lawsuit happy land"?
I think the answer there is no. Our company makes/markets engineering software that nuke builders would like to use to demonstrate the ability of their plants to survive a 9-11 style airliner attack. But, they want us to jump through enormous official validation hoops... and it just isn't worth that sort of expense for us we won't. But that underlies the point that with so much scrutiny, and so many activists asking for incontrovertable proof that something can never fail, that the odds of getting a decent price for a plant are nearly zero. And the shame is that the oldtime plants were affordable, and the safety record not so bad as to make them a bad societal choice. But, we won't be offered reasonable regulatory relief, so the price tag will be just too high for anyone to afford. Meanwhile, back in the real world of our economic competitors, nations like India, and China will be building lots of Nukes.
While I have limited support
While I have limited support for nuclear plants, not opposed to it but I want to be assured of reasonable safe guards, I do believe that putting solar panels on the roofs of strip malls and big box stores can help with energy production, especially in the South and Southwest. I genuinely don't think that its wise to invest in just one alternative energy source. I also believe that more can be done to help people with making homes more energy efficient.