News Can Obama Achieve Oil Independence?

[mgb_phys]

Why the big anti-nuclear feeling amongst people?

Nuclear War is bad, nuclear power and nuclear bombs are the same thing - so nuclear power is bad, M'kay...

I understand that it's a problem dealing with the waste

Not if you burn it as MOX fuel.

and that (if my understanding is correct) rivers take a bit of a bashing,

There are regulations about how much heat you can dump into rivers, it's a common reason for shutting down plants in summer. You could build just cooling towers instead.

but how do they compare with, say, coal plants re environmental impact?

I invite you to visit anywhere in Northern England, the Ruhr valley, Eastern Europe and some of the less picturesque bits of the USA. You can see the pretty rustic remains of this natural fuel source - and in every village a couple of monuments to a history of safety.
You could also have visited Norway and Germany's pristeen pine forests - only the acid rain has killed them all.

You could require coal station to emit the same level of radioactivity as a nuclear power station and fit effective flue gas sulfur scrubbers and could recover all the toxic heavy metals - then you would only have to worry about a few billion tons of CO2!

 

[Astronuc]

Why the big anti-nuclear feeling amongst people? I understand that it's a problem dealing with the waste and that (if my understanding is correct) rivers take a bit of a bashing, but how do they compare with, say, coal plants re environmental impact?

I don't really see a big anti-nuclear feeling among people. There are those who apparently fear it, probably because they don't understand the technology, and they have received misinformation from various sources.

Most steam cycle plants release about two-thirds of their thermal energy directly into the environment, because the efficiency of the Rankine cycle is about 33% (some plants may push close to 40%). If they reject heat to a river, the temperature of the water may increase above levels which are appropriate for fish life. Also, fish fry (baby fishes) may be taken into the plants cooling systems.

Coal plants emit heavy metals, e.g. mercury, arsenic, cadmium, . . . . and in some cases uranium daughter products, depending on the source of the coal. The recent collapse of an ash retention pond at TVA's Kingston coal plant damage nearby properties and apparently increased the concentration of heavy metals in nearby streams.

Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel address part of the problem, that of recycling the transactinides, and reusing them, particular isotopes of Pu. Isotopes of Cm and Am are somewhat problematic since their radioactivity means the fuel must be fabricated and inspected remotely. A thorium based cycle addresses the issue of transuranics. Still their is the matter of fission products, but these can be handled through vitrification and solidification in a glass matrix, which can then be buried in a repository.


However, wherever and whenever possible, we should make use of solar power since it's there (during the day) whether we use it for productive purposes or not.

 

[turbo]

I was quite unhappy when Maine Yankee was decommissioned instead of being refurbished. Lately, there have been tentatives moves to study the conversion of the plant to coal-fired generation. That's just stupid! Coal power in Maine? Let's get back to compact, easily-transported fuel. We are not ideally-situated for solar power, and solar cells don't work all that well when they are covered with snow, so our best bet is wind-power and nuclear. All parts of the country have their own strengths and weaknesses with respect to non-fossil-fuel power, so there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

 

[mheslep]

It's a chicken and egg problem, isn't it? If fuel cost more in the US, maybe the spatial distribution of habitation wouldn't have evolved in a manner that calls for long commutes.

The average commute in the UK is 8.5 miles, while in the US it is 16 miles. However, Europeans seem to be stuck in traffic longer (average commute time in UK = 45 mins, compared to 26 mins in the US), so I wonder what that does to fuel efficiency.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3085647.stm
http://a.abcnews.com/Technology/Traffic/Story?id=485098&page=1

I'd say the US spatial distribution was broadly ~set during the 19th century well before the car. Then prior to WW2 we had mass migration towards the cities, and after WW2 some reversal again w/ the creation of the suburbs. Its only in the last part where petroleum costs came into play.

 

[mheslep]

..., it's a common reason for shutting down plants in summer.

In Europe maybe? Not in the US.

 

[mheslep]

I don't really see a big anti-nuclear feeling among people. There are those who apparently fear it, probably because they don't understand the technology, and they have received misinformation from various sources.

...

...

Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel address part of the problem, that of recycling the transactinides, and reusing them, particular isotopes of Pu. Isotopes of Cm and Am are somewhat problematic since their radioactivity means the fuel must be fabricated and inspected remotely. A thorium based cycle addresses the issue of transuranics. Still their is the matter of fission products, but these can be handled through vitrification and solidification in a glass matrix, which can then be buried in a repository.However, wherever and whenever possible, we should make use of solar power since it's there (during the day) whether we use it for productive purposes or not.

Proliferation?

 

[mheslep]

I was quite unhappy when Maine Yankee was decommissioned instead of being refurbished. Lately, there have been tentatives moves to study the conversion of the plant to coal-fired generation. That's just stupid! Coal power in Maine? ...

Amen

 

[mheslep]

...Why the big anti-nuclear feeling amongst people?

"I would say you're lucky to be alive, and the same for the rest of Southern California"

My goal: be the guy that says "we have to get out of here" in one of these movies.

 

[phyzmatix]

I'd like to comment on the information I've received (thanks plenty to everyone) but I don't have the necessary knowledge for educated input, so I'll ask yet another question:

What do you think the chances are that ITER will prove successful?

 

[Astronuc]

I was quite unhappy when Maine Yankee was decommissioned instead of being refurbished. Lately, there have been tentatives moves to study the conversion of the plant to coal-fired generation. That's just stupid! Coal power in Maine? Let's get back to compact, easily-transported fuel. We are not ideally-situated for solar power, and solar cells don't work all that well when they are covered with snow, so our best bet is wind-power and nuclear. All parts of the country have their own strengths and weaknesses with respect to non-fossil-fuel power, so there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

Clearly energy supplies must fit according to geography. Hydro is natural for mountainous areas and some northern climes with high precipitation. However, that must be tailored to address the spawning areas of fish like salmon. I recently watched a program about the Snake/Columbia River system and the efforts to restore the salmon. It seems to be working, but it's not only the dams that are a problem, it's the land use, particularly agriculture that threaten the natural fisheries.

What do you think the chances are that ITER will prove successful?

Hard to say.

Proliferation?

I'd like those who use 'proliferation' as a criticism against nuclear energy to give me a plausible or credible scenario of how proliferation would happen. AFAIK, no organization in the US, EU or Asia is going to divert Pu from spent fuel to make nuclear weapons, and certainly they are not going to provide spent fuel or separated Pu to any group that might want to use it to harm some population.

Going from spent fuel to metallurgical Pu is not a trivial process. Even removing spent fuel from a reactor site is not trivial.

 

[mheslep]

I'd like those who use 'proliferation' as a criticism against nuclear energy to give me a plausible or credible scenario of how proliferation would happen. AFAIK, no organization in the US, EU or Asia is going to divert Pu from spent fuel to make nuclear weapons, and certainly they are not going to provide spent fuel or separated Pu to any group that might want to use it to harm some population...

Huh? AQ Khan, Pakistan -> N. Korea, Iran, and Libya. Proliferation doesn't have to start w/ spent fuel.

 

[The Dagda]

Huh? AQ Khan, Pakistan -> N. Korea, Iran, and Libya. Proliferation doesn't have to start w/ spent fuel.

With or without nuclear reactors in the West, some governments will provide the technology to other nations, like the US providing the technology and skill to build the first reactors in Iran. Europe supplying engineers and technology to make enrichment plants in Iran. France supplying nukes to Israel. The technology to make weapons grade material is advanced, and it requires sophisticated science and the engineers to train people to use it. Plutonium is so heavily monitored that any attempt to sell it would be highlighted sooner or later. So the only real chance (unless you are already Westernised) is to gain the technology and know how to make it yourself. North Korea didn't wake up one day with a plan, it was sold the technology like other countries.

 

[turbo]

But to you it's a tool, like a hunting rifle or a chainsaw.
You wouldn't buy the same truck to sit in a commute traffic jam in Houston for hours just so that you could think you are a real man - even though you work in invoicing.

I have a 4x4 pickup, too - a Nissan 2.4 L 4-cylinder. Even though it's not a big V8, it has been quite handy getting other vehicles out of ditches. One of my neighbors plows with an old Bronco, and he pretty much buried it ramming a snow-bank last winter, and got so much snow in back of the plow that he could not back up. I chained onto him, and with his Bronco churning and my truck pulling, we popped him right out of there. The truck also gets used to haul firewood, haul my tiller so I can till relatives' gardens, and make trash and recycling runs. I also use it to get to remote fishing ponds on logging roads. At most, it gets a couple of thousand miles a year of use. I have a very fuel-efficient and clean-running Forester for transportation, and my wife has a Legacy sedan. All 4-cylinder vehicles. I have never felt the urge to buy a full-size pickup, and I wish more people would try out the compact models first.

 

[Phrak]

The man keeps going!

I know nothing about this topic other than what is available in mainstream media. Was wondering if those of you in the know could comment on the possibility and viability of these goals and policies?

Obama aims for oil independence

If at first you don't succeed, blow more hot air at the problem.

 

[Astronuc]

Huh? AQ Khan, Pakistan -> N. Korea, Iran, and Libya. Proliferation doesn't have to start w/ spent fuel.

I was thinking more in terms of the west - US, Europe and Asia - and their nuclear programs, and those of China or Russia. Those programs have nothing to do with Pakistan, N. Korea, Iran or anyone else.

The part about taking ore, converting to UF₆, enriching it, and conversion from UF6 to metal, involves chemical and metallurgical processes that have nothing to do with nuclear power generation.

Production of Pu-239 is a nuclear process, but anyone with a reactor can do it. The technology is well known.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't really see a big anti-nuclear feeling among people. There are those who apparently fear it, probably because they don't understand the technology, and they have received misinformation from various sources.

Environuts are a small fringe, but they an extremely vocal group. And the squeakiest wheel gets the most grease. Whatever their reasons for fearing it, they are a big problem.

I'd like those who use 'proliferation' as a criticism against nuclear energy to give me a plausible or credible scenario of how proliferation would happen.

For crackpots, plausibility (not to mention factual accuracy and logic) is not not a relevant concern. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are equated quite simply because they start with the same word. It's the same reason the "N" was dropped from NMRI. It scares people. http://chemistry.jcu.edu/mlkwan/Organic II Lab/chapter_13au.ppt

 

[mgb_phys]

It's the same reason the "N" was dropped from NMRI. It scares people.

I remember getting some very weird looks once from an American student when we were discussing being careful not to use the 'N word' when talking about a sensor - apparently they have another 'N word' that people get upset about.

 

[Phrak]

Environuts are a small fringe, but they an extremely vocal group. And the squeakiest wheel gets the most grease. Whatever their reasons for fearing it, they are a big problem.

'Not in my backyard.

It doesn't take enviromental extremists to throw up enough red tape to derail an oil fueled power plant to oblivion. Nuclear power is drenched in it already.

How good a shot is Mr President Obama, aiming for oil independend? Anyone can aim. But can he get himself and his party out of the way and let Private Enterprise do the shooting.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Environuts are a small fringe, but they an extremely vocal group. And the squeakiest wheel gets the most grease. Whatever their reasons for fearing it, they are a big problem.

The nuclearnuts who show a clear disregard for other peoples concerns are what scare the environuts.

 

[The Dagda]

The nuclearnuts who show a clear disregard for other peoples concerns are what scare the environuts.

Who are the nuclearnuts? You'd hope they are scientists at least, or at the very least are in discussion with them...

When people's concerns are based on 30 year old information then there needs to be an attempt to bring people up to speed now on what nuclear entails.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Who are the nuclearnuts? You'd hope they are scientists at least, or at the very least are in discussion with them...

No, nuclearnuts are people who have nothing to do with the industry but pretend to be experts and dismiss everyone else's concerns. Or are you suggesting that everyone pro-nuclear knows what they're talking about?

 

[The Dagda]

No, nuclearnuts are people who have nothing to do with the industry but pretend to be experts and dismiss everyone else's concerns. Or are you suggesting that everyone pro-nuclear knows what they're talking about?

Nope just looking for a definition. I for example know the benefits and problems with nuclear.

 

[Phrak]

I believe that's 'nucleo-nut', pronounced 'new.que'.low.nut'.

 

[mheslep]

No, nuclearnuts are people who have nothing to do with the industry but pretend to be experts and dismiss everyone else's concerns. Or are you suggesting that everyone pro-nuclear knows what they're talking about?

One doesn't have to be an expert on either side to have valid concerns and express them. However, if people can't be bothered to take the time to at least become well informed on the matter at hand then those people's concerns do warrant dismissal. Indeed that is the policy of this forum.

 

[russ_watters]

'Not in my backyard.

It doesn't take enviromental extremists to throw up enough red tape to derail an oil fueled power plant to oblivion. Nuclear power is drenched in it already.

Well, Nimby is a separate problem, but yeah, that is a big one too. Nimby even gets in the way of wind farms!

That problem can be solved the way landfills solve it, though: with bribery.

 

[russ_watters]

The nuclearnuts who show a clear disregard for other peoples concerns are what scare the environuts.

Indeed, telling someone who is paranoid that they are crazy just makes them more paranoid. There isn't any way around that, though, unfortunately. That's why they are so difficult to get rid of: once someone's gone off the deep end, there really isn't any way to help them.

However, I don't know how it could be reasonable to call someone on the right side of an issue a nut, even if they are not informed enough about it to be. It's like calling someone who is pro Relativity a Relativitynut. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. However, the other side of the coin is one of the key hallmarks of a crackpot: refusal to trust the experts to know what they are talking about.

No, nuclearnuts are people who have nothing to do with the industry but pretend to be experts and dismiss everyone else's concerns. Or are you suggesting that everyone pro-nuclear knows what they're talking about?

Much to my dismay, I've learned that people who should know better often don't. You'd think an engineer might have some general scientific knowledge, yet my last boss was a creationist who didn't like Relativity. And 9/11 conspiracy theory sites are chock-full of engineers who think it was an inside job. So while obviously, you don't have to be in an industry to know a little about the subject, there is always the risk that someone who is in one technical field and should know better does not.

 

[russ_watters]

One doesn't have to be an expert on either side to have valid concerns and express them. However, if people can't be bothered to take the time to at least become well informed on the matter at hand then those people's concerns do warrant dismissal. Indeed that is the policy of this forum.

Though we do not engage crackpots (much) on this forum, the scientific community is slowly realizing that that can be a bad approach to the problem in some cases. Crackpottery has a way of festering if left unchecked. As I said before: the squeakier wheel gets the grease. That's part of the reason the creationists won't go away either.

 

[mheslep]

... And 9/11 conspiracy theory sites are chock-full of engineers who think it was an inside job. ...

And physicists.
http://www.physics.uiowa.edu/~cgrabbe/speaking/speaker.html

 

[russ_watters]

The tide is turning for nuclear power and we've been getting little hints of that for the past several years. Here is another big break for nuclear:

The Swedish government agreed Thursday to scrap a three-decade ban on building new nuclear reactors, saying it needs to avoid producing more greenhouse gases.

Sweden is a leader on renewable energy but is struggling to develop alternative source like hydropower and wind to meet its growing energy demands. If parliament approves scrapping the ban, Sweden would join a growing list of countries rethinking nuclear power as a source of energy amid concerns over global warming and the reliability of energy suppliers such as Russia. Britain, France and Poland are planning new reactors and Finland is currently building Europe's first new atomic plant in over a decade.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090205/ap_on_re_eu/eu_sweden_nuclear_power

 

[Gokul43201]

Time to get rolling already. But what's the solution to NIMBY?