News Energy independence for the US (or any other country)

[mheslep]

In the Reason article, Brand comments:

And proliferation? Brand points out that Israel, India, South Africa, and North Korea secretly developed their bombs using research reactors, not power reactors.

Proliferation is my concern about nuclear. I thought the Indian case was the other way around - Indians got their bomb through commercial power reactors. Anyone care to comment?

 

[mheslep]

From Reason again, the part asserting nuclear socialism comes from here:

The federal government is now offering utilities a host of new subsidies and guarantees to build new nuclear power plants. For example, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, supported by the majority of Republicans in Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, authorizes a production tax credit of 2.1 cents per kilowatt-hour for the first 6,000 megawatts of new nuclear generation capacity, $2 billion to cover the costs of any regulatory delays, federal loan guarantees up to 80 percent of the project cost for advanced reactors, and a 20-year extension of the law that limits the liability of the nuclear industry—that’s the entire industry, with every company sharing a single fixed pool—to $10 billion. In 2008 the Department of Energy invited bids for up to $18.5 billion in nuclear construction loan guarantees. The department was flooded with applications seeking a total of $122 billion in loan guarantees. If the private sector is unwilling to put money into nuclear projects without an extensive federal safety net, that may say something about nuclear power’s economic viability.

In light of such policies, the liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias recently, and properly, accused many American conservatives of favoring “nuclear socialism.” Brand clearly falls into that camp as well. Gore, meanwhile, can fairly be accused of solar socialism.

I partly disagree. Yes the government is providing significant funds for nuclear power with one hand, but with the other they throw up large road blocks. The NRC process, as I understand it, requires an applicant prepare a very expensive plan, then deliver a truck full of application fee money to the NRC, and then wait nearly four years for an answer that might be no. If the application is rejected, what good are loans and operational subsidies? Why even take that kind of risk? I suspect some of the nuclear operators, running their long paid off nuclear plants at 95% capacity for a low operational cost, like it that way.

Then we have the unending legal challenges allowed by current law.

 

[Gokul43201]

Proliferation is my concern about nuclear. I thought the Indian case was the other way around - Indians got their bomb through commercial power reactors.

Not quite. If you had to put you finger on the biggest step towards producing weapons grade Pu in India, it would likely be the CIRUS research reactor, bought from Canada, with the US (Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace") supplying the heavy water.

 

[mheslep]

Not quite. If you had to put you finger on the biggest step towards producing weapons grade Pu in India, it would likely be the CIRUS research reactor, bought from Canada, with the US (Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace") supplying the heavy water.

On review it sounds like the distinction (research - power) is irrelevant. Apparently a commercial power heavy water reactor could have served the same purpose as the CIRUS research reactor, ie making plutonium later separated by a chemical process.

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/ewits.html" that says if we spend $6.64 billion a year over the next 14 years, the eastern half of the US could get 30% of it's electricity from wind alone.

I haven't read it so I can't comment on the merrits or the flaws in it, but it's great they are doing such analyses. There isn't enough real analysis of the potential utility of alternate energy out there.

If the conclusion that you posted is realistic, it certainly seems like something that should be done. How to actually do it is another story...

...and still another story is that it does very little to decrease the need for nuclear power in the east.

 

[russ_watters]

Proliferation is my concern about nuclear. I thought the Indian case was the other way around - Indians got their bomb through commercial power reactors. Anyone care to comment?

How is that relevant to the issue at hand? The US already has nuclear weapons, so there is no risk (or at least no need to care about the risk) of the US secretly using its power reactors to make bomb fuel.

 

[mheslep]

How is that relevant to the issue at hand? The US already has nuclear weapons, so there is no risk (or at least no need to care about the risk) of the US secretly using its power reactors to make bomb fuel.

Yes of course, proliferation refers specifically to the spread of weapons usable technology and information to non-weapon states. As far as I know all of the large nuclear plant design companies have plans for international nuclear plants. At least one of the new and novel small reactor design companies have announced overseas interest.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes of course, proliferation refers specifically to the spread of weapons usable technology and information to non-weapon states. As far as I know all of the large nuclear plant design companies have plans for international nuclear plants. At least one of the new and novel small reactor design companies have announced overseas interest.

I think I see what you are trying to imply, but could you state it explicitly, please? It sounds like you are saying that since companies that make nuclear reactors for the US could sell their reactors to other countries that would then use them to make bombs, the US shouldn't make nuclear plants. That's illogical: all we need to do is outlaw the sale of such technology (which we already do) - it doesn't mean we can't use it ourselves.

The French were irresponsible with the export of their nuclear reactors, but that doesn't mean we have to be too.

 

[zomgwtf]

I think I see what you are trying to imply, but could you state it explicitly, please? It sounds like you are saying that since companies that make nuclear reactors for the US could sell their reactors to other countries that would then use them to make bombs, the US shouldn't make nuclear plants. That's illogical: all we need to do is outlaw the sale of such technology (which we already do) - it doesn't mean we can't use it ourselves.

Just an outsider here with a question:
Do these laws really work?

I guess two questions:
In the future will these laws continue to be as effective??

 

[mheslep]

I think I see what you are trying to imply, but could you state it explicitly, please? It sounds like you are saying that since companies that make nuclear reactors for the US could sell their reactors to other countries that would then use them to make bombs, the US shouldn't make nuclear plants.

I am not saying that. I think the US should build some new nuclear plants, maybe another ~20-50GW(e) to start, on top of the existing US 200GW(e) in the next decade or two. I come to that position after weighing proliferation risks, such as I little know them, and the alternatives. (There are other factors too cost, regulatory blocks - but I'm leaving those aside for the moment.)

I assert the proliferation risk due to the existing US nuclear power program right now is non-zero. However, a) I guess the existing risk maybe low from historical observation, b) regardless of the size of the existing risk, building, say, twenty more US plants on top of the existing one hundred is not going to much change the risk , and c) the risk needs to be put in the context of alternatives such as coal pollution deaths and, down the road in a more electric future, even oil imports count as an bad alternative to nuclear.

That's illogical: all we need to do is outlaw the sale of such technology (which we already do) - it doesn't mean we can't use it ourselves.

Well that was in part the point of my earlier question. What technology? I want to know more about what technology is usable for weapons and to what extent, not only for what might be exported, but also because if the US pursues any particular new nuclear power technology, the rest of the world is likely to attempt to follow that lead on their own.

Yes there's a ban on tech that can be used for, e.g, nuclear triggers. But visibly other types of US nuclear technology have been widely distributed. Gokul referenced the example of India's heavy water coming from the US that helped enable the Indian bomb. A Westinghouse AP1000 is going up in China. What are the proliferation issues of that design? How easy is it redirect that reactor design to produce plutonium versus another design? There's much discussion of implementing a waste reprocessing scheme in the US to reduce waste and extend the fuel supply, but I read reprocessing increases Pu stockpiles. As an example of the foreign consequences: if the US goes all over to reprocessing, the chances are that so will China (next door to Korea), as will Russia (next door to all kinds of bad actors).

The French were irresponsible with the export of their nuclear reactors, but that doesn't mean we have to be too.

I want to come back to this after checking on the history of the international flow of nuclear technology.

 

[SystemTheory]

Russ - I favor solar power on precept and principle. The precept is to "Love God and love your neighbor in the land." And "beat your swords into plowshares."

Through the mercy of our God,
The Daystar of heaven shines upons us,
Enlightening those who dwell in darkness,
And in the shadow of death,
Guiding our feet along the path of peace.

(Adapted from one of the Gospels)

God (Nature) put the harmful nuclear energy in the Sun where it belongs. We were given an ozone layer and magnetosphere to protect from radiation harms. The politicos who said we were not depleting the ozone layer, or polluting Earth with leaded gasoline, were eventually proven wrong. So will many others who seek to protect profits while generating waste and pollution be proven wrong by the passage of sufficient time. The profit motive distorts one's reasoning about reality, which is why the message of the Prophets endures in scripture. I am not advocating religion, simply stating my interpretation of society/scripture parallels in the past and present social conditions.

Nature runs the biosphere on "hot" photons converted to high energy electrons via photosynthesis:

http://www.digital-recordings.com/publ/publife.html

Solar buildings are already contributing to industry/households becoming net energy positive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/31_Tannery_Project

The radioactive waste hazard and risk of proliferation is something I would rather not tolerate, although it is hard to run nuclear warships on solar/renewable power, it is going to be possible to run industry and a domestic economy on a fuel portfolio including significant renewables in the not-so-distant future. I can envision a 100% solar economy not far down the road with only an improvement in conversion efficiency, electron storage, and a smart grid.

Once a technology takes root it enjoys two advantages, which could be called social subsidies (1) economies of scale; and (2) sunken investment costs. We are living on the sunken investment costs of Tesla's old "smart grid" and a fuel mix based on refining petroleum (do a study on the history of refining and note gasoline was once a waste product, hence the push to develop the internal combustion engine and lower the fuel costs of refining). We use all the by-products of refining oil the way Lakota used every part of the Buffalo, therefore it is hard to change the fuel mix without disrupting our way of life.

Society must undergo disruption to get from where we are to where we hope to be in terms of the energy fuel mix, and personally I prefer the so-called "soft path" as the best long term solution. I don't want a commitment to the "hard path" to preclude that by gaining its foothold via economies of scale and sunk investment costs.

 

[mheslep]

System Theory - what you call the soft path looks hard to me and vice versa.

What do we want: Nuclear!
When do we want it: Now!
What do we want: Nuclear!
When do we want it: Now!
What do we want: Nuclear!
When do we want it: Now!

 

[SystemTheory]

mshelp - I assume you are joking? Yes, the "soft path" is harder than the "hard path".

Jefferson (Declairation of Independence) - All history hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

As I said in another thread, printing money and burning oil are prevailing social customs in our Daddy Warbucks Economy. I used to think this was "evil," now I just think it is an old custom that will die peacefully or fitfully, one way or the other ...

I agree with what is written here:

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-09-do-we-need-nuclear-and-clean-coal-plants-for-baseload-power/

Also, the CERTS-microgrid will be an enabling technology:

http://certs.lbl.gov/certs-der-micro.html

If I recall correctly, Tecogen is licensing at least one related CERTS patent in its cogen technologies (in one of these pdfs):

http://www.tecogen.com/press.htm

American Distributed Generation is a sales and installation affiliate of Techogen:

http://www.americandg.com/sol-equipment.htm

 

[mheslep]

mshelp - I assume you are joking?

I engaged in a little hyperbole, but no I'm not joking. I favor some nuclear based on what I know now.

 

[mheslep]

I agree with what is written here:

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-09-do-we-need-nuclear-and-clean-coal-plants-for-baseload-power/

Including this part:?

That said, obviously you need a certain amount electricity that can be relied upon irrespective of how windy it is or whether the sun is shining. So I’d happily see the nuclear share of the pie grow at the expense of coal and oil as the provider of that baseload electricity.

 

[russ_watters]

Just an outsider here with a question:
Do these laws really work?

Resonably well, as far as I know.

I guess two questions:
In the future will these laws continue to be as effective??

The problem is that technology turns what is exotic today into the mundane tomorrow. Just a few years ago, the US government was worried about commercial GPS units being used to guide missiles. Now any engineering undergrad worth his salt can build a cruise missile guidance system - or even a cruise missile itself (one senior design project team in my class 10 years ago built a fully autonomous RC plane).

So no, it just plain isn't possible to keep technology under wraps forever. Fortunately, the technology isn't the critical aspect here. The critical aspect is the fundamental physics behind making and processing the fuel. Aside from stealing it, there are no shortcuts there.

 

[russ_watters]

I am not saying that. I think the US should build some new nuclear plants, maybe another ~20-50GW(e) to start, on top of the existing US 200GW(e) in the next decade or two. I come to that position after weighing proliferation risks, such as I little know them, and the alternatives.

Ok...

I assert the proliferation risk due to the existing US nuclear power program right now is non-zero.

That's fine, but you haven't asserted what the risk is, much less tried to evaluate that risk. Could you please be specific about what you think the risk is? Let me help you out by giving some more sample possibilities:

1. American companies could sell products that can be used for nuclear weapons (I already listed this one).
2. American scientists could gain knowledge working for the US power industry and apply that knowledge to weapons production for hire overseas.
3. Someone could steal fuel from a nuclear plant.
4. An evil American corporation could secretly make nuclear weapons fuel in a reactor and sell it overseas.

Could you please tell me, specifically, which of the above are the proliferation risks you see or tell me what I have missed and what you actually see?

Next, could you explain how limiting our nuclear power usage can mitigate those risks?

Well that was in part the point of my earlier question. What technology? I want to know more about what technology is usable for weapons and to what extent, not only for what might be exported, but also because if the US pursues any particular new nuclear power technology, the rest of the world is likely to attempt to follow that lead on their own.

Well that implies to me you really don't know anything about any risks and just have a vague/unformed idea in your head that there are risks. I think is a mistake to base policy on idle fears.

But visibly other types of US nuclear technology have been widely distributed. Gokul referenced the example of India's heavy water coming from the US that helped enable the Indian bomb. A Westinghouse AP1000 is going up in China. What are the proliferation issues of that design? How easy is it redirect that reactor design to produce plutonium versus another design?

As I asked earlier, how does *us* using such technology have any impact on whether they are allowed to send such things to China? Heck, if it would make you happy, I think it would be worth freezing our technology and building all new reactors with 1980s technology so we don't risk developing a new technology that eventually falls into enemy hands. Would that be acceptable?

There's much discussion of implementing a waste reprocessing scheme in the US to reduce waste and extend the fuel supply, but I read reprocessing increases Pu stockpiles. As an example of the foreign consequences: if the US goes all over to reprocessing, the chances are that so will China (next door to Korea), as will Russia (next door to all kinds of bad actors).

What do you mean? We already reprocess to make weapons, we can just change our reprocessing to make new power plant fuel. Why would that have any impact on what China does? (and since China already has nuclear weapons, how is China even relevant to a discussion about proliferation?)

 

[mheslep]

Ok... That's fine, but you haven't asserted what the risk is, much less tried to evaluate that risk. ...

Right, because I don't know. I only have a vague idea. But the consequences of someone building a bomb and smuggling it into the US are obvious and horrific. I don't understand all the possible pathways that could make that happen. My gripe with the nuclear debate is that there's not enough work/detail done to try and quantify the risk.

You've put some work into making this a useful discussion - don't have time at the moment to provide the response it deserves, I'll follow up later.

 

[edpell]

There seem to be two favorites nuclear and solar/wind. I would ask which should California/Arizona/Nevada invest in and which should New York/Vermont/New Hampshire/Maine invest in?

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Russ - I favor solar power on precept and principle. The precept is to "Love God and love your neighbor in the land." And "beat your swords into plowshares."

Through the mercy of our God,
The Daystar of heaven shines upons us,
Enlightening those who dwell in darkness,
And in the shadow of death,
Guiding our feet along the path of peace.

(Adapted from one of the Gospels)

God (Nature) put the harmful nuclear energy in the Sun where it belongs. We were given an ozone layer and magnetosphere to protect from radiation harms. The politicos who said we were not depleting the ozone layer, or polluting Earth with leaded gasoline, were eventually proven wrong. So will many others who seek to protect profits while generating waste and pollution be proven wrong by the passage of sufficient time. The profit motive distorts one's reasoning about reality, which is why the message of the Prophets endures in scripture. I am not advocating religion, simply stating my interpretation of society/scripture parallels in the past and present social conditions.

Nature already put a nuclear reactor on planet earth. It happened when the Earth was covered with simple celled organisms. The Oklo nuclear reactor is proof that nuclear power is natural it just took humans 1.7 billion years to get it. Yes we have an ozone layer protecting us from cosmic radiation, however we are still getting about .3 mrem at sea level.

The radioactive waste hazard and risk of proliferation is something I would rather not tolerate, although it is hard to run nuclear warships on solar/renewable power, it is going to be possible to run industry and a domestic economy on a fuel portfolio including significant renewables in the not-so-distant future. I can envision a 100% solar economy not far down the road with only an improvement in conversion efficiency, electron storage, and a smart grid...

Just out of curiosity are you aware of the cost and technological steps that one must under go to create atomic weapons from virgin uranium sources? The Calutrons that gave the US weapons grade uranium for the first atomic bomb set the government back 500 million dollars. Gaseous diffusion and centrifugal extraction requires some extremely specialized and very tight tolerances equipment. Getting it from used fuel is much harder, especially when plutonium is the desired material. Finally to make a plutonium based atomic bomb the simple gun type bomb is impossible to build. A implosion bomb is needed and that adds a huge scale of complexity.

As a last point I'd like to make is what is it about nuclear fuel that makes it break every law of nature? The fuel is either mixed with a ceramic, encased in a zirconium alloy, or both. The stuff is practically indestructible. If a ceramic mug is put outside is it gone in a year, five, 100, 1000?

Proliferation, used nuclear fuel, I'm not worried.

 

[SystemTheory]

Sure there are natural sources of radiation on Earth, most of which were buried by Nature in the past. I was not aware of the natural reactor so thanks for the information, here's a link:

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml

Digging up natural sources of radiation entails hazards which are not included in the cost of electricity at the meter (we pay with Superfund cleanups, health care costs, etc):

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/mill-tailings.html

This fact sheet on Uranium appears to be well researched (caveat emptor) and says radium is the worst health hazard from digging up radiation. The tailings are said here to have caused death due to lung cancer among Native Americans near the mine sites:

http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/uranium.html

I used to like to watch Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher. One night a Republican Strategist lady was advocating nuclear power, saying, "Radiation is everywhere. Sunlight is radiation." I thought, "Energy is everywhere, a punch in the nose is just energy, how would you like a punch in the nose?" Today it is more common to hear libertarians or conservatives speak of regulating CO2 as "a tax on breathing." Since we exhale CO2 it cannot be pollution, right?

OK I'm going to start a business dumping human excrement where these people and their children eat, because, hey, its natural dude! Not only that, when I make them pay to clean it up, it will increase GDP, so we're all better off to boot! Aren't I a clever capitalist?

 

[SystemTheory]

Areva (nuclear giant) buys Ausra (solar thermal technology) in this news clip:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6173TF20100208

Apparently solar thermal is considered similar to nuclear in a carbon reduction portfolio. From comments above, I wonder if solar thermal is more carbon neutral over the whole construction and fuel cycle? The main issue with solar thermal in the past was expense of high quality mirrors if I recall correctly, and this should be a challenge where production costs can be driven down by R&D + manufacturing experience.

 

[mheslep]

Areva (nuclear giant) buys Ausra (solar thermal technology) in this news clip:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6173TF20100208

Apparently solar thermal is considered similar to nuclear in a carbon reduction portfolio. From comments above, I wonder if solar thermal is more carbon neutral over the whole construction and fuel cycle? ...

Yes, but not by that much. Solar thermal is a small, small drop in the energy bucket compared to nuclear.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Although the discussion here has focused on electricity generation, a big issue in achieving energy independence is finding alternatives to petroleum. Luckily, it seems like biofuel technology, specifically the production of ethanol from cellulose, is making considerable strides toward being competitive with petroleum:

Novozymes, the world's largest industrial enzyme producer, today launched a new line it says will yield ethanol from plant wastes at an enzyme price of about 50 cents a gallon. The latest product of a decade of research, this marks an 80 percent price drop from two years ago, according to Global Marketing Director Poul Ruben Andersen.

The advances, Andersen said, will help bring cellulosic ethanol production prices to under $2 a gallon by 2011, a cost on par with both corn-based ethanol and gasoline at current U.S. market prices.

source: http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/02/16/16climatewire-economics-improve-for-first-commercial-cellu-93478.htm

Although the technology won't get us to energy independence (I've seen estimates that agricultural and municipal waste could provide enough cellulosic ethanol for 20-30% of our transportation needs), it would certainly be a big help.

 

[mheslep]

Although the discussion here has focused on electricity generation, a big issue in achieving energy independence is finding alternatives to petroleum. Luckily, it seems like biofuel technology, specifically the production of ethanol from cellulose, is making considerable strides toward being competitive with petroleum:

source: http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/02/16/16climatewire-economics-improve-for-first-commercial-cellu-93478.htm

Although the technology won't get us to energy independence (I've seen estimates that agricultural and municipal waste could provide enough cellulosic ethanol for 20-30% of our transportation needs), it would certainly be a big help.

The US uses 19.5 million barrels (787 million gallons )of petroleum per day, so I'm sceptical about cellulosic ethanol doing the job. Corn Ethanol produces about 500 gal/acre-year, and cellulosic maybe double that with switch grass, requiring 287 million acres of land.

Better to burn the biomass in electric plants, easing distribution, and go with electric transportation, which requires fewer primary joules per mile travelled, and thus fewer acres.

BTW Novozymes is an enzymes producer, not a fuel producer. I've yet to see a single gallon of Ethanol made by anybody anywhere in the US at price cheaper than gasoline before the Ethanol subsidy.

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting project and interesting array of guest speakers.

FYI - http://energyontrial.org/

http://energyontrial.org/Speakers

Ultimately, finite sources will deplete, so I expect that one day, solar and wind, and maybe hydro, will dominate the energy portfolio, and perhaps geothermal will provide some small fraction.

 

[zomgwtf]

Interesting project and interesting array of guest speakers.

FYI - http://energyontrial.org/

http://energyontrial.org/Speakers

Ultimately, finite sources will deplete, so I expect that one day, solar and wind, and maybe hydro, will dominate the energy portfolio, and perhaps geothermal will provide some small fraction.

Really, we'll run out of uranium to use for nuclear energy? That's weird, I thought there was so much uranium around to use (especially from the oceans) that it would provide us with enough power for an EXTREMELY long time.

 

[magpies]

Why isn't energy use reduction ever a part of this?

 

[zomgwtf]

Why isn't energy use reduction ever a part of this?

Well firstly, this isn't a discussion about global warming or any of that jazz. This is a discussion about renewable energy or energy indepence for a nation. Even if a country reduced it's energy (by a SUBSTANTIAL amount) they would still a)run out of fuel and b)in the process they wouldn't even be independent. (It would be the same as it is today)

Secondly, I think getting clean and renewable energy is much more important than reducing the amount of energy we use. The impact even on the environment will be dramaticly more significant.

 

[magpies]

What if clean and renewable energy doesn't exist?