News Is Nuclear Power the Solution to Our Growing Energy Demands?

[WhoWee]

And... possibly predictably... I say do both, but focus on nuclear.

If you're talking about subsidies for research - I'm in favor. If you want to subsidize windmills, ethanol production, and solar panels (possibly purchased from China) - I say no thank you.

 

[nismaratwork]

If you're talking about subsidies for research - I'm in favor. If you want to subsidize windmills, ethanol production, and solar panels (possibly purchased from China) - I say no thank you.

I'm happy to subsidize ethanol production from cellulose, otherwise I agree.

 

[Phrak]

Otherwise I agree with the suggestion that more nuclear is needed.

I wasn't really suggesting that nuclear energy is needed, true or not, only that we should expect more of it as a forgone conclusion of things to come--say, within 30 years from now.

However, there is one important factor I failed to consider. If you have had the opportunity to visit a grade school or middle school (of high schools, I'm ignorant), the stress on 'ecology' is prevalent and pervasive. It's been a persistent theme molding young minds for as many as three decades and obtaining opinioned adults for these critical coming years. Unfortunately, how much of the ecology theme has been to used to place nuclear energy within the evil category, I'm uncertain.

Depending on the degree of instilled anti-nuclear education, we might see a great deal of conflict, public displays, caustic debate, daily news reports, violence, vigilantes, saboteurs, martyrs--the list goes on and on--over the issue before new norms become established marginalizing decent opinion.

The start of this game might be signaled at a time where OPEC becomes emboldened again, a third time, to ratchet the price of oil, and take it over the critical point.

In the US, what would the be the critical point, measured in the retail cost of 87 octane gasoline, per gallon?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure about the education issue, but a related issue that is always a big problem for any big project is NIMBYism. Education can help, but it can't totally eliminate that issue. So it is important to frame the issue as a choice between nuclear and coal, not nuclear and nothing:

"Do you want a nuclear plant or a coal plant in your 'backyard'?"

not

"Do you want a nuclear plant in your 'backyard'?"

 

[Phrak]

For these who don't know, NIMBY means "Not In My Back Yard".

Russ, I've been thinking about the same NIMBY thing. I sure a community will be far more motivated to discourage a nuclear power plant, close or upwind, than a coal burning plant somewhere close. I would be.

 

[nismaratwork]

For these who don't know, NIMBY means "Not In My Back Yard".

Oooooh... I thought it was just the motto of the US Congress! I am way off base.

I think Russ should be in charge of PR for nuke-plants, and I'll take care of haranguing people about the dangers of living near a coal-fired plant: mercury, SO2, particulate, lead...



Nuclear dangers? Well, during normal operation, waste the public couldn't get near with a guns, and water-vapor.

You'd think people would be lining up for nuclear plants, especially when it's pointed out that their transmission costs would be... about zilch. Of course, to do that, we need a place to PUT the waste... US Senate to the rescue!

...What? The US Senate is still stuck on NIMBY!? In a country as big as this, with enough desert to lose yourself an die in?! Oh... ****.

And that's nuclear energy in the US. *Natalie Portman in Black Swan bowing*

 

[WhoWee]

The start of this game might be signaled at a time where OPEC becomes emboldened again, a third time, to ratchet the price of oil, and take it over the critical point.

In the US, what would the be the critical point, measured in the retail cost of 87 octane gasoline, per gallon?

The $3.00 point clearly starts to increase awareness. The $4.00 point signaled the call for Bush's head. IMO - the $5.00 mark will guarantee a single term for Obama and backlash against the environmental initiatives.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't think we can dismiss what President Obama said in 2008. He believes in his initiatives - regardless of the cost. It seems he has also begun to endorse nuclear.

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't think we can dismiss what President Obama said in 2008. He believes in his initiatives - regardless of the cost. It seems he has also begun to endorse nuclear.

I hope that's effective, but this really is more NIMBY than partisan; I think any change has to come from a president with more political capital, or the senate itself.

 

[WhoWee]

I hope that's effective, but this really is more NIMBY than partisan; I think any change has to come from a president with more political capital, or the senate itself.

If gas prices reach $5.00 per gallon, I think President Obama will exhaust all of his political capital to further his initiatives.

 

[nismaratwork]

If gas prices reach $5.00 per gallon, I think President Obama will exhaust all of his political capital to further his initiatives.

Agreed.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Russ, I've been thinking about the same NIMBY thing. I sure a community will be far more motivated to discourage a nuclear power plant, close or upwind, than a coal burning plant somewhere close. I would be.

That's due to misinformation, scare-tactics, and ignorance. The really ironic thing is a coal plant puts out more radiation (and a lot more heavy metals) than a nuclear plant, due to the natually-occurring radioactive elements (including Uranium) which are in coal and go up and out the stack.

I'd prefer a nuclear plant over a coal plant close to my home any day of the week. Especially a newly-designed nuclear plant (not sure about a 1970's one).

 

[nismaratwork]

That's due to misinformation, scare-tactics, and ignorance. The really ironic thing is a coal plant puts out more radiation (and a lot more heavy metals) than a nuclear plant, due to the natually-occurring radioactive elements (including Uranium) which are in coal and go up and out the stack.

I'd prefer a nuclear plant over a coal plant close to my home any day of the week. Especially a newly-designed nuclear plant (not sure about a 1970's one).

Oh hell yes; look at recent studies of incidence of lung cancer in Chinese villagers with no history of any risk factor EXCEPT the coal-fired plant. I should say rather, they had risk factors, but they were present in the control group as well.

It's a bit like people smoking a cigarette, enjoying that polonium, NSCs, TSCs, and a world of other hurts will say... seriously and without insight or irony... that they'd never raise their kids around a nuclear plant.




The only response I can formulate to that is: *slap*, followed by a tirade.

 

[WhoWee]

That's due to misinformation, scare-tactics, and ignorance. The really ironic thing is a coal plant puts out more radiation (and a lot more heavy metals) than a nuclear plant, due to the natually-occurring radioactive elements (including Uranium) which are in coal and go up and out the stack.

I'd prefer a nuclear plant over a coal plant close to my home any day of the week. Especially a newly-designed nuclear plant (not sure about a 1970's one).

I recently read a (can't find link) paper indicating an exhaust steam-scrub coupled with piping exhaust back into a depleted coal mine site (would require plant be located near a mine) would greatly reduce all emissons. Aside from the logistics of locating a plant near a mine, it sounded reasonable. However, would remediation of uranium from ground water in this example prove too costly? Is there a cost effective process available?

 

[nismaratwork]

I recently read a (can't find link) paper indicating an exhaust steam-scrub coupled with piping exhaust back into a depleted coal mine site (would require plant be located near a mine) would greatly reduce all emissons. Aside from the logistics of locating a plant near a mine, it sounded reasonable. However, would remediation of uranium from ground water in this example prove too costly? Is there a cost effective process available?

Wouldn't this produce a lot of Radon, and if so... does this all become a radiation hazard?

 

[mheslep]

So it is important to frame the issue as a choice between nuclear and coal, not nuclear and nothing:

"Do you want a nuclear plant or a coal plant in your 'backyard'?"

not

"Do you want a nuclear plant in your 'backyard'?"

Yes, "... or a coal plant serviced by a 100 car coal train every single day in your backyard"

 

[WhoWee]

Whatever happened with this underground mini nuclear plant project?
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36758

"Hyperion Power Generation — a US company based in New Mexico — has brought the dream of tiny nuclear reactors one step closer with its Power Module. This nuclear reactor — or "battery" as the firm calls it — is not much larger than a hot-tub and could supply thermal energy at a rate of about 70 MW. That could be converted into about 27 MW of electricity, which would be enough to supply about 20,000 US households.

Unlike conventional nuclear power plants, Hyperion's reactor uses uranium hydride, which is essentially enriched uranium metal that has absorbed a large amount of hydrogen. As the uranium nuclei decay by fission, they release neutrons that are slowed down by the hydrogen, which acts as the moderator. The slow neutrons can then split further uranium nuclei and trigger a chain reaction. "

 

[nismaratwork]

Whatever happened with this underground mini nuclear plant project?
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36758

"Hyperion Power Generation — a US company based in New Mexico — has brought the dream of tiny nuclear reactors one step closer with its Power Module. This nuclear reactor — or "battery" as the firm calls it — is not much larger than a hot-tub and could supply thermal energy at a rate of about 70 MW. That could be converted into about 27 MW of electricity, which would be enough to supply about 20,000 US households.

Unlike conventional nuclear power plants, Hyperion's reactor uses uranium hydride, which is essentially enriched uranium metal that has absorbed a large amount of hydrogen. As the uranium nuclei decay by fission, they release neutrons that are slowed down by the hydrogen, which acts as the moderator. The slow neutrons can then split further uranium nuclei and trigger a chain reaction. "

http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/news_pub.html

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/10/technology/nukes_backyard.fortune/?section=magazines_fortune

They're trying to sell their product it seems.

 

[PhilKravitz]

on the NIMBY issue why not build nuke plants in the third world and use them to produce hydrogen that gets pipelined to the first world for use?

 

[nismaratwork]

on the NIMBY issue why not build nuke plants in the third world and use them to produce hydrogen that gets pipelined to the first world for use?

Why not place the MOST dangerous isotopes closest to the LEAST stable nations? Oh... and there's no USE for that hydrogen yet, and no pipeline. Otherwise, it's a great idea unless those countries... I dunno... violently object?

 

[mheslep]

Whatever happened with this underground mini nuclear plant project?
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36758

"Hyperion Power Generation — a US company based in New Mexico — has brought the dream of tiny nuclear reactors one step closer with its Power Module. This nuclear reactor — or "battery" as the firm calls it — is not much larger than a hot-tub and could supply thermal energy at a rate of about 70 MW. That could be converted into about 27 MW of electricity, which would be enough to supply about 20,000 US households.

Unlike conventional nuclear power plants, Hyperion's reactor uses uranium hydride, which is essentially enriched uranium metal that has absorbed a large amount of hydrogen. As the uranium nuclei decay by fission, they release neutrons that are slowed down by the hydrogen, which acts as the moderator. The slow neutrons can then split further uranium nuclei and trigger a chain reaction. "

Government - utility alliance is the bottleneck.

So for the next two years, the NRC "will need to limit interactions with the designers of small power reactors to occasional meetings or other non-resource-intensive activities," the federal agency said in a letter to Babcock & Wilcox on May 27. "As such, any requested work on the mPower reactor design that goes beyond these limitations will be placed on hold."

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2292383&postcount=21

 

[nismaratwork]

Government - utility alliance is the bottleneck.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2292383&postcount=21

"Development-Hell! It's not just for movies anymore: Brought To You By The NRC!"
*groan*

Where did caring about the environment turn into a series of cults, that work against their own espoused interests?!

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/news_pub.html

It looks like the venture capital is available - now they need to build one - somewhere?

 

[WhoWee]

It looks like the venture capital is available - now they need to build one - somewhere?

I haven't read enough yet - but why couldn't these be operated inside (deep) old mines?

 

[Jasongreat]

Yes, "... or a coal plant serviced by a 100 car coal train every single day in your backyard"

How bout 2 100 car trains and a hundred trucks full of coal a day? In my back yard I have http://www.intermountainpower.com/" , california being the big one. We get the claim of the coal burnt and polution coming from that, cali gets to claim the power generated without having to claim the pollution, talk about statistical corruption. If you want nuclear or coal power, I think you should take care of the generation and the disposal in your own state, then decide what you want, not decide on that by outsourcing.

 

[nismaratwork]

How bout 2 100 car trains and a hundred trucks full of coal a day? In my back yard I have http://www.intermountainpower.com/" , california being the big one. We get the claim of the coal burnt and polution coming from that, cali gets to claim the power generated without having to claim the pollution, talk about statistical corruption. If you want nuclear or coal power, I think you should take care of the generation and the disposal in your own state, then decide what you want, not decide on that by outsourcing.

Well, it's a darned good thing you have those emission standards for cars in Cali... right?

Kidding aside, sorry that **** is near you.