Why not increase the shielding in nuclear plants to the point that nuclear waste could be stored surrounding the reactor? The reactors need to be shielded anyway. And they could absorb neutrons. Neutrons head off in all directions and often they eventually get absorbed by some nucleus in some atom in the shielding, and likely make it radioactive. Better to do that to stuff that’s already nuclear waste. Who knows, it might sometimes do some good.

And the natural place to store the nuclear waste from a decommissioned reactor? Inside a new reactor, of course. Fold the waste storage costs into the reactor costs and it’s harder for them to get skimped.

The EROEI for nuclear is somewhere between 50 and 100, based on the WNA study’s results (which show that total energy inputs are ~1-2% of total output).

If you look at the blue-green tables on the webpage, they give total the energy inputs, in petajoules, for one 1000 MW nuclear plant. Dividing the total of the energy inputs by the energy output of the plant gives the energy input fraction, or the EROEI.

The tables include all of the things that you talk about in your 2nd paragraph. The analysis accounts for all energy inputs associated with all parts of the nuclear production process, including uranium mining, processing and enrichment, along with plant construction, operation and decommissioning. Nothing is “glossed over” (especially considering the fact that the website is only giving a summary of results).

I am confused. I was referring to EROEI (energy return on energy investment), i.e., the amount of energy required to get a new producer of energy up and running. This is one of the reasons why solar power is so unattractive.

For nuke power, uranium must be mined, transported, refined, transported, enriched. The plant must be built, which requires a lot of expensive metals and fabrications. And then there is the ugly business of decommissioning a reactor vessel at some time in the future, and the disposal of waste. The world nuclear website you cited sort of glosses over this.

About 100 miles from where I live was one of the most dangerous nuke power plants ever built. B&R took a lot of shortcuts, was relieved, and Bechtel completed it. It had never run @ full power due to concerns about safety until a decade ago. It was the subject of an ugly CBS 60 Minutes expose a few years after initial construction, during its startup.

The plant has cleaned up its act, and is now a record setter in the US in many areas. But, essentially, it was built twice. My electric bill during the summer last year was incredible, despite its record-setting output. It’s highly doubtful if it will ever pay off in dollars or in energy investment.

Unfortunately, for the US, nuke power is the only card i can see that can be played. If we could get over our love affair with the automobile, this would not be necessary.

The energy inputs and net CO2 emissions for nuclear power are both very low, and are equal to or better than most renewable sources.

The overall energy inputs for nuclear are only ~1-2% of the total energy output. Nuclear’s net CO2 emissions are ~2% those of coal and ~5% those of gas. This is similar to renewable sources like solar and wind. The real point, however, is that for both nuclear and all renewable sources, the net CO2 emissions are essentially negligible compared to those of fossil fuels.

The above data on energy inputs and net CO2 emissions is taken from the following studies:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf100.html

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull422/article4.pdf

Concerning LWR plant security, crashing a commercial jetliner into a nucler plant has virtually no chance of causing a significant radiation release:

http://www.nei.org/documents/eprinuclearplantstructuralstudy200212.pdf

Other types of attack are unlikely to cause a large release as well. Chemical plants will always be an infinitely better target, with a much higher chance of success AND a larger possible consequence.

Most proposals for pebble bed reactors w/o containment involve burying the reactor underground, which would largely neutralize most attack scenarios.

In any event, is the risk of release from a large-scale attack (on either reactor type) zero? No. But one thing that is clear is that even a maximally successful attack will produce consequences that are lower than those caused ANNUALLY by fossil plants. Coal plants cause 25,000 deaths annually in the US alone; hundreds of thousands worldwide. Credible estimates for Chernobyl’s total eventual death toll range from ~100 to 10,000. The maximum possible release from any US plant, even in the event of an attack, are at least one order of magnitude less than Chernobyl. For large LWRs, the lower potential source term is due to strong (remaining) defenses and a non-flammible core. For the HTGR, the reactor is a factor of 10 smaller than Chernobyl.

So what would you rather have, a tiny chance of an event causing a few thousand eventual deaths, or a 100% chance of 10 times as many deaths every year. Oh yeah, and global warming on top of that. The choice couldn’t be more clear.

Finally, in terms of the number of reactors built, if we limit CO2 emissions, coal will become more expensive than nuclear (if it can be used at all). Gas will be way more expensive. Why do you find it so hard to imagine nuclear winning most of the market share in terms of new power plants, especially under the above (expected) conditions?

You say you can only imagine ~500 reactors being built in 44 years. Back in the 70s and 80s, the world build ~400 reactors in less than half that time, despite the fact that the technology was older and less mature, and the world’s GNP was much lower. Furthermore, the need to go nuclear was much less pressing, as there was no GW problem. That is, other options like coal were much less limited (not at all limited, in fact). Given all this, assuming that reactors are built at the same rate they were back then (~20/yr.) should be considered a lower bound assumption.

There is no reason to believe that all developed countries can not now do what France did 30 years ago. The only real argument against this would be limited uranium supply, but this is hogwash:

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html

Building additional nuclear power plants in the US, or in any other nation that already has plants, will have absolutely no impact on weapons proliferation, period. Introducting nuclear power to new, less stable, developing nations may increase the risk somewhat, but even this is debatable.

Spent fuel is no more useful for making weapons than raw uranium ore in the ground. Spent fuel reprocessing is at least as technically challenging as mining and enriching uranium. Look at Iran. What is it doing? It is mining its own uranium and enriching it itself. They could do this whther or not they have nuclear power. And no, nuclear power is not aiding them by providing an “excuse” for enrichment, since nobody believes that anyway. Once again, even if Iran has a reactor, this will do little to advance their position, as spent fuel reprocessing is harder than the enrichment that they are already doing.

If you want to reduce weapons proliferation, what one needs to do is stop selling fuel cycle (i.e., enrichment or reprocessing) technology to developing and/or unstable/untrusted nations. The problem is that we can’t seem to get Russia and China (and even Western Europe) to stop doing that. THAT is the real problem! Fuel cycle technology, not power plants, is the concern.

Personally, I’m less enthusiastic about spreading nuclear power to every small, developing nation in the world. Instead, I think that the developed countries should use more nuclear power, and save the “easier” sources, like natural gas, for the developing world.

The great majority of world air pollution and CO2 emissions comes from advanced economies that already have nuclear power. Thus, we can get most of the clean air and energy security benefits of nuclear even if we don’t give the technology to any new nations (thus eliminating virtually all proliferation risk).

In fact, I believe that using more nuclear in the developed world will have the effect of reducing the number of nuclear plants build in the developing world, thus reducing anyu associated proliferation risk. Using more nuclear here will reduce the strain on world oil and gas supplies, delaying the point when they start to run out, and reducing their world market price. This will reduce the incentive/need for developing countries to start their own nuclear power programs.

Myself, and the great majority of the scientific community knows that Yucca Mtn. “will work”.

The scientific analyses showing this have been completed, and the license application will be filed next year. The whole “issue” with Yucca is that there is a tiny (

(Oops. Sorry about Post #102)

Myself, and the great majority of the scientific community knows that Yucca Mtn. “will work”.

The scientific analyses showing this have been completed, and the license application will be filed next year. The whole “issue” with Yucca is that there is a tiny (

The cases you list all involve the nuclear weapons complex and have absolutely nothing to do with commercial nuclear power. US nuclear plants have not made any messes; all of the wastes have been completely contained.

On a per unit energy basis, the environmental/health effects of coal mining are much higher than those of uranium mining, due to the vastly larger amount of material being extracted. On top of that, whereas the effects of coal mining are much smaller than the effects of the coal plants themselves (through air pollution), the effects of uranium mining are essentially the only effects from nuclear power overall, with the power plants having no effect on public health at all. They do use water, and reject heat (hot water), but so do all thermal plants.

Coal plant emissions cause ~25,000 deaths every year, and coal mines have enormous environmental impact. Nothing in the entire nuclear production cycle comes anywhere close to that, even before considering global warming.

Myself, and the great majority of the scientific community knows that Yucca Mtn. “will work”. The scientific analyses showing this have been completed, and the license application will be filed next year. The whole “issue” with Yucca is that there is a tiny (

The cases you list all involve the nuclear weapons complex and have absolutely nothing to do with commercial nuclear power. US nuclear plants have not made any messes; all of the wastes have been completely contained.

On a per unit energy basis, the environmental/health effects of coal mining are much higher than those of uranium mining, due to the vastly larger amount of material being extracted. On top of that, whereas the effects of coal mining are much smaller than the effects of the coal plants themselves (through air pollution), the effects of uranium mining are essentially the only effects from nuclear power overall, with the power plants having no effect on public health at all. They do use water, and reject heat (hot water), but so do all thermal plants.

Coal plant emissions cause ~25,000 deaths every year, and coal mines have enormous environmental impact. Nothing in the entire nuclear production cycle comes anywhere close to that, even before considering global warming.

Whether or not the ExternE study included them, subsidy arguments do not weigh against nuclear.

In the US, with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, nuclear went from being the only major source with no significant subsidies to having subsidies that are merely on a par with other (fossil and renewable) sources. As for Europe, it is very clear that, on a per kW-hr basis, renewables’ subsidies are much higher than nuclear’s. Their fossil fuels are almost certainly heavily subsidized as well.

In a sense, this is all moot anyway. The whole subject of this discussion is how to reduce CO2 emissions (I thought). If this is true, nuclear’s costs vs. fossil fuels are largely irrelevant anyway, as fossil fuel use will be required to decrease. As for renewables, intermittentcy will limit their overall contribution to ~15-25% of annual generation, at most. Thus, under any system where CO2 emissions are required to decrease, a large expansion of nuclear is virtually assured, barring laws that specifically prevent it.

BWT, no fossil plant with CO2 sequestration scheme will be even remotely competative with nuclear. The studies I’ve seen suggest that sequestration will roughly double the price (i.e., add ~5 cents/kW-hr or more) of coal generated electricity, after accounting for the energy lost in shipping and compressing the gas.

That assumption certainly drove utility planning for a century. A corollary was cheap waste disposal forever. Oh, well.

So how do we convince China, India, ourselves, etc. to leave all our fossil energy in the ground where it belongs?

One: energy efficiency – better refrigerators, lights, trains, etc.

Two: renewables – solar, wind, biofuels, etc.

Three: conservation – fewer lights, etc. This is the admittedly the hardest, but the best, since it conserves all material resources. So can we please stop insisting that we (6 billion people heading to 9 or 11 billion) need to dissipate more energy?

Subsidizing an expensive, anti-free-market energy source (with security burdens) just subsidizes and promotes consumption. But as we drive down the cost of efficiency and renewables the world will follow.

China doesn’t pirate videotapes anymore. Not because they became virtuous, but because DVDs were so superior.

The history of our civilisation to date is that we always need more energy.

Vaclav Smill’s excellent text on energy tackles this one, whether it really makes us better off. Past a certain point, no. There are countries with 1/4-1/2 the energy of use of Canada or US (per capita) with the same or higher life expectancies at birth and lower infant mortality rates.

http://www.amazon.com/Energy-Crossroads-Global-Perspectives-Uncertainties/dp/0262693240

but to date, we have continued with compound growth in energy usage as societies.

Although, for example, a 2007 fridge uses only 25% as much energy as a 1980 fridge (who knew?) to date we have tended to keep the 1980 fridge in the back room and use it to cool beer. Our cars are more fuel efficient, but we drive further every year. Our homes are better insulated, but a 2006 US home is 60% bigger than a 1970 US home.

(one striking exception. California. California does not use more electricity, per capita, than it did in 1980. Despite all the new electronic gizmos in the homes, TVs with instant on in the bedrooms, computers etc. I don’t know how much of this is greater efficiency, and how much simply structural shifts in the California economy)

That said, even California has had growth in power demand due to population growth.

The real problem is what to do about China and India. Both have rapidly growing economies and huge coal reserves.

http://web.mit.edu/coal/

has an excellent chapter on electrical energy in China, and an appendix on India.

In both cases, we need to fully develop carbon-sequestering clean coal technology, and then help them acquire it.

In neither case will nuclear likely be a huge share of electricity generation. As I say elsewhere, I can see 100 Chinese reactors along the coast (roughly 1/8th of likely demand) but it’s hard to imagine they’ll get around to building 200 or 300, say.