<More Tools for Rita The Oil Drum The third CERA increment>

18 comments on Open Thread and News Drop

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

isaiah on September 21, 2005 - 6:24am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
one thing that has shocked (if that is even possible) and upset me lately is learning how the US scrapped its Fast Breeder Reactor program back in 1994, under Clinton/Kerry pressure.

also, it seems breeders would be ideal to transform much US transuranic waste (100,000yr+ half-life) into useful fuel while leaving only relatively short half-life (300 yrs or less) fission waste.  i think this would be a great topic to discuss on TOD, as there are so many international and scientifically minded folks here.  anyone have any ideas/info on the future of breeders around the world?    

IFR
MONJU breeder site

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MikeTor on September 21, 2005 - 6:57am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
isaiah,

Even if we forget about the costs (yes, also subsidazed by fossil fuels) and the hazards of nuclear energy, breeders have inmense technical problems that no one knows whether they will be solved. As for not investing in it (or scrapping the program), be sure that if it is workable, the japanese will get it working. They are investing masively into it. So we just have to watch them succeed or fail to end the argument.

The future of humanity is a structure change, distributed and regional energy production. It's another mentality, where simple solutions win, and technicaly complicated loose.

Nuclear energy is the exponent of the age that we are going to leave. It is the symbol of a wasteful, monolithic and centralized energy structure that will go away.
Why not just accept you have to live with the energy wind and solar can provide?. Energy companies just don't like them because it would put energy generation out of their control, and into the hands of the consumers, it would end the energy oligopolies.

Stop wishing there is a way to keep the system going the way it was during the american-way-of-life age.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MikeTor on September 21, 2005 - 6:58am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"...as there are so many international and scientifically minded folks here..."

by the way, I am a Physicist.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
isaiah on September 21, 2005 - 7:21am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
actually large energy corps have already infiltrated wind and solar power (BP Solar, Shell Renewables, etc.)  i am not wishing to keep the system going, and i think it is wrong of you to assume that i am.  what i do think is that breeders (which have been demonstrated around the world - France, Russia, Japan, etc.) would be a great way to get rid of long half-life high level waste and "keep the lights on" as a transition to a powerdown scenario.  

if you have specific details on what technical problems have not been solved with breeders (from my research it seems most have been solved), i would love to hear it.  i think we need technical solutions, economic and financial restructuring, and changes in our political and social culture to properly handle peak oil.  it's obvious that nuclear and coal is in the future of our world, so why not make it the best it can be?  i believe breeders are the best kind of nuclear reactors and will play a part in our future.  we should be educated about them and realize the benefits and risks.  

btw, i'm a materials engineer.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MikeTor on September 21, 2005 - 7:58am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"i am not wishing to keep the system going, and i think it is wrong of you to assume that i am."

Sorry, I didn't want to pretend to know what you think. :-)

"actually large energy corps have already infiltrated wind and solar power (BP Solar, Shell Renewables, etc.) "
yes, you're right. They are not pushing with new innovations or flooding the sector with research cash or anything though. They just infiltrate and go with the rest, just in case it proves to be the future of energy.

"what i do think is that breeders (which have been demonstrated around the world - France, Russia, Japan, etc.) would be a great way to get rid of long half-life high level waste and "keep the lights on" as a transition to a powerdown scenario. "

Well, that is a very interesting idea.

"breeders (which have been demonstrated around the world - France, Russia, Japan, etc.) "

Demonstrated is not the same as being proven viable. Nuclear fussion is also being "demonstrated", and you know the state of it...

My point, is that save for the reasons alleged by you ("would be a great way to get rid of long half-life high level waste and "keep the lights on" as a transition to a powerdown scenario. "), it would be a huge missinvestment, because nuclear needs extraordinary amounts of financing (research AND construction) upfront, and there's is no way it's going to pay itself up in the long run. Europe still spends many more times more on nuclear reseach and security than on renewables as a whole!. What do you think such amounts of research could do for solar energy?. Fotovoltaic may seem utopic (or for the long run), but studies of costs for solar-thermal power stations for southern USA latitudes were cost competitive with oil-fired power generation 2 years AGO. At current prices they would be even cheaper!.

"if you have specific details on what technical problems have not been solved with breeders (from my research it seems most have been solved), i would love to hear it.[...] i believe breeders are the best kind of nuclear reactors and will play a part in our future.  we should be educated about them and realize the benefits and risks.  "

Mmmmmm. I think I'll try to inform myself better about breeders. But still, my point holds.

Regards

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MikeTor on September 21, 2005 - 8:11am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Short description of the most proven Solar plant: the Parabolic Trough Power Plant. There is also a cost per KW stimate.

http://www.solarserver.de/lexikon/parabolrinnenkraftwerk-e.html

Also, you may have heard of it, the solar chimney. But of course that is not so proven as the parabolic concept:

http://www.math.purdue.edu/~lucier/The_Solar_Chimney.pdf

Extremely insteresting is the graphic on page 13: "Fig. 6: Energy production costs from solar chimneys, coal and combined cycle power
plants depending on the interest rate."

Even if we discount solar chimneys because not yet proven, similar cost are valid for the proven Parabolic design. I would very much apreciate comments on this graphic. It will be a very important concept to consider in the costs calculation for new and alternative energy plants.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
isaiah on September 21, 2005 - 8:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
solar chimneys seem like an interesting and viable technology, but i would like to see a real 100-200MW chimney built before we invest in it heavily.  the 50kW protype in Spain is ok, but scaling-up (1000X power output) is never simple from an engineering perspective.  i'd be concerned about building in areas with earthquakes or hurricanes/typhoons. also, what kind of long-term durability do these things have?  we really don't know yet, as the protype only ran for around 3 years.    

you are right that more investment needs to be made into solar thermal and PV, wind, tidal/wave power, geothermal, thermal depolymerization, biodiesel, hemp, etc.  and of course the large energy corps are not doing the investment in serious R&D, it's the smaller companies and government that we have to rely on for that.  

as for being "demonstrated" the Russian breeder, BN-600 has been in operation since 1986, with 600MW (electric) output.  BN-350 (130MWe) is in Kazakhstan, reached criticality in 1973, and serves the dual purpose of electricity generation and water desalination.  

http://www.jnc.go.jp/zmonju/mjweb/world1.htm#USSR

as well, Phenix in France has been operating since 1973 and has a output capacity of 250MWe.  

http://www.jnc.go.jp/zmonju/mjweb/world.htm#France

the parabolic solar trough seems like a good solar thermal design.  to get $0.07/kW-hr is pretty darn good.  that's much better than PV solar, last i heard around 20-25cents/kW-hr, and around the same as nuclear electricity costs.  NG is still lower at around 3-5cents/kW-hr, while coal is even lower.  

i agree that nuclear energy (whether breeders or not) does require enormous capital investment (more than solar/wind/renwables).  perhaps its not entirely justified, but i think if we can use them to get rid of long-lived hot, radioactive waste, that in itself is a good thing.  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Everett on September 22, 2005 - 1:14am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I think that we will see a return to nuclear, though not just for electricity.  Cogeneration seems like a great match with heat-hungry processes for extracting and transforming LQHCs.

Uranium and plutonium are not the end of the story for nuclear energy.  Thorium is a significant alternative.

I am a bit puzzled by the mention of getting rid of "long-lived hot, radioactive waste."  Almost by definition, hot waste is short-lived, since high activity implies a short half-life, so it gets rid of itself in a few decades.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
isaiah on September 22, 2005 - 4:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
i understand your logic, Everett, and i'm not a nuclear physicist, but here's an excerpt from Wikipedia on "nuclear waste".

"High level Waste (HLW) arises from the use of uranium fuel in a nuclear reactor and nuclear weapons processing. It contains the fission products and transuranic elements generated in the reactor core. It is highly radioactive and hot. It can be considered the "ash" from "burning" uranium. HLW accounts for over 95% of the total radioactivity produced in the process of nuclear electricity generation.

There have been proposals for reactors that consume nuclear waste and transmute it to other, less-harmful nuclear waste. In particular, the Integral Fast Reactor was a proposed nuclear reactor with a nuclear fuel cycle that produced no transuranic waste; in fact, it could consume transuranic waste. It proceeded as far as large-scale tests but was then cancelled by the US Government.

To solve the waste disposal problem, the IFR had an on-site electrowinning fuel reprocessing unit that recycled the uranium and all the transuranics (not just plutonium) via electroplating, leaving just short half-life fission products in the waste. Some of these fission products could later be separated for industrial or medical uses and the rest sent to a waste repository (where they would not have to be stored for anywhere near as long as wastes containing long half-life transuranics). It is thought that it would not be possible to divert fuel from this reactor to make bombs, as several of the transuranics spontaneously fission so rapidly that any assembly would melt before it could be completed. The project was canceled in 1994, at the behest of then-Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary."

from the IFR site:

"Fuel recycling greatly reduces the amount of the radioactive wastes that must be buried in geologic repositories. After 300 to 400 years, IFR waste - the products of fissioning - are as safe as the natural ore the fuel came from. "

i think most transuranics (elements beyond uranium) have very long-half lives (100kyrs+).  they can still emit quite a bit (high radiation flux) but the transitions can have very long decay times.   perhaps the transuranics and actinides are not as "hot" as the short half-life (<300yr) fission products, but they are still hot enough to be a serious health and environmental problem.  

you're right about the thorium, they are using that for some breeders/burners as well.  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
isaiah on September 21, 2005 - 8:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
obviously it would help to have as low an interest rate as possible as the start-up costs for solar chimneys are the majority of the total investment, whereas coal/CC has substantial fuel and maintenance costs.  is this 11% interest rate based on what loans in Europe (or to 3rd world nations) are currently charged?  
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MikeTor on September 22, 2005 - 1:24am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The 11% was as given by a german energy company, but not sure if for Europe. Obviously, if a proven concept and a necessity, or if pushed by governments, the interest rate could be a LOT lower being cost competitive. Also, the costs are equally valid for parabolic designs, that are proven and mature.

You have to bear in mind that those analysis were made for coal/natural gas prices of 2001!!! with today's (and tomorrow's) prices, it would be a lot cheaper than fossil fuel fired stations!. It is a shame that fossil fuel power stations are still build at all in southern countries.
There are even studies where solar energy is produced in northern africa to supply Europe (or southern USA to supply the whole country).

A belgium company that offers a parabolic design that is modular and with standard components, making it ready NOW for mass production.
http://www.azom.com/details.asp?newsID=252

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tom deplume on September 21, 2005 - 6:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What's become of that accelerator based idea that would convert nuclear waste into stable isotopes and generate surplus electricity?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
isaiah on September 21, 2005 - 8:50pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
i haven't heard of this, but it sounds intersting.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Magnus Redin on September 21, 2005 - 12:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
About wastefull, monolithic and centralized energy structures. Do not forget that transformers, powerlines, generators, boilers, chillers and nuclear reactors get more efficient in larger sizes. They both get lower losses per kW and require less material to build per kW. The size limit is more or less in what is practical to build and transport. You can observe the same thing with wind power, multi MW wind turbines are better then small wind turbines. The same thing is probably true for ethanol fermenting plants, methane production, etc.

An energy efficient future will have both giant and small systems, if efficiency is important.
This is especially true for electricity producktion and exchange since the grid is a kind of infrastructure that require very little fossil fuel to operate. Use it in a wise way and the small producers will not need millions of tonnes of lead for batteries.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

18 comments on Open Thread and News Drop

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version