 | Andris Piebalgs : getting a sense of proportion | The Oil Drum: Europe | Shell Sponsoring Peak Oil Communication? |  |
534 comments on Continuing the Nuclear Debate
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
534 comments on Continuing the Nuclear Debate
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Skip Meier indirectly points to a major advantage of the thorium fuel cycle. A thorium cycle reactor will produce less than ton of fission byproducts a year, most of which can be recycled by industry as soon as it comes of a reactor because it is no longer radioactive.
Most of the fission products produced in a thorium fuel cycle reactor have half lives of under 2 hours. Thus most fission products will have ceased being radioactive within a few days of being produced.
http://www.cns-snc.ca/branches/quebec/NWMO_submission_Table_1.jpg
If the thorium fuel cycle is well managed the only actinide it will produce will be Np-237 which is easily extracted from a liquid fluoride fuel carrier.
Np-237 is not fissionable, and hence is not a proliferation danger, but it's eventual radiation is a long term hazard, and should be disposed of with care.Neptunium is fissionable with fast neutrons, and is a proliferation risk. It should be burned by some fast neutron process, either in a liquid chloride nuclear waste disposal reactor, or as a target material in a spallation thorium breeder.http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.html
About 20 pounds (9 kg) of Np-237 will be produced for every GWy of electricity generated by a thorium fuel cycle reactor.
In addition to NP-237, the thorium fuel cycle produces seven long lived fission by products. A very small amount of Tin-126 is present among the fission products, It has a half life 230,000 years, but then decays into Antimony126 a strong gamma-ray emitter. Other long lived radioactive daughter isotopes are weak radiation emitters. Several are biologically inactive. This does not mean that the long lived fission products should be treated carelessly, but it does mean that they are not a danger to life on this planet, or to human lives.
The thorium fuel cycle produces a tiny fraction of the waste generated by the uranium fuel cycle. The waste from the thorium fuel cycle does not constitute a proliferation danger, and the long term radiation emitters are not highly dangerous. Most fission products from a thorium fuel cycle reactor are not radioactive by the time they come out of a reactor, and can be recycled by industry.
A truly incredible amount of information on the thorium fuel cycle, and on the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor can be found on Kirk Sorensen's blog, "Energy from Thorium."
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/
In addition to an amazing document repository, Kirk's blog contains what is undoubtedly the most extensive discussion-dialogue about nuclear technology found on the internet. Reading Kirk's blog is an absolute must for anyone who wishes to be literate on nuclear issues, or wishes to make informed comments on nuclear energy. I claim for my own blog, Nuclear Green much more modest accomplishments. However, I do try to maintain a complete list of links to blogs that write on nuclear related topics.
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/
I'm surprised that the Oil Drum has granted Charles Barton a guest spot, given that he has no professional expertise in the subject area ("retired counseler" who questions the details of other's professional credentials) and calls Chris Vernon "a world class idiot" (which makes one wonder how effective a counselor he must have been).
Ditto.
That blog doesn't even have a vaguely professional feel to it, let alone any actual expertise...
Hey! Don't you go dissing unprofessional and inexpert blogs, we have fun! :p
Mind you, if I were going to have a whole blog about nuclear energy, I should probably try not to confuse fission and fusion, as for example in the title here, "Long half life fusion products"?
Still, I've based my entire fame on being unprofessional and inexpert! So be nice...
Will Stewart, I am a listener who repeats what he hears. That is what a good counselor does. Since my father, was a nuclear scientist, I got much of my information from a good sources. I am nuclear literate, and I defer to scientist and engineers on technical issues. That is why the substance of my post is born by the voice of people who know what they are talking about. I also acknowledge who I am.
> I am a listener who repeats what he hears
A parrot does the same, as do the uniformed when manipulated with disinformation, so that hardly provides you with any qualifications. Your style of denigrating others who disagree with you, notwithstanding your complete lack of credentials, destines your 'contributions' to the dustbin of the internet archives.
My father was a geologist with the USGS, and I learned much from him, but that neither qualifies nor motivates me to deride those with an opposing viewpoint to mine on geology matters.
Surely if his writing is so uniformed and unqualified it ought to be easy to tear it apart, rather than just calling him a poopyhead.
I mean, if you said, "You are wrong because of X, Y and Z, and therefore are a poopyhead", I would not complain. But you're just saying, "you are a poopyhead." Your critique lacks substance.
I'm the last person who can criticise others for making personal attacks. I'd only say, put some substance in them, let the personal attack be the salt to bring out the taste of the rest of the dish. A mouthful of salt alone isn't so tasty.
"poopyhead" is your term, not mine; you missed the point completely, as I did not critique his content, merely his style. The 'salt' you refer to is more like dung to the rest of us, so don't be surprised when we spit it back out.
And frankly I'm in favor of nuclear being part of the overall energy mix, as well as significantly higher percentages of renewables and substantive demand management and, above all, conservation; cooler heads will go farther in this discussion.
So he's right. You have not a single argument against the article, except how easy it is to read.
It baffles me how anyone would admit in a conversation he has no points to contribute, and somehow find pride in this ?
Welcome to the real world. Here "reality bites" and style is optional. I'm not entirely sure you'll like it here.
tomc has been here all of 1 week and three days, and professing, "Global warming is a fantasy". His version of reality must always be the right one, we must assume...
Will, I bet you know a whole lot more about geology than the average Oil Drum commenter. What I deride is nuclear illiteracy. Not knowing enough to make intelligent comments, and not knowing what you don't know. Many of the critics of nuclear power simply repeat slogans that were invented in the 1970's. I don't mind hearing from well informed, consistent critics of nuclear power, and I respect their views. I am quite willing to have dialogues with well informed and thoughtful critics, because I share many of their concerns. I am aware of the technological short comings of light water reactors, and I think that the problem of nuclear waste should be solved. I would appreciate dialogue on how to do that. What I object to is people who oppose nuclear power, and who also reject any solution to the problem of nuclear waste by reciting a bumper sticker slogan.
Update: I have been a very bad boy, and I have been kicked off Tho Oil Drum:
luís de sousa said...
The Oil Drum Europe gets seventy thousand (70 000) visits per month. If you don't read it it doesn't mean that others don't.
I suggest next time you submit your article to some place else.
Luis, how could you? My eyes are so stained with tears.
Thanks to the Oil Drum for having Charles here. What Charles does is very important, making a narrow field of a technical substance accessible by a much larger share of the interested population. Expertise without the communication of it to others has no value, so Charles adds important value. I appreciate what Charles does and respect the quality of his work.
Charles has value, makes a worthwhile contribution, stimulates interest, shares knowledge and raises the wisdom of lots more people in a conflicted field. I'll post you, Charles . . . We've quoted and linked to you and Bill already. At about a third of TheOilDrum's visitor count in just the first 9 months, with a neutral to positive position about energy and fuel, common sense and a positive outlook has a good following too.
Charles is respectfully mentioned here: http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2008/03/21/2000-m...
I'll be happy to link to Charles and Bill anytime. They offer really good stuff for people's screen space.
By the way, all this debate is rather "behind the curve" anyway... http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/category/fission/
...tee hee hee...
...sorry.
Name-calling mere obscures the facts. Both sides, ANY side should stay away from it.
That being said, your Thorium article is old news. I could nitpick about the details, but the essence is the same for all nuclear energy: too expensive.
I'm not bothered at all about the fact that nuclear reactors around the world produce nuclear waste. Stop bringing it up, it's not the point.
The only real issue in nuclear energy is that those who would like to build new reactors want taxpayers money to pay for it. That's why there's so much lying and cheating and lobbying and deceptive pr around.
For example: stop mentioning how France gets 80% of it's electricity from nuclear energy. Period. The French electricity company is a state-controlled and state owned company. No known full accounting exist of the true cost of electricity in France. By not mentioning that you are telling half-truths. A half-truth is a full lie. Charles Barton, I'm calling you a liar. You know I'm right. Stop it.
This knowledge (about French nuclear energy) has been around for many years,if not decades now. As is the knowledge that EdF (the energy company concerned) has massive debts that are guaranteed by the state. Yet you parrot disinfo like there's no tomorrow.
I have no problem with Thorium, nor with a reactor that works on it. Go ahead and do it.
But you're trying to lie your way into getting politicians to give you MY money to do so.
And I DO have a problem with THAT.
If you are serious about Thorium energy, convince the industry to put their OWN money in it. Not MY tax money. Somehow, I don't see you doing that. If Thorium is so nice, or nuclear energy as a whole for that matter, how come nill reactors have been built without tax payers money?
That's my central issue with nuclear energy: the people involved are a bunch of lying, cheating, stealing bastards who wouldn't invest a DIME without a taxpayer bailout. And they know it.
You want nuclear energy? Put up YOUR money. Not mine.
where is the energy source that is not subsidized ?
Solar ? Subsidized (feed in tariffs, tax breaks, research subsidies etc...)
Wind ? Subsidized (feed in tariffs, tax breaks, research subsidies etc...)
geothermal, biofuels, oil, coal, natural gas ? All subsidized.
Every energy producer is taking taxpayer money.
by your own definition, a half truth is a lie. I would not be that harsh, I would say research your assumptions. Let's look at all energy sources as critically as we look at nuclear power.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/02/feed-in-tariffs-support-for-renewable.html
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/01/energy-costs-with-externalities.html
Nuclear lobbying is less than coal and oil.
http://depletedcranium.com/?p=480
Every energy producer is taking taxpayer money.
Is that justified? No.
Does that make it Ok for nuclear energy to do? No.
Nuclear lobbying is less than coal and oil.
See above. You do not invalidate my arguments.
Crusty, Are you the clown from the Simpsons? You certainly made me laughed, You denounced name calling and then called me a lier. What was most funny, is that you called me a lier over the cost of French nuclear power, and no where in my post or in my comment did I mention the cost of French nuclear power. If we assume that the use of carbon based fuels carries a hidden economic cost - and I would argue that it actually carries several - then there are hidden savings from the French use of nuclear power that ought also to be considered.
Crusty, Are you the clown from the Simpsons? You certainly made me laughed, You denounced name calling and then called me a lier.
Well I've come straight out and called you a liar.
I'm not sure what a 'lier' is.
hidden savings from the French use of nuclear power that ought also to be considered.
So now your are going to argue with SECRECT data? Hidden data, hidden magical data?
What a weak argument: you have identified you do not understand the technology you make claims about and NOW you want people to consider data that is 'hidden'?
What was most funny, is that you called me a lier over the cost of French nuclear power, and no where in my post or in my comment did I mention the cost of French nuclear power.
Halt. You apparently even fail to see that you are a liar. Here's some reasoning 101:
By putting forth the French nuclear energy program, you implicitly and explicitly use it as a showcase for the succes of nuclear energy as a whole. Understand this part?
You don't have to give the French energy program as an example if you want to show that something is technically feasible. You could do that with ANY nuclear energy plant anywhere in the world that works. You implicitly want to show it is economically feasible.
Now, the problem is, you will find very few people, apart from a few rabid treehuggers, that will argue that nuclear energy cannot work at all. If you pour endless amounts of money into it, as has been done in the past 60 years, of course you can make it work.
However, just because something is technically feasible, doesn't mean we should do it. And it most certainly doesn't mean you get to use my tax money to do it.
By continuously trying to portray the French nuclear energy program as a succes story you are trying to put forth a technological succes story as an economic succes story. Which it isn't. By doing this, you are a liar. QED.
Like I said before, stop being a liar. It's no shame to stop.
Crusty, I do not wish to involve myself in further debate, because we have worn through the issues of disagreement. I have in a post at the end of the comment section of this blog, pointed to some areas of agreement shared by commenters on both sides. I have suggested that nuclear power in not going away, and that critics of nuclear power might better use their energy by seeing that their concerns are not ignore in the future development of nuclear power. I suggest you consider this, if you wish to have a voice on issues like nuclear safety.
I would share with you some information on French nuclear power.
NUCLEAR NEWS FLASHES - Friday, March 14, 2008
INTERNATIONAL NEWS:
--NUCLEAR REMAINS FRANCE's CHEAPEST BASELOAD GENERATING OPTION going
forward, although the costs of all options have risen "significantly" over
the five years since the French administration last studied the issue, the
head of the French energy office, Pierre-Franck Chevet, said March 13.
Chevet said that the upcoming 2008 "reference costs" study - part of a
series issued periodically by the administration to guide choices for
future electricity generating plants in France -- will show that a new
large nuclear power plant will produce baseload power more cheaply than the
alternatives considered -- plants based on fluidized bed coal technology
and on pulverized coal (coal slurry), and on natural gas. Chevet said at a
meeting of the French Nuclear Energy Society that the 2008 study confirms
the order of competitiveness of the technologies available for baseload
power plants to start up in 2015, with nuclear the cheapest, then
fluidized-bed coal, followed by pulverized coal, and then by gas. The
estimates do not include any carbon tax or trading mechanism, and Chevet
said a 20-euro-per-metric-ton carbon tax "accentuates the effect" of
nuclear's competitiveness for baseload power generation. In 2003, the
reference costs for generation of baseload power (330 days a year) were
estimated at 28 Euro-cents per kilowatt-hour for a 1,600-MW EPR nuclear
power plant, 32 cents for fluidized-bed coal, 34 cents for pulverized coal,
and 35 cents for gas. The reference costs study, long delayed, is due to be published by May.
===========
NUCLEAR NEWS FLASHES - Thursday, January 11, 2007
INTERNATIONAL NEWS:
--NUCLEAR POWER SAVED FRANCE 16 BILLION EUROS (about US$20 billion) in energy import costs and at least 128 million tons of CO2 emissions in 2006, the French industry ministry said January 11. France's nuclear electricity production in
2006 was about 430 terawatt-hours. Had that generation come from combined-cycle gas-fired plants instead, the ministry's Energy Observatory calculated, the
country's 2006 energy import outlays would have been Eur 62 billion, or 3.6% of
gross domestic product, instead of Eur 46 billion (2.7% of GDP). The total extra
cost includes Eur 13.5 billion for additional natural gas imports and a loss of
Eur 2.6 billion in electricity export revenues. The carbon emissions savings
equal the annual emissions allocated to French industry over the period 2008-
2102, and half of the credits to German industry, Industry Minister Francois
Loos said at a press briefing. Had coal-fired power replaced the French nuclear
kWh, the additional CO2 emissions would have amounted to 250 million to 300
million tons, Loos said. Counting exported electricity, French nuclear saved the
European Union 150 million tons of CO2 last year, he said.
In that table, note the bottom line: "Smaller contributors = 8". In other words, there's eight megawatts' worth of radioactive strontium and cesium and whatnot. Hardly a negligible load of long-lived isotopes. And probably typical of the fission products for any actinide burner.
Charles, I doubt very much you need any support from me - you seem to be fairly thick-skinned, which I'll assume you get from your councillor experience.
That being said, it appears that when unable to discredit the technology or ideas, opponents (of any issue really) go after the person to salvage what’s left of their paradigm.
Some time ago, several colleagues and I were sitting around the office on a Friday afternoon discussing yet more good news regarding nuclear power (not sure if it was another COL in the USA, more environmental impact assessments being initiated for nuclear plants in Finland, South Africa's contemplation of 12 large nuclear plants, or yet another deal struck by Sarkozy lead France - but it doesn't matter). Someone made a comment about how the thread of positive nuclear news (from our perspective) would be impacting anti-nuclear activists. The idea came up about Elisabeth Kübler-Ross and her stages of grief. They are:
It seems to fit doesn’t it? I blogged about my thoughts, but here again I see a lot of anger. We will just have to be patient and work through it (not intended to be as patronising as it may sound).
Thanks for you time, energy and posts.
Thanks for the comment. As a scholar of nuclear science, I am more a historian than a scientist. I am interested in who are these people - the scientist - and why do they think the way they do. That requires me to understand enough about nuclear science to interpret their thoughts. I have high regard for many nuclear scientist like Alvin Weinberg and my father, who I regard as highly intelligent, competent and creative men who had astonishing vision, and great integrity.
I am certainly not a scientist. I am also a grump old man, who is inflicted with the pains and indignities of an aging body. Professionally I counseled drug addicts, and that very often counseling is a battle of wills. I learned that when facing an irrational client, it was better to let go of my anger than to try to keep it pent in. I have little patience for people who justify craziness. I might not be the best person to argue this post, but I will do my best. I have stated on more than one occasion that i am more than willing to dialogue with anyone who is willing to listen to what I say. It is quite obvious from some comments here have closed minds, and are only looking for excuses that nuclear power is bad. When I read comments that appear to deny basic facts. How could someone who pretends to be an informed participant in a debate on nuclear power ignore the fact that U-239 is fertile? I confess that I get annoyed. Is he for real? He presents himself as an expert on nuclear matters. How could he make such a blunder? Either his is claiming to be an expert on a subject about which he actually knows nothing, or he is using arguments which he knows to be phony, and hoping he won't get caught at it.
I'd really like to see us have these discussion threads in a civil fashion, without the personal attacks, insults and so forth.
I'm a big fan of MSBR/LFR technology, using thorium as the fuel, or using U/Pu fuel.
That said, I do have to say, respectfully, that I think Charles's comments like this are certainly potentially a little misleading, if not a little inaccurate:
"A thorium cycle reactor will produce less than ton of fission byproducts a year, most of which can be recycled by industry as soon as it comes of a reactor because it is no longer radioactive.
Most of the fission products produced in a thorium fuel cycle reactor have half lives of under 2 hours. Thus most fission products will have ceased being radioactive within a few days of being produced."
Yes, as with any reactor, even current uranium-fuelled LWRs, there is a lot of activity in the fuel that will decay very quickly - but there will still be quite a lot of activity in the fission products for a very long time.
There will still be lots of activity in the form of reasonably long lived fission products - Sr-90, Cs-137, Tc-99, I-129 and everything like that, for example - just as there is with current reactors.
There will still be lots of activity in the form of reasonably long lived fission products - Sr-90, Cs-137, Tc-99, I-129 and everything like that, for example - just as there is with current reactors.
Thank you for the clarification.
I have some questions, what about the costs of electricity produced in a MSR? Is the price even comparable with the price of 1kWh produced with a LWR (LWR electricity costs include waste deposit and buildback which should not be necessary to the same extend with a MSR if i understand the concept correct)?
As uran prices are rising, the cost of one kWh of power from a LWR will rise too, is there a point of break even in costs per kWh electricity compared to the MSR, or, not to be looked over, a CANDU.
Uranium extraction from seawater costs ~250$/kg of pure uranium (not yellow cake), so a cap is set to the maximum price uranium will achieve in the foreseable future.
Is the point of break between the costs of electricity produced with a MSR compared to a PWR even achievable with that fact in mind?
Uranium prices have almost no bearing on the cost of nuclear power; Its all wrapped up in capital and only slightly operation.
MSR's are potentially more economic because they have higher operating temperatures and thus higher efficiencies, no fuel fabrication costs, and potentially much lower capital costs (low pressure operation means massive pressure vessels aren't required.) Their risks are development, licensing, and costs of maintenance of a hot primary loop.