New economic system,..

[dcraig1]

dcraig1: " the world will take the advanced nuclear route because there is no other option."

When you say "the world",.who exactly do you mean?

Pretty much what I said. Most likely lead by some of the Asian countries in particular China, India and Sth Korea. Additionally Russia. The biggest build of current Generation III nuclear power is in China with 70 GWe being built by 2020. Sth Korea is positioning itself to become a significant exporter of nuclear technology. It has recently signed an agreement to build 5 GWe of nuclear capacity in the UAE (which incidentally has shedloads of gas reserves).

I don't know when or how fast it's likely to happen. And it depends on Gen IV technology and engineering which can "burn" existing waste, depleted uranium etc for fuel and generates vastly less waste. And potentially be factory built with smaller and modular reactors leading to significant cost reductions. When it is realized renewables are not going to cut it, there will be a rush to nuclear. By that stage, Asia will very likely be the technological and engineering leader - despite the fact that the best R&D so far has been done in the US.

"There will be no carbon currency or energy rationing."
I hate to **** on your fire,..but it's already started,..lol
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8389880.stm

There is already a kind of electricity "rationing" called off peak rates. The point of so called smart metering is to attempt to match demand to the supply from the irregularity and unreliability of renewable sources - principally wind and solar. My prediction is that it's not going work like it says on the tin and the estimates for improved efficiency will prove to be rather optimistic.

I will modify my statement about rationing. There may be rationing if the grids become unstable because the coal burners have been turned off and there is an over reliance on wind and solar with inadequate shadowing from reliable sources such as coal . I don't think that is going to happen though, because the experience will be that
the electricity grids (smart or otherwise) cannot be operated reliably in that way. The coal burners are not going to be turned off unless replaced by nuclear. In the absence of the nuclear alternative, humans will just continue to burn fossil fuels until the planet is thoroughly cooked.

There certainly won't be a carbon currency. Emissions trading is just another form of commodity trading. A carbon tax would be much better.

 

[Hilarymannah]

dcraig1,......Thanks for such a detailed, and thoughtful response,..much appreciated! : )

 

[dcraig1]

dcraig1,......Thanks for such a detailed, and thoughtful response,..much appreciated! : )

I'd like to recommend http://bravenewclimate.com/ as an excellent resource on the future of energy production. It's run by Professor Barry Brooke, Director of Climate Science at the University of Adelaide. Motto: "How I learned to stop worrying (about climate change) and love energy economics".

In particular read the pieces under the tabs "Renewable Limits" and "Sustainable Nuclear". There is rather a lot of well researched, eye opening material. Some very knowledgeable contributors on the comment threads also.

 

[tomorton]

Surely, by now we all agree there are no environmental/health reasons that eliminate use of nuclear power to generate electricity.

I just hope we can build enough stations quickly enough to bridge the energy gap in the UK. Britain should have been in the forefront of this industry, we could have been exporting our design and engineering expertise all over the world by now. We could have been in a leading position as nuclear know-how exporter, just as the Middle East countries have been as oil exporters for the last few decades but I fear the horse has bolted.

 

[Splitlink]

We should ask ourselves who the business interests are that want to get the contracts for new uranium power stations. I believe that these are, in the forseeable future, the way to go for our energy supplies.

However, we have seen private interests in the banks and the latest disaster in the oil sector, for which BP accepts responsiblility. Private enterprise is great but if we have learnt anything in this century, and I am not sure that we have, it is that where public safety is concerned, let alone the environment in general, serious government control has to be exercised every step of the way.

The US is experiencing the worst disaster in its history but it is only the worst of a whole series of deliberate pollution cases, some of which have formed the basis of films.

Spain has a terrible pollution record, one I remember caused a national scandal to the Aznar government, contaminating a national wildlife park and involving a foreign multi-national.

India and Union Carbide, medicinal experiments by pharmaceutical companies that get out of control, the list is endless. The cynical way that these companies try to evade responsibility is typical of private enterprise.

Can you imagine what would happen in a major accident at a UK uranum power plant if a company like BP was in charge? A proper valve on the sea bed was not installed because of cost. The US government must take some of the blame for that because these valves are in place in other parts of the world and the US, if nowhere else, can afford the best, especially if the consumer still has the lowest fuel prices in the developed world. When the US government wanted a moratorium on new drilling, the oil industry successfully lobbied against it. They would, wouldn't they? How naive can a country get?

I say yes to nuclear power, but only under very tight government control of it.

 

[tomorton]

Tight regulation of a critical industry is absolutely necessary. It will never be absolute though and will periodically be evaded on purpose or accidentally.

Such incidents do not mean regulation as a whole is such a failure that the industry such that it needs to be outlawed.

Bridges can still fall down, planes can still crash and ships can still sink, but we still need them.

 

[Splitlink]

Bridges can still fall down, planes can still crash and ships can still sink, but we still need them.

As you say, these things do happen and will continue to do so.

A few days ago a train ran down 30 odd people crossing the line, killing 12 so far, at Castelldelfels station, outside Barcelona. Yes, it is illegal to cross the line but there were no railway personel on that station at 1120 pm on a major public holiday, with the platforms packed AND a Valencia/Barcelona high speed express due to pass at that time.

The new night shift arrived at 1130 to pandemonium. Where was the old shift? Did they go home early? That will all come out in time, I'm sure.

As you say these things happen but nuclear energy could contaminate us on a national scale, just like that volcano, falling on most of Europe, not just the UK and we can't have a British Obama shouting that "X is responsible. They are going to pay all the clean-up costs". BP will never pay all of the clean-up costs. Ask the people on that coast in 20 years if they were fully compensated.

 

[dcraig1]

I say yes to nuclear power, but only under very tight government control of it.

Without doubt effective regulatory structures are absolutely essential. While it is important to not engage in irrational fear of low level radiation, it is even more important to not **** about with nuclear safety. One of the roles of the IAEA is to assist nations without the current structures to provide the expertise and assistance to establish them.

Nuclear power generation actually has an outstanding safety record. There have probably been more people killed by falling off roofs while installing solar panels than in the whole history of the nuclear power industry in the US.

The one standout event is of course Chernobyl. About fifty people died immediately - mostly the plant operators and firemen. About 2000 people - mostly children - developed thyroid cancer which is treatable. About 12 people have died from it. Unexpectedly, there has been no detectable increase in the incidence of leukemia even amongst the cleanup workers who received fairly large doses of radiation. Also no detectable increase in birth defects. All per the 2005 UN study. It is of course possible that there are as yet undetected long term ill effects.

Another Chernobyl is considered extremely unlikely. Nobody will ever build reactors like that again. Nobody in the West ever did. There was no proper containment structure. The containment structures of modern reactors are immensely strong designed to both withstand the impact of a 747 from the outside or a steam or chemical explosion from the inside.

Compare all this to coal fired power generation which is directly responsible for the deaths of tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of people annually though air pollution, mining and transport accidents etc etc. Coal fired stations actually discharge more radioactive materials into the environment than nuclear due to the trace amounts of uranium, thorium and a potassium radioisotope in the fly ash and radon gas going up the stack. When you burn that much coal even the tiny amounts add up.

 

[Splitlink]

Without doubt effective regulatory structures are absolutely essential. While it is important to not engage in irrational fear of low level radiation, it is even more important to not **** about with nuclear safety. One of the roles of the IAEA is to assist nations without the current structures to provide the expertise and assistance to establish them.

Nuclear power generation actually has an outstanding safety record. There have probably been more people killed by falling off roofs while installing solar panels than in the whole history of the nuclear power industry in the US.

The one standout event is of course Chernobyl. About fifty people died immediately - mostly the plant operators and firemen. About 2000 people - mostly children - developed thyroid cancer which is treatable. About 12 people have died from it. Unexpectedly, there has been no detectable increase in the incidence of leukemia even amongst the cleanup workers who received fairly large doses of radiation. Also no detectable increase in birth defects. All per the 2005 UN study. It is of course possible that there are as yet undetected long term ill effects.

Another Chernobyl is considered extremely unlikely. Nobody will ever build reactors like that again. Nobody in the West ever did. There was no proper containment structure. The containment structures of modern reactors are immensely strong designed to both withstand the impact of a 747 from the outside or a steam or chemical explosion from the inside.

Compare all this to coal fired power generation which is directly responsible for the deaths of tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of people annually though air pollution, mining and transport accidents etc etc. Coal fired stations actually discharge more radioactive materials into the environment than nuclear due to the trace amounts of uranium, thorium and a potassium radioisotope in the fly ash and radon gas going up the stack. When you burn that much coal even the tiny amounts add up.

I'm positive that you are right and I believe that we must go down this road. However, safety statistics have been quoted to me before but when field officers are working within a budget you would be surprised at what will be passed over. The danger is that they will be absolutely convinced that they are right and, in most cases, it is their heads that will roll--not those in Head Office.

I worked in clean oil tankers. We often carried 5 different grades, kerosenes, gasolenes, light diesel in war built T2 tankers that were still operating into the sixties.

The bulkheads between these tanks were rotten with rust, caused by constant cleaning between ports. In ballast, we used to fill up tanks and go down the empty tanks on the other side checking for leaks and, when found, we used to repair them with plastic patches. I have been down gas filled tanks with an air mask on, putting clamps on pipes that started sucking air when the oil got down to the pipe level. All in the name of shareholders' profits. What on earth was I risking my neck for?

The company, a major oil outfit, knew about the condition of these ships (good old Red Ensign, BTW, none of those Panamanian flag rust buckets) and was replacing them with new tonnage. In the meantime, though, the oil had to get through!

To add insult to injury, they insisted on monthly safety meetings, the reports of which had to be sent in to the head office for their perusal and to make them feel good. When they told us of accidents they, always, specified that they were in "non-company" vessels,

I know all about big companies and I am sure that field officers in all industries can tell similar stories.

God knows what goes on inside nuclear pòwer plants, that we do not know about. The mind boggles, but I hope that no-one, here, lives close to one.

 

[meanreversion]

God knows what goes on inside nuclear pòwer plants, that we do not know about. The mind boggles, but I hope that no-one, here, lives close to one.

Didn't a certain H Simpson work at a nuke power plant?

 

[Splitlink]

Didn't a certain H Simpson work at a nuke power plant?

I don't know of an H.Simpson but I am sure that there is a good story there. What is it?

 

[montmorencyt2w]

Although I don't normally agree with Dcraig1, I think he is essentially right on this one, although I don't think nuclear is a panacea either. For one thing, supplies of uranium are not unlimited. If the new generation of power stations turn out to be as successful as claimed, then maybe not a problem, but when did technology ever go without hitches? (Ask BP).
Long-term, maybe, just maybe, nuclear fusion may be "the" answer, but It's going to be a long time, if ever.

There will still be a crisis when oil "runs out" (or becomes uneconomical to exploit), not so much because of energy, but because of the other essential uses to which it is currently put, with no obvious alternative.

 

[dcraig1]

For one thing, supplies of uranium are not unlimited. If the new generation of power stations turn out to be as successful as claimed, then maybe not a problem, but when did technology ever go without hitches? (Ask BP).
Long-term, maybe, just maybe, nuclear fusion may be "the" answer, but It's going to be a long time, if ever.

Uranium supplies are finite, but it is very likely that new reserves will be found and lower grade ores become economically viable with better better mining techniques. The price of uranium could rise quite a bit without greatly affecting the cost of electricity because it is a relatively small part of the cost of running a NPP.

It is also possible to use thorium rather than uranium as a nuclear fuel. India is actively pursuing this route because of lack of uranium resources. There is several times as much thorium as uranium available.

But as you say, the big story is Generation IV breeder reactors. A current 1GWe pressurized water reactor uses something like 180-200 tonnes of low enriched uranium per year. A 1GWe Integral Fast Reactor would use 1-2 tonnes of nuclear fuel per year. And that fuel could be natural uranium, depleted uranium, waste from current NPPs etc. There would be 1-2 tonnes of waste generated and the waste would be different from current nuclear waste with much shorter half life rendering it safe in a few hundred years.

There are designs too for Gen IV reactors based on thorium with similar attractive qualities. (Google Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor).

These Gen IV designs are passively safe - even in the event of complete failure of all safety system (such as loss of all electrical power), the design is such that the core can't melt down. This has been confirmed in research reactors.

It is inevitable that there will be engineering problems in development but good reasons to believe they can be solved as research reactors of these types have already been built and successfully operated. Russia is building a "commercial" Gen IV liquid sodium cooled reactor called the BN-800. China has expressed interest in buying two.

As for fusion, nobody has any real idea of when it might be a realistic option. My bet is not before 2050 at the very earliest and that is far too late to save the climate.

 

[dcraig1]

Taking about the future of energy production, the Guardian has a piece about solar power in the Sahara and how a piece of the Sahara "just" the size of Wales could generate all of Europe's electricity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/27/solar-power-sahara-europe-alok-jha

It's a pity that they don't extend their calculations a bit further and come up with for a figure for the amount of concrete, steel, glass and whatever else that would be required to do this. It would be simply stupendous and with very significant environmental impact in it's production. Not to mention very expensive.

Then there is also the little detail that solar PV panels or the mirrors used in solar thermal need to be washed quite frequently or efficiency drops off significantly. Where is the water to wash "Wales" going to come from in the middle of the Sahara? Solar thermal probably also needs cooling water in the heat cycle for the turbines, though air cooling may be possible.

The world needs dense not diffuse energy sources.

 

[meanreversion]

Agree with that. I don't know for certain but my guess would be that wind turbines are net users of energy, once you factor in the enormous amount of power required to build them. Thus installing a wind turbine is simply using x units energy now to get 0.8x back in the future. Anyone know the science of this?

 

[dcraig1]

Agree with that. I don't know for certain but my guess would be that wind turbines are net users of energy, once you factor in the enormous amount of power required to build them. Thus installing a wind turbine is simply using x units energy now to get 0.8x back in the future. Anyone know the science of this?

It's actually quite good in that respect:

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/10/17/18478/085

The big problem with wind turbines is the variability of output - sometimes full rated power and sometimes effectively nothing. Furthermore the power is "low quality" - frequency is not very stable. The grid as a whole has to sort this out to ensure stable electricity supply. This means that wind power has to be "shadowed" by something else in the grid that follows demand. Hydro is a good match because it is easily ramped up or down.

Other options are not so good. Fossil fuel burners like to be run continuously at their normal operating temperature. Ramping them up and down reduces efficiency and consumes more fuel. One type of gas turbine (OCGT) is suitable but it is not as efficient as CCGT gas turbines. Paradoxically the wind turbines may not be saving all that much CO2 emissions or fossil fuel consumption that one might think.

As there are currently no economic methods (except possibly pumped hydro) for storing power in the grid, the requirements for shadowing will put a cap on the amount of wind power that grids can take. Perhaps 20%? That's about where Denmark is at and they export most of their wind power. As far as I know Denmark has not shut down a single coal fired power station.

In this sense, as well as subsidies (feed in tarrifs), wind is currently getting a free ride because the other grid capacity already exists to back it up.

Renewables advocates claim that the wind will always be blowing or the sun shining "somewhere", but it's not really clear that this is the case. Weather systems can have a large geographical extent. In any case, it would definitely require much expanded transmission line facilities because electricity would need to be moved over much longer distances from producer to consumer.

 

[dcraig1]

PS Some professors from the University of Adelaide have started an "open science" research project to look at how much wind power may or may not be integrated into the Australian grid. They think Aus is a good test case because of geographical size and other factors. There are some charts showing wind variability on the site.

http://www.oz-energy-analysis.org/

 

[Black Swan]

Japanese going to bed early?...might as well hibernate for another economically stagnant decade..

The Japanese government is encouraging people to go to bed earlier and save energy wasted by watching TV late at night.

Going to bed an hour earlier helps reduce CO2 emissions; watching TV late into the night requires more energy and therefore produces more CO2. It is estimated that going to bed just an hour earlier could save up to 20 percent of electricity consumed in the household.

A study by the Japanese ministry of environment has found that 20 percent of Japan's electricity is consumed within the final hour before bed. As a result the government is running a campaign encouraging people to go bed and wake up earlier. It is estimated that the average family could reduce their carbon footprint by up to 85kg per year simply by not watching TV late into the night.

Japan is attempting to reduce its CO2 emissions by 25 percent from 1990 levels and this is the latest initiative from the government that, five years ago, launched a campaign encouraging office workers to wear short sleeves in a bit to reduce energy consumption by air conditioners.

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...nese-government-tells-population-2012313.html

 

[montmorencyt2w]

Japanese going to bed early?...might as well hibernate for another economically stagnant decade..

The Japanese government is encouraging people to go to bed earlier and save energy wasted by watching TV late at night.

Going to bed an hour earlier helps reduce CO2 emissions; watching TV late into the night requires more energy and therefore produces more CO2. It is estimated that going to bed just an hour earlier could save up to 20 percent of electricity consumed in the household.

A study by the Japanese ministry of environment has found that 20 percent of Japan's electricity is consumed within the final hour before bed. As a result the government is running a campaign encouraging people to go bed and wake up earlier. It is estimated that the average family could reduce their carbon footprint by up to 85kg per year simply by not watching TV late into the night.

Japan is attempting to reduce its CO2 emissions by 25 percent from 1990 levels and this is the latest initiative from the government that, five years ago, launched a campaign encouraging office workers to wear short sleeves in a bit to reduce energy consumption by air conditioners.

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...nese-government-tells-population-2012313.html

Clearly a ploy to increase the birth rate.

 

[Black Swan]

.

The one standout event is of course Chernobyl. About fifty people died immediately - mostly the plant operators and firemen. About 2000 people - mostly children - developed thyroid cancer which is treatable. About 12 people have died from it. Unexpectedly, there has been no detectable increase in the incidence of leukemia even amongst the cleanup workers who received fairly large doses of radiation. Also no detectable increase in birth defects. All per the 2005 UN study. It is of course possible that there are as yet undetected long term ill effects.

'kin ell...I *know* it's Wiki but worth a read...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects