|
|
Post by Barry Brook on Feb 4, 2013 16:09:54 GMT 9.5
A new post has been published on BraveNewClimate. Link here: bravenewclimate.com/energy-policy-substance-wins-over-styleThere’s a gradual, but a rising tide of rational, enviro-progressive scientists out there who are committed to solving some of the world’s biggest problems. Many of these problems involve touchy subjects, including ways to reduce poverty while improving or maintaining high standards of living elsewhere, the means for ‘sustainable’ electricity generation, and how to limit the human population’s over-consumption and over-production. Inevitably, however, many well-intentioned, but grossly misinformed environmentalists (‘enviro-conservatives’?) object to technical solutions based on emotional or ideological grounds alone. As self-professed enviro-progressives (but also scientists who base decisions on evidence, logic and balancing trade-offs as part of our everyday work), we hope to reduce this backlash by providing the data and analyses needed to make the best and most coherent decisions about our future. This BNC Discussion Forum thread is for the comments related to this BNC post. |
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on Feb 4, 2013 17:09:45 GMT 9.5
Cost and sustainability are two main factors of substance which are in conflict at present. Cost also varies according to the time, place and circumstances. Style, if adopted by politicians gets additional weight-age. The ideas of non-proliferation are an impracticable style matter which are not having any effect on development of weapons but are seriously hindering the nuclear power.
|
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Feb 4, 2013 22:00:21 GMT 9.5
Hi, Barry. Your tradition has been to avoid giving offence. This article, the contents of which I support emphatically, is nuanced differently in two places and thus risks losing the target audience.
I suggest that you review the following and tone it down a little, in order that your message may be more palatable to those well-meaning folk who have not yet understood the energy reality which the world faces, which is that renewables, by themselves, cannot get us to our climate security goals.
"grossly misinformed environmentalists (‘enviro-conservatives’?) object to technical solutions based on emotional or ideological grounds alone". If I was one of the target group, I would be offended by the words "grossly misinformed" and "alone", especially if I had used my best efforts to form my beliefs.
"...nuclear energy is assumed to be too expensive". Not all have simply assumed. I'm sure that some, including some really smart folk, have really tried to understand the issues but have either miscalculated or have adopted flawed (or worse) data and theories to form their beliefs - although, I firmly agree, these beliefs are erroneous.
Effective persuasion has been said to first require an audience. Once our audience has turned off, persuasion is no longer possible and further attempts become unproductive interpersonal conflict.
I offer these comments as one who has frequently failed to follow my own advice. I, too, am human.
|
|
|
|
Post by John T Tucker on Feb 5, 2013 3:33:57 GMT 9.5
I dont know. I feel people have taken for granted that "Renewables" can replace base-load power on near a one to one basis. Intermittents are not only intermittent in the long run but variable in the short which makes supplemental generation necessary. In that short run I don’t think the technology exists to handle the valleys and spikes. Everyone just assumed it was occurring. There are a few things that have led me to this conclusion, but most recently out of Germany: TSOs Activate Reserve Power Plants Due to Expected High Wind Power InputFor the first time this winter the German transmission system operators (TSOs) have activated reserve power plants in Germany and Austria as a precautionary measure to balance an expected high winter power input of 24,000 Megawatt, a spokesperson of Tennet TSO is reported to have told the news agency dpa.( renewablesonline.info/b/2013/01/30/tsos-activate-reserve-power-plants-due-to-expected-high-wind-power-input/ ) I don’t think that during times of renewable excess fossil reserves have necessarily been shut off. I don’t think its valid to just assume it will occur. |
|
|
|
Post by trag on Feb 5, 2013 3:50:25 GMT 9.5
While I agree to an extent with singletonengineer's thesis that one must keep the audience reading, at the same time I found this sentence, "We are not saying that renewable energy doesn’t have a role (of course it does)" unsupported. I keep seeing that caveat attached to pro-nuclear writings, almost as if the authors are apologizing for advocating nuclear.
In the real world, from what I've read, the quoted statement is both unsupported and unsupportable. Certainly, in the near term, any resources spent on "renewables" would garner a larger reduction in CO2 if they were spent on nuclear.
If we're in a race with climate change and our challenge is to reduce CO2, then "renewables" have no place until all fossil fuel base load is replaced with nuclear. Otherwise we're just wasting resources, or at best spending them inefficiently.
Perhaps that's an unpalatable truth which the persuadable "greens" aren't ready to hear yet, but sooner or later, if we're to avoid climate disaster, they must both hear it and embrace it.
Baby steps? Do we have time for baby steps? Is any other path likely to succeed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Evcricket on Feb 5, 2013 7:12:54 GMT 9.5
Love the thinly veiled suggestion that anyone who opposes nuclear power is not rational or progressive.
I remain opposed to Australia pursuing a nuclear generation sector, but that is a very different question to whether or not Japan should maintain theirs. This is good work, and a sensible discussion to have, but with little bearing on the Australian situation; ie I would caution anyone who takes this as proof another country should pursue nuclear. The economics, both environmental and financial, of keeping plants open is very different to those associated with building a new sector from the ground up.
Evcricket
|
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Feb 5, 2013 7:55:13 GMT 9.5
A rational mix for sunny localities is around 30% solar PV (measured at noon) balanced by NPPs equipped with thermal stores. The economics looks quite good but for the fact that the solar PV owners have to pay for the necessary reserves (part of the thermal stores) required on cloudy days.
|
|
|
|
Post by hellothere on Feb 5, 2013 10:59:25 GMT 9.5
It sounded to me like coal was the reason for greenhouse gas emissions to be higher. I'm not familiar with coal or nuclear power, but I have heard of "clean coal", so I would wonder if the radioactive waste numbers are from the cleanest possible coal or from coal power production now in Japan (or even if those are the same).
I would also have thought an important issue with nuclear power is the radioactive waste and the question of a long-term (on the order of a 100 years) safe storage solution for it, which did not seem to be taken into account in this paper nor article.
I also didn't see any mention of solutions to solar and wind energy storage in batteries, which could provide a more steady and reliable source of power if the technology is developed further.
|
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Feb 5, 2013 22:59:51 GMT 9.5
The cheapest way to store high level nuclear waste (such as spent fuel or vitrified waste canisters) is in surface dry-cask type installations for the first ~300 years, followed either by a cheaper reprocessing process (if its spent fuel) or by disposal as low level waste (if its vitrified fission product waste).
We could even set up a foundation whos job it is to look after the waste for ~3 centuries and then to finally dipose of it, with a payment being made to its funds for each unit of waste passed to it.
That would get rid of the "dumping waste on our grandchildren" argument and kill the demand for some sort of deep level repository.
Also Solar PV is not really going to be a viable choice for any sort of major grid deployment until such time that solar cells are as cheap as paper, so that we can plaster every building in them at almost no cost.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Feb 6, 2013 7:42:50 GMT 9.5
Love the thinly veiled suggestion that anyone who opposes nuclear power is not rational or progressive. I haven't seen any good rational arguments against nuclear power, nor any way for the progressive ideology to continue without an increase in per capita energy usage. I remain opposed to Australia pursuing a nuclear generation sector, but that is a very different question to whether or not Japan should maintain theirs. This is good work, and a sensible discussion to have, but with little bearing on the Australian situation; ie I would caution anyone who takes this as proof another country should pursue nuclear. The economics, both environmental and financial, of keeping plants open is very different to those associated with building a new sector from the ground up. Then what the hell do you want Australia to do? The only alternative with current or foreseeable technology to setting up a nuclear generation sector is to continue to burn fossil fuels and release CO 2. It sounded to me like coal was the reason for greenhouse gas emissions to be higher. I'm not familiar with coal or nuclear power, but I have heard of "clean coal", so I would wonder if the radioactive waste numbers are from the cleanest possible coal or from coal power production now in Japan (or even if those are the same). 'Clean coal' is really just marketing BS with only a few demonstration plants actually built anywhere on the planet. It also does nothing to reduce radioactive waste from coal, just redirects to fly ash instead of up the smokestack. I also didn't see any mention of solutions to solar and wind energy storage in batteries, which could provide a more steady and reliable source of power if the technology is developed further. Or more likely just waste money we could've used to build more reactors without actually doing much if anything to save the environment. Also Solar PV is not really going to be a viable choice for any sort of major grid deployment until such time that solar cells are as cheap as paper, so that we can plaster every building in them at almost no cost. Even if solar cells were free it still wouldn't help large scale use of non-hydro renewable energy if your energy storage technology isn't good enough (which it probably won't be). |
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Feb 6, 2013 10:05:06 GMT 9.5
Well I should have said "major utility deployment".... since if they are so cheap we can just plaster buildings with them we essentially don't have to worry about daytime air conditioning or lighting loads drawing power from the grid.
|
|
|
|
Post by filip on Feb 7, 2013 1:09:48 GMT 9.5
Hi,
honestly, I stopped reading the article when I saw that the author went low to group people into two categories: anti-nuclear folk who just must be misinformed and emotional and pro-nuclear who are progressive problem-solvers and base thinking on science and evidence. Bravo. I only wanted to add this: Nuclear has more problems than the usually discussed disaster risk and waste storage. There is a huge problem with proliferation and technology misuse, there is a huge problem of water consumption and there is a huge problem with financing the whole project as nuclear plants are ever less economical and already idea of building them needs great governmental financial backing. Maybe the author elaborated on these, that I will not know since the first paragraph arrogance put me off.
Be Well!
filip.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Feb 7, 2013 10:42:36 GMT 9.5
honestly, I stopped reading the article when I saw that the author went low to group people into two categories: anti-nuclear folk who just must be misinformed and emotional and pro-nuclear who are progressive problem-solvers and base thinking on science and evidence. Sometimes the truth hurts. But I doubt you'll continue reading because you've already made up your mind and would really rather we not confuse you with facts. |
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Feb 7, 2013 22:59:09 GMT 9.5
Hi, honestly, I stopped reading the article when I saw that the author went low to group people into two categories: anti-nuclear folk who just must be misinformed and emotional and pro-nuclear who are progressive problem-solvers and base thinking on science and evidence. Bravo. I only wanted to add this: Nuclear has more problems than the usually discussed disaster risk and waste storage. There is a huge problem with proliferation and technology misuse, there is a huge problem of water consumption and there is a huge problem with financing the whole project as nuclear plants are ever less economical and already idea of building them needs great governmental financial backing. Maybe the author elaborated on these, that I will not know since the first paragraph arrogance put me off. Be Well! filip. 1) Proliferation is a red herring..... anyone who can assemble two thousand tonnes of graphite blocks in a concrete blockhouse can have nuclear weapons. (Hanford B reactor was little more than a mass of graphite with aluminium pipes running through it). Noone in there right mind would dare bomb an active reactor like that for fear of the world press pillorying them for causing another Chernobyl, so the ability to keep the process a secret is irrelevent. Once the reactor is active is doesn't matter. 2) Water use is also irrelevent. Since the cooling systems on every active British nuclear reactor (and all the power productions ones ever apart from some very early ~50MWe dual use reactors) has used the mass of 1.3 billion billion tonnes of water available in the world ocean for cooling purposes it would seem that fresh water consumption is entirely optional. Developments in very long distance AC and DC power generation technologies make it possible to site nearly the entire generating capacity of the global power system in coastal locations or in areas with vast excesses of cooling water. (Near the Great Lakes or the Mississippi) 3) Nuclear plants have been rendered "uneconomical" for two reasons. Firstly they require all the operating costs to be paid in the form of repayments on capital, and the glorious deregulation of the power industries has required higher interest artes to be charged than in the days of things such as the CEGB, which had access to government financing. If such financing was to be provided the repayments on the loans would become manageable again. Secondly the anti nuclear lobby has succesfully thrown thousands of unneccessary regulatory roadblocks in the way of nuclear energy, for instance Hinkley Point C has been "shovel ready" for months if not years but construction has not yet started due to endless legal challenges. Ditto Sizewell C. None of these really comment on the actual capability of the system to provide affordable power for the masses. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin Nicholson on Feb 10, 2013 14:04:06 GMT 9.5
I at least could take heart that your emission intensities for Japan (with and without nuclear) are almost identical to my estimates for Australia.
I am busy writing a paper on the economic benefit of nuclear power in Australia for a presentation at a symposium in Sydney in July. This has involved comparing the current Energy White Paper (naturally with no nuclear) with a nuclear mix suggested by the CSIRO eFuture model. In my modelling for 2035 a mix with no nuclear has an emission intensity of 450 kg/MWh which compares well with your 421 kg. A 34% nuclear mix has an emissions intensity of 270 kg/MWh (262 kg in your paper) for the same year.
One would expect difference in mix between Australia and Japan – but perhaps not that great.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on Feb 12, 2013 19:29:36 GMT 9.5
Japan is the only country ever attacked with nuclear weapons and yet they went on to become a major nuclear energy user. The present opposition to nuclear power is likely to end up as a thinking and reconsideration period only. Interestingly, when the Germans have opted out of nuclear construction in the UK post Fukushima, the Japanese firms have stepped in. The Japanese are prime heavy engineering builders for nuclear equipment.
The Japan is vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunami for geological reasons. I think it is time that they should innovate, possibly building floating nuclear plants.
The Japanese also hold a lot of SNF and reprocessed plutonium. They need to develop fast spectrum molten salt reactors to make use of it. They have had problems with sodium and should move over to safer molten salts.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Feb 12, 2013 20:09:01 GMT 9.5
Fast spectrum with MSRs would mean Chloride salts, we should be able to get that working but it's somewhat nastier than Fluorides and not as much work has been done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Feb 12, 2013 20:15:26 GMT 9.5
jagdish: "Japan is vulnerable to earthquakes (so) they should innovate (their) NPPs" - but I'm not so sure that their NPPs are vulnerable to earthquakes... Correct me if I am wrong, but Japanese NPP's triumphantly survived the Tohoku earthquake, an earthquake stronger than they had been designed for. Nuclear enthusiasts around the world could crow triumphantly that public fears about NPP's in earthquakes are baseless. For that matter, now that NPP's worldwide have been re-examined for their abilities to withstand sudden flood and are being retrofitted accordingly, they could withstand the Tohoku tsunami as well. That is probably more than one could say about gas-fired or coal-fired PP's, if only because they have not been designed with such massive concrete support structures.
|
|
|
|
Post by QuarkingMad on Apr 29, 2013 9:24:02 GMT 9.5
jagdish: "Japan is vulnerable to earthquakes (so) they should innovate (their) NPPs" - but I'm not so sure that their NPPs are vulnerable to earthquakes... Correct me if I am wrong, but Japanese NPP's triumphantly survived the Tohoku earthquake, an earthquake stronger than they had been designed for. Nuclear enthusiasts around the world could crow triumphantly that public fears about NPP's in earthquakes are baseless. For that matter, now that NPP's worldwide have been re-examined for their abilities to withstand sudden flood and are being retrofitted accordingly, they could withstand the Tohoku tsunami as well. That is probably more than one could say about gas-fired or coal-fired PP's, if only because they have not been designed with such massive concrete support structures. |
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Apr 30, 2013 18:40:28 GMT 9.5
Japanese NPP's triumphantly survived the Tohoku earthquake, an earthquake stronger than they had been designed for. Yes, quite - in fact your link includes - "Following the tsunami approximately 300 homeless residents of the town (Onagawa) found refuge at the local nuclear plant's gymnasium, as the reactor complex was the only safe area in the vicinity to evacuate to" It seems that the nuclaer power station was the only safe place after a major earthquake. |
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Apr 30, 2013 21:02:05 GMT 9.5
Forgive me for asking.... but why does a nuclear power plant have a gymnasium?
Was this for staff use or something?
|
|
|
|
Post by BNC Moderator on May 1, 2013 13:04:59 GMT 9.5
Maybe the gymnasium is used for the intensive training needed to perfect jumping through hoops. Which is, as we all know, so essential in the nuclear industry.
|
|
