Skip to main content

How Do You Define "Renewable"?

By Eric McErlain
That's the question in Florida, and the topic of a new post from We Support Lee.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Renewable is any energy source liked by the wets. It's a buzz word, a fashion label, no longer an engineering description.
July 16, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Anonymous said…
I don't think it's reasonable to call nuclear a renewable energy source, at least at the present time. It is reasonable to call it a low-carbon energy source.

Ultimately the argument about renewability boils down to timescale. Sources like fossil, nuclear, even geothermal, will deplete (with current technology) on human timescales (100s to perhaps 1000s of years). Sources like tidal, solar, wind, etc. will not deplete for millions/billions of years.

The big plus for nuclear verus a lot of other low-carbon sources is that it's practical for baseload today, without needing to pre-suppose breakthroughs that might not appear. IMO it's best not to speculate on breakthroughs (such as extraction of fuel from diffuse sources), otherwise you're just debating energy fantasies with people pushing impractical energy non-solutions. Breeder technology is probably as far as I'd go in terms of projection - it's been practical for decades, but hasn't been successfully commercialised. Breeding plutonium (and U233 from thorium) would take us out 1000s of years - while not renewable, I'd call it sustainable.
July 16, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Stewart Peterson said…
They should define any reactor that uses fuel already in inventory as renewable--they are, by definition, since they aren't depleting any natural resources--and mandate 30%-35% renewables by 2025. That would include breeders, CANDUs using DUPIC, LWRs using downblended weapons material and thorium...most of the promising fuel cycles that need development.

That should work well with the recent reprocessing plant proposal--it would be a lot easier if they didn't have to separate actinides at all.
July 16, 2007 at 8:43 PM
Anonymous said…
The term is a brilliant piece of marketing, but it is meaningless to the engineer. Everything is renewable to some degree, or everything non-renewable to a degree, depending on which way you look at it. Diffuse power sources such as wind and solar have no fuel content, but they consume raw materials and human labor just the same. Periodically, these raw materials and human inputs must be replenished or renewed, just like any other industry.

Here is my definition of renewable: the EROEI (energy return on energy invested) is infinite. Now this is precisely what advocates of diffuse power would have you believe about their pet projects. It's not true of course, as it would violate the second law. I'd even settle for something with an EROEI >> 100 as renewable, seeing as infinity is not about to happen.
July 17, 2007 at 8:44 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...
1 comment
Read more

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more