Skip to main content

A Shout Out Over the Fence

Our neighbor here are Blogspot, Rod Adams of Atomic Insights - tops on our blog roll - is currently debating nuclear energy as a viable solution for climate change with Matt, a sustainability consultant who writes regularly for TalkClimateChange. The conversation is happening over at Green Options and promises to be exceptionally broad ranging.

Here's a taster of Rod's opening:

We can build nuclear plants safely and rapidly enough to make a real different in resource availability. During the ten year period between 1975 and 1985, the amount of new energy production from nuclear plants was roughly equivalent to adding about 6 million barrels of oil per day to the world's available energy supply. Note - that is not nameplate "capacity" like you find with wind turbines that are often idle, it is actual production.

And Matt's:

The Royal Academy of Engineering in 2003 ("The Cost of GeneratingElectricity") put gas-fired combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) at 2.2 units of cost, and nuclear at 2.3 units of cost. This does not take into account the savings from district heating. We have at our disposal the knowledge, tools and labour to connect CCGT to district heating today, we just need the political will to do so.

In addition, nuclear requires serious subsidy - the free market would not go near it with a barge pole.

That last sentence is a bit of an eyebrow-raiser.

We'd say, "May the best man win," but that would sound a little tinny coming from this corner. We know who will win.

PS: If you get the right ad at the top on the Green Option page, you'll learn that Clorox has a new cleaner called Green Works. Not sure it isn't bleach in a bottle with leaves on it, but it certainly suggests the commercial possibilities that have emerged around "greeniness" over the last year or so.

Comments

rad_sci_health said…
While increased production is a reasonable measure of the rate and ability of the nuclear industry to develop in the future, it doesn't directly address the applicable history of nuclear power development as to the industry's ability to build adequate capacity in the future. U.S. and world nuclear power construction of operating capacity in the '70s-'80s (with various numbers) are typically used to make this case.

However, we should have a better comparison to include the plants that were manufactured in the relevant period. (15-20 years? also starting with a whole new technology! taking less time to build a plant than it now takes NRC to count the pages in an application based on known/proven technology.)

But plant development must include plants that were ordered (with major long-lead components manufactured/stored) but with construction not completed (e.g., Pilgrim 2 not started) because of reduced power growth rates affecting the need for baseload power, and extreme interest rates/carrying costs due to poorly managed construction. (It wasn't plant concrete and steel constraints that caused the ordered/partially constructed plants to be terminated.) It also needs to include all plants that have been closed.

Last year I couldn't find relevant data on the web (e.g., the gray books), but I would guesstimate that the U.S. manufactured and partially completed roughly twice our operating capacity. The rest of the world also cancelled many such plants (more after Chernobyl than TMI, e.g. Italy, vs. the US).

NEI or WNA should get some industry support to summarize that data (and make it readily available as a "nuclear debate" resource).

Industry and government communications people should have such specific data (and enter comments, and propose changes, as new data and info is identified).

Such specific data/info summaries (without the background data) should be directly accessible to the media for issues in major media communications and policy issues.

Jim Muckerheide
Rod Adams said…
Jim:

As I understand your comment, you are pointing out that the actual production increases underestimate the rate that nuclear power could grow if we put our collective minds and marketing skills to the task.

I fully agree. I point to the completed plant record as an easy to understand metric and know that we can do far better. BTW - we never had an overcapacity issue - we just never got around to realizing that we should be shuttering coal fired power plants as quickly as we built new nuclear plant capacity.

I do not really care what the established energy industry thinks - those plants are hazardous to human health and to the beauty of some wonderful areas of the planet.

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…