AndyH
Posts: 6384
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Advanced nuclear reactors as part of a low carbon future

Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:32 pm

GRA wrote:Feel free to provide peer-reviewed evidence of such a coverup, Andy.

Here's likely the core of the problem. One is not going to find peer reviewed documentation of a coverup when information required to conduct the studies is controlled. Therefore, expecting such before accepting the reality of a thing is a fools errand.

This isn't without precedent. For example - why are elements of the US power structure and some in the intelligence community so angry with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks? Why is Snowden in exile? Why is Manning in Ft Levenworth? Why are there a number of journalists in jail for not revealing their sources? Why doesn't Monsanto release information they're required to generate for their transgenic seeds? Why did the Japanese government quickly implement new secrecy laws after Fukushima that restricts doctors and journalists from writing about what they see?

We talked about this some in the Snowden thread, but as a reminder, the security oath I took years ago binds me until 70 years have passed or until I am dead. By its very nature, controls such as that tend to restrict conversation.

You were able to write about the information you were able to find, but you were not able to write about the information you were not permitted to see. It's best that I leave it there.
"The stupid become extinct."-Bill Mollison
2018 Outlander PHEV
2015 smart Electric Drive (lease ended Feb, 2018)
OpenEVSE Plus DIY

AndyH
Posts: 6384
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Advanced nuclear reactors as part of a low carbon future

Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:54 pm

For advanced nuclear power to be a part of the low-carbon solution, it has to be truly low carbon. I'd very much like to see how rapidly units can be designed/tested/approved/built, and would like to see how they'll be fueled. Past/current nuclear power has consumed the highest grade fuel on the planet - we've entered into a low EROEI phase for uranium as we have for oil and other finite resources.

Some of this has been covered on the site before but maybe they can stand to be updated - any takers?

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8674
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=195788#p195788
AndyH wrote:Not a Solution - Nuclear Power

Sorry, nuke folks. This one shocked me a bit.

http://www.buildup.eu/publications/21162
The contribution of nuclear power to climate protection is relativized when taking into account the declining ore grades: Nuclear power can be referred to as “low-carbon” when the ore grade are high (0,1 bis 2 %). However, ore grades around 0,01 % make the CO2 emissions increase up to 210 g CO2/kWhel. Those emission values are still lower than those of coal or oil (600–1200 g/kWhel), but significantly higher than for wind (2,8–7,4 g/kWhel), hydropower (17–22 g/kWhel) and photovoltaics (19–59 g/kWhel). Moreover it would be costly and slow to use nuclear power as means for reducing green house gas emission; it would take decades, until a net reduction of GHG would have occurred (Pasztor 1991; Findlay 2010). The CO2 avoiding costs of nuclear power are than for any other possible technology except traditional coal fired power plants. Wind power stations and cogeneration of heat and power are 1,5 times more cost-effective in reducing CO2 than nuclear power, energy efficiency measures are 10 times more cost-effective.


The report looked at the state of current uranium mines, ore quality, and needs of reactors put into service today and concluded that most new plants couldn't even be fueled through their entire life with current known uranium reserves, and that the use of more difficult to mine ores results in a net CO2 output HIGHER than natural gas power plants.

Who knew it would be better for the environment to use NG rather than fission? :shock:


Then there are the 'externalities'...
Further problems of nuclear power generation remain unsolved:
- Accident liability is unsolved. Worldwide, nuclear power plants are legally exempt from the liability for catastrophic accidents.
- Health risks from radiation of nuclear power plants cannot be excluded. In Germany, a study conducted by the German Deutschen Kinderkrebsregister (German Paediatric Cancer Registry) proves increased leucemia rates for children in the surroundings of nuclear power plants. (Kaatsch et al. 2007).
- While the Operationable uranium resources will not last longer than this century, the highly radioactive waste has to be stored safely for thousands of years. No storage concept was developed yet for the 245.000 tons of spent fuel elements nuclear power generated already worldwide.
- Nuclear power used for electricity generation is the biggest driver of proliferation of fissile material. Without nuclear power generation, proliferation attempts could be identified undisputedly, because each effort to acquire fissile material would clearly serve military purposes.
- Nuclear power leads to higher electricity prices, because direct and indirect subsidies cover up the enormous costs of nuclear energy. Worldwide no reactor was built, where private investors would have carried the financial risk. If nuclear power in a liberalised market would actually lead to low electricity prices, it should not be a problem to find private investment to build new reactors.
- Nuclear power is a high-risk technology due to the risks connected with it. However, in connection with the need of protecting the climate, this energy form is also called “lowcarbon”.


Note and request: I don't consider this to be a final answer in any way, nor am I in any position to declare anything one way or another. If you have better information and/or a better way to interpret the existing information then PLEASE bring it forward! Thank you !


http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=195007#p195007
AndyH wrote:
Reddy wrote:Most estimates I have heard are around $5-10B for a standard sized nuke (about 1000-1100 MW).
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Levy_nuclear_project_moved_back_by_three_years_0205122.html
Since we haven't actually built one in the US in a while, it's hard to say how accurate the estimates will be. The previous link describes cost increases and schedule slip, which is common. For a bad case ($2.3B default and no reactors), look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPPSS.

Let's round it for easier comparison. About $5-10/W. Most nuke's are now baseload, with the US fleet running around 90% capacity factor.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP/Record_performance_by_US_nuclear_power_industry_in_2007_070208.html
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/usnuclearindustrycapacityfactors/
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE-Fukushima_impacts_global_nuclear_generation_in_2011-1304124.html
There are a number of reasons for this, which the industry likes to tout as operational/maintenance improvements. Some of it may actually be due to not really needing the power in the 1970-1980s (built nukes based on future need, takes 10 yrs to finish, since it's a step function, by definition you have 1100 MW excess power when turned on), and now we have reached the point of actually needing/using the power.

<snips>

Thanks Reddy!

We're still working through our 'nuclear fiasco' down here. The South Texas Project has two reactors in place that have been working very well. A few years back the San Antonio municipal power company bought into an NRG Energy/Toshiba plan to install two additional reactors. The project site was prepared for four reactors from the start, water rights already in place, the technology is already licensed/approved, experienced contractors would be brought in, etc. Early on it seemed like a no brainer. Then things started to unravel.

The $5 billion estimate turned into more than $18b, there appeared to be under the table negotiations and active efforts to hide true costs early on. The municipal power company has pulled out and the project will likely be tied to at least two court cases for some time. Tokyo Electric Power pulled their 10% stake after Fukushima.

NRG Project Briefing
https://www.dropbox.com/s/u191igiec1xrc5t/nrg_012910.pdf?dl=0
http://texasvox.org/2010/01/29/nuclear-renaissance-dealt-blow-by-south-texas-project-troubles/
These events give credence to the contention made over the past five years by opponents of nuclear power that it is a needlessly expensive and risky way to meet future energy needs.. In less than a year, the price of the STP nuclear expansion ballooned from around $5 billion to more than $18 billion. Given this case study of nuclear power’s failure, we must call into question the federal government’s decision to increase federal loan guarantees to support oversized, untenable projects that are already proving too risky for private investors.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/nrg-pulls-financial-support-for-south-texas-nuclear-1417445.html

I certainly hope the Georgia project goes better than this...


http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=194940#p194940
Reddy wrote:
DaveinOlyWA wrote:Amen to that!! lets take the cost of one large Nuclear Plant and determine how much solar we can build and what would it produce?

75% as much as Nukes?
50% as much?

what would it produce part time verses a base load Nuke? total annual Kwh?

Well, we may soon see. http://nuclear.energy-business-review.com/news/nrc-approves-plan-to-build-new-nuclear-power-reactors-100212
Most estimates I have heard are around $5-10B for a standard sized nuke (about 1000-1100 MW).
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Levy_nuclear_project_moved_back_by_three_years_0205122.html
Since we haven't actually built one in the US in a while, it's hard to say how accurate the estimates will be. The previous link describes cost increases and schedule slip, which is common. For a bad case ($2.3B default and no reactors), look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPPSS.

Let's round it for easier comparison. About $5-10/W. Most nuke's are now baseload, with the US fleet running around 90% capacity factor.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP/Record_performance_by_US_nuclear_power_industry_in_2007_070208.html
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/usnuclearindustrycapacityfactors/
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE-Fukushima_impacts_global_nuclear_generation_in_2011-1304124.html
There are a number of reasons for this, which the industry likes to tout as operational/maintenance improvements. Some of it may actually be due to not really needing the power in the 1970-1980s (built nukes based on future need, takes 10 yrs to finish, since it's a step function, by definition you have 1100 MW excess power when turned on), and now we have reached the point of actually needing/using the power.

Solar has decreased significantly in past few years, I've seen panels approaching $1/W and installed systems around $4-5/W (without incentives). The lack of consistent permitting nationwide has been cited as one reason installation costs are so high. Since solar (and wind) have a capacity factor close to 30%, you get about 1/3 as many kWh as nuke per W installed. Thus, you reach parity around $2-4/W solar. In some parts of the country (CA, HI, AZ, NM, etc.) and in certain remote, costly locations, you are already at or beyond parity.

So here in the west, we don't really need more nukes, but rather more solar installations in CA to handle peak loads, more electric cars in WA to consume the night time excess, and turn off the nuke at night to reduce excess (hmmm, that won't go over very well with the industry).
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8706
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4099

Reddy
"The stupid become extinct."-Bill Mollison
2018 Outlander PHEV
2015 smart Electric Drive (lease ended Feb, 2018)
OpenEVSE Plus DIY

GRA
Posts: 9234
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Advanced nuclear reactors as part of a low carbon future

Tue Mar 03, 2015 6:46 pm

AndyH wrote:
GRA wrote:Feel free to provide peer-reviewed evidence of such a coverup, Andy.

Here's likely the core of the problem. One is not going to find peer reviewed documentation of a coverup when information required to conduct the studies is controlled. Therefore, expecting such before accepting the reality of a thing is a fools errand.

This isn't without precedent. For example - why are elements of the US power structure and some in the intelligence community so angry with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks? Why is Snowden in exile? Why is Manning in Ft Levenworth? Why are there a number of journalists in jail for not revealing their sources? Why doesn't Monsanto release information they're required to generate for their transgenic seeds? Why did the Japanese government quickly implement new secrecy laws after Fukushima that restricts doctors and journalists from writing about what they see?

We talked about this some in the Snowden thread, but as a reminder, the security oath I took years ago binds me until 70 years have passed or until I am dead. By its very nature, controls such as that tend to restrict conversation.

You were able to write about the information you were able to find, but you were not able to write about the information you were not permitted to see. It's best that I leave it there.
Andy, that argument is one where it's impossible to disprove any claim because the evidence that would do so is secret, therefore it must be true. The WHO people were granted total access to the area around Chernobyl, and have continued to monitor the people, animals and environment involved plus control groups/areas ever since. If you have proof of any withholding of the data available, you should present it to the people doing the studies, not just make claims about deep, dark conspiracies.

Do you think the Ukraine is colluding with Russia (and Belarus) to minimize the health effects?!?!? The whole reason the Ukrainians asked the international community to come in and do the studies is because they wanted compensation from the Russians, the Russians assumed (correctly) that the Ukrainians would make exorbitant claims for damage and compensation, and the Ukrainians assumed (equally correctly) that the Russians would try and minimize any damage claims. So they eventually agreed to get international help, an independent arbitrator if you will.

I don't see how can you tout the IPCC reports as representing the best consensus science we currently have available on the one hand, despite there being lots of interested parties trying to minimize or criticize them, and at the same time reject the equally international in scope UNSCEAR scientific consensus reports on Chernobyl as being flawed, because there are people/groups who may wish to withhold info. Both are international efforts, with lots of interested parties. Here's the 2008 report on the "Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation" [due to Chernobyl]: http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/200 ... nnex_D.pdf
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

AndyH
Posts: 6384
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Advanced nuclear reactors as part of a low carbon future

Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:35 pm

GRA wrote: Andy, that argument is one where it's impossible to disprove any claim because the evidence that would do so is secret, therefore it must be true.

This is incorrect. I did not say that it's "true" - I said that it's 'impossible' to complete proper analysis without complete data. Additionally, we're talking about two different things. I'm somewhat aware that research is being conducted (I've linked some in the Fukushima thread for both Japan and Chernobyl). But I'm also aware that not all info that could be available is, and it's also clear that some info IS being censored for various reasons, including 'national security'.

I spent my professional career in a highly controlled environment and in spite of the nature of the job, I enjoyed full access to info for which I was cleared to see regardless of source. I hit a ginormous information control wall when I retired as I started a business selling long-life synthetic lubricants. I couldn't compare lubricants because it was impossible to get an ingredients list. I also couldn't get access to the performance specifications for the competitor's products - or even the specs generated by the various auto manufacturers the lubes had to be formulated against. The information is tightly controlled, is only available to companies with a 'need to know' and a well-stocked bank account, and is kept away from the advertising industry and the consumer. And that's just engine oil! I hit a similarly-sized info wall when I went back to college to study environmental science - just try to get a report of chemical testing from a US sewage treatment plant...

Yes, researchers around Chernobyl are free to track birds and salamanders and track mutations. They're allowed to compare soil samples to see how soil life is affected as radioactive isotopes decay. But information on the effects on humans is tightly controlled.

Back to this:
Andy, that argument is one where it's impossible to disprove any claim because the evidence that would do so is secret, therefore it must be true.
This is precisely how Monsanto sells Round-Up and GMO seed. They perform closed research and if the results don't look good, they lobby the EPA or FDA or USDA to change the test duration requirement or other parameter so that the lab results from rat tests stop before their livers double in size and thus allow the seed to be sold. It's also why universities are not allowed to purchase seed if they intend to perform lab analysis. "All of our testing is conducted IAW EPA requirements - we comply with all laws." :lol:

edit...
How about fracking fluids in the US? Got any peer-reviewed papers that show that there are harmful interactions between components of frack fluids? There aren't any - and there cannot be any - because the industry won't release the ingredients to researchers. They won't even release full into to physicians that are treating people that have been exposed to the products.
/edit

Believe what you care to - that's up to you. But anyone that thinks wikipedia has all the facts, or that all applicable info is available to public or university researchers is living in dream land.
"The stupid become extinct."-Bill Mollison
2018 Outlander PHEV
2015 smart Electric Drive (lease ended Feb, 2018)
OpenEVSE Plus DIY

GRA
Posts: 9234
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Advanced nuclear reactors as part of a low carbon future

Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:56 pm

AndyH wrote:
GRA wrote: Andy, that argument is one where it's impossible to disprove any claim because the evidence that would do so is secret, therefore it must be true.

This is incorrect. I did not say that it's "true" - I said that it's 'impossible' to complete proper analysis without complete data. Additionally, we're talking about two different things. I'm somewhat aware that research is being conducted (I've linked some in the Fukushima thread for both Japan and Chernobyl). But I'm also aware that not all info that could be available is, and it's also clear that some info IS being censored for various reasons, including 'national security'.
Of course data's incomplete, it always is, and that there may be some entities who wish to minimize the severity is easy to believe. That's not the issue, it's whether the missing data would significantly change the results.

AndyH wrote:I spent my professional career in a highly controlled environment and in spite of the nature of the job, I enjoyed full access to info for which I was cleared to see regardless of source. I hit a ginormous information control wall when I retired as I started a business selling long-life synthetic lubricants. I couldn't compare lubricants because it was impossible to get an ingredients list. I also couldn't get access to the performance specifications for the competitor's products - or even the specs generated by the various auto manufacturers the lubes had to be formulated against. The information is tightly controlled, is only available to companies with a 'need to know' and a well-stocked bank account, and is kept away from the advertising industry and the consumer. And that's just engine oil! I hit a similarly-sized info wall when I went back to college to study environmental science - just try to get a report of chemical testing from a US sewage treatment plant...

Yes, researchers around Chernobyl are free to track birds and salamanders and track mutations. They're allowed to compare soil samples to see how soil life is affected as radioactive isotopes decay. But information on the effects on humans is tightly controlled.

Back to this:
Andy, that argument is one where it's impossible to disprove any claim because the evidence that would do so is secret, therefore it must be true.
This is precisely how Monsanto sells Round-Up and GMO seed. They perform closed research and if the results don't look good, they lobby the EPA or FDA or USDA to change the test duration requirement or other parameter so that the lab results from rat tests stop before their livers double in size and thus allow the seed to be sold. It's also why universities are not allowed to purchase seed if they intend to perform lab analysis. "All of our testing is conducted IAW EPA requirements - we comply with all laws." :lol:

edit...
How about fracking fluids in the US? Got any peer-reviewed papers that show that there are harmful interactions between components of frack fluids? There aren't any - and there cannot be any - because the industry won't release the ingredients to researchers. They won't even release full into to physicians that are treating people that have been exposed to the products.
/edit

Believe what you care to - that's up to you. But anyone that thinks wikipedia has all the facts, or that all applicable info is available to public or university researchers is living in dream land.

Where have I ever made such a statement, Andy? Here's what I come down to. Let's say that the Chekist in the Kremlin is suppressing data of health effects due to Chernobyl for reasons which seem good to him (and the penalties for opposition to policies of the Russian government tend to be far more sever and often terminal, as we were reminded last Friday), and that his fellow authoritarian dictator and Soviet wannabe in Belarus is doing likewise, so nobody blows the whistle (I could have sworn I saw references to Wikileaks, Manning, Snowden etc, in your post when I skimmed it yesterday, but since they demonstrate how difficult is to is to successfully cover up a major conspiracy that whistleblowers would see exposing as a matter of conscience, perhaps I imagined it. I would have included Ellsberg and others in the list, but again, these are western examples who are unlikely to face summary execution or dying in prison of 'natural causes' at an early age). Edit: Okay, found it back a post or two] Fine. Can you give me any plausible reason why _Ukraine_ would wish to minimize the health effects of Chernobyl?

You get the last word on that, because we've strayed well away from the topic of the thread (not that I'm surprised that happened, as with any controversial subject). I suggest we take further discussion to PM, because I think we've provided enough info from both sides for people to come to their own conclusions about the safety of nukes (not that I expect anyone's opinion to change).
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

AndyH
Posts: 6384
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Advanced nuclear reactors as part of a low carbon future

Wed Mar 04, 2015 7:55 pm

GRA wrote:Of course data's incomplete, it always is, and that there may be some entities who wish to minimize the severity is easy to believe. That's not the issue, it's whether the missing data would significantly change the results.

<lotsa snips>


Can you give me any plausible reason why _Ukraine_ would wish to minimize the health effects of Chernobyl?

For your first: One cannot judge how the "missing data" would affect the results because they don't have the data. Continuing on, however, I've also provided real-world examples of other areas of the 'human experience' that are being censored or otherwise controlled to protect the profits of multinational corporations, international relations, and national security. In addition, I've given an example of how people with the wherewithal to respond by moving will respond when they know that they're in a dangerous situation and have not a chance at all to either fix the problem or even blow the whistle without being a permanent part of a compost pile.

Nuclear power as we've managed it thus far has a number of serious problems even before it breaks - and as anything else made by imperfect beings it WILL break. Because nuclear power was born from the same highly-controlled national level projects that brought nuclear weapons, and because people and corporations that have enjoyed their status for so long will not easily give it up, it would take a significant revolution in the industry to make it transparent enough.

I'm not saying that there aren't ways to use it, or to improve it, or to evolve it - and ultimately maybe there IS a way to make some type of future-tech reactor part of the solution to our climate problem. But we cannot fix the problems if we refuse to acknowledge that they exist. One might be able to bury themselves deeply enough in peer-reviewed papers so that they forget that the make or break info they need is classified and sitting in a vault somewhere, but it's not a recommended way to evolve.
"The stupid become extinct."-Bill Mollison
2018 Outlander PHEV
2015 smart Electric Drive (lease ended Feb, 2018)
OpenEVSE Plus DIY

AndyH
Posts: 6384
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Advanced nuclear reactors as part of a low carbon future

Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:41 pm

AndyH wrote:
GRA wrote:Coal is a long way from disappearing in China, Andy, nor are nukes.

I didn't say coal was 100% absolutely totally dead, Guy, but it's pretty clearly on its way out. Same for current-tech nukes. It appears that China's economy is starting to turn the corner as well (they're outsourcing some of their production) - when the China bubble pops I expect it'll take much of the old-tech with it.

Fingers crossed.

Image

If there is a “War on Coal”, it’s coming from investors who realize that the era of 19th century energy technology is drawing to a close, and from the Chinese, who realize their system cannot survive continued reliance on poisonous, polluting, water hogging energy.
The numbers tell a grim tale for coal barons.

China’s love affair with coal has come to an abrupt end, with figures released last week showing that consumption fell in 2014 for the first time in 14 years.

A combination of slowing industrial growth and a drive by the government in Beijing finally to take emissions and pollution seriously are the main drivers for the slump in the coal market.

http://climatecrocks.com/2015/03/04/coal-and-the-carbon-bubble/

It's the beginning if the end. You may quote me on that. :P :lol:

Future-tech nukes need to "do more with less" water as well...
"The stupid become extinct."-Bill Mollison
2018 Outlander PHEV
2015 smart Electric Drive (lease ended Feb, 2018)
OpenEVSE Plus DIY

GRA
Posts: 9234
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Advanced nuclear reactors as part of a low carbon future

Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:47 pm

AndyH wrote:<snip>

If there is a “War on Coal”, it’s coming from investors who realize that the era of 19th century energy technology is drawing to a close, and from the Chinese, who realize their system cannot survive continued reliance on poisonous, polluting, water hogging energy.
The numbers tell a grim tale for coal barons.

China’s love affair with coal has come to an abrupt end, with figures released last week showing that consumption fell in 2014 for the first time in 14 years.

A combination of slowing industrial growth and a drive by the government in Beijing finally to take emissions and pollution seriously are the main drivers for the slump in the coal market.

<snip>
It's the beginning if the end. You may quote me on that. :P :lol:

Future-tech nukes need to "do more with less" water as well...

That it's on the way out in the U.S. I have no doubt, although that way out will still take a few decades to complete. As for China, I think the article's being a bit optimistic. As mentioned in the article, China's economic growth slowed last year, and as I've mentioned they've been replacing old, inefficient coal plants with new, more efficient ones (they've had to import coal for some years to meet demand, and the new plants are trying to reduce the need for that), so a temporary downturn isn't unexpected. And they're certainly getting more pressure from the public re air pollution, so that can help. But AFAIA they haven't altered their long-term building plans yet, and while coal will continue to drop in % terms of their electric energy generation, it's on track to continue to increase as far as absolute numbers go. At the moment they're just increasing generation by everything else too - hydro, wind, solar, nukes, NG, and also starting to push efficiency.

As for water, yes, now that there's a design demand to reduce water use, future nuke plants (and all new thermal power plant designs FTM due to Sec. 316(a) of the Clean Water Act) have included that in their design requirements, generally involving a shift from open (once-through) to closed-cycle cooling, as well as other measures. I saw some numbers somewhere on water use reductions on some design of a new plant, but can't for the life of me remember where. I'll look for it, but won't promise any results. In the meantime, here's a good paper to start:

Water Consumption of Energy
Resource Extraction, Processing,
and Conversion
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/fil ... inal-4.pdf

and here's another:
Advanced Cooling Technologies for Water Savings at Coal-Fired Power Plants
http://cornerstonemag.net/advanced-cool ... er-plants/
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 9234
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Advanced nuclear reactors as part of a low carbon future

Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:14 pm

Talk about serendipity - via GCC:
US-China Clean Energy Research Center issues $12.5M solicitation to address the energy-water nexus; $50M effort in all
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/03 ... -cerc.html

Short quote:
Topics covered in the FOA include: water use reduction at thermoelectric plants; treatment & management of non-traditional waters; improving sustainable hydropower design and operation; climate impact modeling, methods, and scenarios to support improved understanding of energy and water systems; and data and analysis to inform planning, policy, and other decisions.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

AndyH
Posts: 6384
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Advanced nuclear reactors as part of a low carbon future

Sun Mar 08, 2015 2:00 pm

When we establish the bounds for "acceptable losses" from power generation, is it best to focus only on mortality rates? Or should quality of life or injury be part of the mix?

I commented earlier on my neighbor from Moldova. I found this today:
http://moldovacc.md/chernobyl/foundation.htm
Unfortunately, any mention of the Chernobyl's negative impact on the human health and environment in Moldova had long been tabooed here. Several doctors confessed to us that they had been forced to sign to remain silent about any data or information, they came into possession of, on the Chernobyl's influence on this republic...

The then authorities, seeking in every possible way to leave the Chernobyl consequences unknown to the public, announced officially that Moldova had remained unaffected by the nuclear accident...

Because of this official silence, the Republic of Moldova was not included (unlike Ukraine, Belarus and Russia) into the programs of help rendered by various international agencies and organizations.

The fruits we are harvesting now are particularly bitter. Of more than 3.5 thousand Moldovan citizens who took a direct part in mitigating the Chernobyl nuclear disaster consequences on the site, many people have already passed away, and the majority of those who are still alive have become invalids. In such a small country as Moldova, there are thousands of adults and children suffering hard, often incurable diseases. Leukemia, cancer diseases, malignant tumors take away many hundreds of human lives every year. The number of children is alarmingly growing who have in-born cardiovascular diseases, diseases of muscular and conjunctive tissues, malfunctioning of the nervous and blood-circulation systems and sensorial organs.



The initial report from Ukraine provides convincing evidence in support of earlier reports of a 5-6 fold radiation-related increase in thyroid cancer among those who were young at the time of the accident and includes individual dose estimates on all subjects. The data show a strong, approximately linear dose-response relationship. Other studies in Ukraine include individuals exposed in utero to radioiodines, who may have a raised risk of thyroid neoplasia. The relationships between radiation and autoimmune thyroiditis, follicular adenoma, hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism have also been assessed. Current efforts utilize national cancer registries for follow-up and various strategies for maintaining contact with these cohorts.

http://chernobyl.cancer.gov/studies.html


Image
http://radioactivity.nsr.go.jp/ja/contents/11000/10349/24/150213_9th_air.pdf

It'll take some time for data from Japan to be gathered and analyzed. Eventually, though, peer-reviewed papers based on the best available information will be published. In the meantime, the future "statistics" are still receiving chronic low-level doses of various substances. Researchers with experience studying effects in the vicinity of Chernobyl are already seeing analogues in Japan. http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=365635#p365635

I agree completely that coal plants should be shut-down. In addition to spreading radioactive material, the carbon, mercury, arsenic, and lead are bioaccumulating right up the food web to humans.




Actually, I not really afraid of death. I just don't want to live like this.



We can do better than this.
"The stupid become extinct."-Bill Mollison
2018 Outlander PHEV
2015 smart Electric Drive (lease ended Feb, 2018)
OpenEVSE Plus DIY

Return to “Environmental Issues”