Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
It would seem that mining uranium at gold-like concentrations will not be economical without breeding, and widespread breeding seems unlikely due to the plutonium issues.
By the time we need to mine uranium at gold like concentrations, such political issues surrounding plutionium are likely to be an afterthought at best. In my opinion, by the time we are mining uranium at such low concetrations, it will be for niche power applications in the depths of space. My suspicion is that we will eventually do solar better than nuclear. Nuclear power is simply a rhetorical tool illustrating why collapse wont happen because of lack of energy because all the technology needed for indefinate energy production is avaliable today with reasonable economics.
In any case, you can just as well breed with thorium with molten salt reactors. Plutonium breeders for power are red-herrings for military purposes to justify reactors designed for producing weapons material. The two most promising candidates for breeder reactors in the 1960's were the molten salt reactor and the liquid metal fast breeder reactors. Why was the molten salt reactor given such short shrift? It is much harder to weaponize in a crisis.
G.4
How much longer will the world's uranium reserves last?
Since uranium is ubiquitous and plentiful in the earth's crust, its availability is determined almost entirely by the willingness to find it. Thus, while today's low uranium cost equates to about 50 years of assured resources (3.1 Mt) using conventional reactors at the current usage rate, a doubling of the market price increases this time roughly ten-fold. In all, conventional estimated resources account for about 250 years' supply (16.2 Mt) at the current consumption rate. This does not include advanced uranium-extraction scenarios (phosphate deposits accounting for 22 Mt, seawater accounting for up to 4000 Mt) that require 10-15 times the current market price.
Current reactor technology is a meaningless yardstick in such scenarios, however, due to its relatively inefficient use of resources. Reactor development has always assumed the need for advanced fuel cycles, even after the discovery of significant uranium deposits around the world allowed a levelling off of the development curve. As low-cost uranium resources dwindle, more fuel-efficient reactors will find a market.
The realm of current technology does permit a significant extension of resources, particularly if high-converter technology like CANDU is exploited to its fullest potential. A 40% improvement in fuel usage is achieved just by replacing an LWR with a CANDU reactor. Alternatively, recycling spent LWR reactor fuel in a CANDU reactor extracts 50% more energy from the original uranium supply. This can be achieved either by extracting the left-over fissile material (uranium and plutonium) from the LWR fuel, or by simply re-engineering the spent fuel to fit into a CANDU reactor without reprocessing (i.e., the DUPIC fuel cycle). See related FAQ for more details.
Even more available than uranium in the earth's crust is thorium (roughly three times the abundance), which can be used in conventional reactors to breed uranium fuel (U-233). Once-through thorium fuel cycles in CANDU, for example, can achieve near-breeder status and almost render uranium availability an irrelevant issue.
Finally, the ultimate in efficient resource usage is the Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR), a technology that creates more fissile fuel than it consumes. Uranium resources can be extended by a factor of 60 - 100 with the widespread use of breeder technology, although the economics will probably first lead to a hybrid arrangement where FBRs synergistically feed high-converter thermal reactors like CANDU.
So, reading that, it would be appear dezakin is correct. _________________ Do not underestimate the difficulties of surviving the transition of peak oil, nor the dangers of global warming. We must embrace nuclear energy and renewables.
Why was the molten salt reactor given such short shrift? It is much harder to weaponize in a crisis.
Be that as it may, I still feel that nuclear-proliferation is an inevitable side effect of wide-spread nuclear power. The list of countries possessing nuclear weapons continues to grow, and it seems ever more likely that somewhere, someone will blow off a nuke or dirty bomb. I believe even the U.S.S.R. lost some plutonium through book-keeping errors. How much worse might that situation become if nuclear know-how spreads into all the developing countries, and some of those regimes collapse, or just screw up? What happens to the North Korean nukes if their system collapses? That doesn't mean massive nuclear is impossible, or should be stopped, but we should be frank about the risks. There is a non-zero risk of a mushroom cloud over New York City.
I also question your rhetorical arguments (mining uranium at the concentration of gold, strip mining the entire crust of the earth for uranium etc.) The calculations per se may be true, and they may be good arguments against doomers who feel we are running out of energy. However, these calculations have no relevance whatsoever to the problems we are faced with in 2005, and in fact, may make those problems worse. After all, why bother conserving energy at all, when we have all the energy we need for a billion years in the earth's crust? Why not increase sprawl, for example, by making houses where you have to drive 5 miles from your bed to the bathroom? No problem, right?... Dezakin says we're drowning in energy, and have no energy problems.
You say: "all the technology needed for indefinate energy production is avaliable today with reasonable economics." So where's the problem, according you? Is peak oil a problem at all? If we can produce as much energy as we want with reasonable economics, why don't we all drive cars that require 500 gallons to the mile? You haven't given any reasons why we shouldn't.
I have been struggling to make the same point you make relentlessly to no avail. We cannot seem to get our arms around the idea that if you increase the total volume of plutonium present and increase its geographic disparate locations even if contained in a so called integral cycle, it is not foolproof. It will find malicious use one way or the other. Once we let this genie out, there is no calling it back. That is the bottom line!!!!
There is also the increase in ever present low-level poisoning that MUST accompany any nuclear scale up.
Or instead of nuclear, we could start conserving energy, and build more wind, solar and hydro plants. A lot smarter. Even if we do get those 20,000 plants up and running, and somehow have enough fuel for them, what are we going to do in 30 years when it's decomissioning time?
Even if we do get those 20,000 plants up and running, and somehow have enough fuel for them, what are we going to do in 30 years when it's decomissioning time?
Or instead of nuclear, we could start conserving energy, and build more wind, solar and hydro plants....
hydro - not much potential in developed nations because they have already built dams in the most promising locations. However, developing nations might build dams
wind/solar - how many windmills and solar panels do you think would be needed to equal just 1 nuke reactor? And keep in mind it's not uncommon for a nuke plant to have multiple reactors...2,4, and yes some even have 6 reactors!
conservation - that's what people usually do when they have no more options available. Conservation == living below your means...people who fall into that category are a minority in a capitalistic society.
There is a non-zero risk of a mushroom cloud over New York City.
Sure. I dont discount risks of nuclear power as non-issues.
But when we put it all into perspective, this risk is likely going to come from countries that have an interest in weapons development orthoganal to their interest in power generation. Similarly, terrorist organizations are much more likely to find weapons grade material much more desirable (and incidentally much more realistic) than trying to divert spent fuel from the process of a once through or breeding fuel cycle. I can detail the reasons if you're curious.
But the benifits are such that we will proceed knowing the risks. We will proceed with nuclear power development even though the general public believes the risks are much larger than they actually are.
Quote:
However, these calculations have no relevance whatsoever to the problems we are faced with in 2005, and in fact, may make those problems worse.
I don't claim that the impact of nuclear fuel avaliability will be able to do anything to aliviate the pressures brought on by a sudden massive recession or depression caused by peaking of global oil production. They only serve to illustrate the folly of the end of civilization nonsense that is consistantly posted again and again here. And while I am flattered that my illustrations may actually influence those in power to make decisions one way or another, I highly doubt that I actually wield that much clout.
If I did, I would use it as a call to institute massive infrastructure development in coal liquefaction plants first to ease the transition when the supply shocks finally come. I would also use my supposed clout to suggest building more nuclear power plants and rigging the game against coal power plants to keep coal cheap for turning into diesel fuel and gasoline... to smooth the economic transition over the years.
But I dont have that sort of clout. Its going to be a bumpy ride, I just don't know how bumpy.
Quote:
Is peak oil a problem at all?
Of course it is. Like the arab oil embargo in spades multiplied by the great depression if it hits hard and fast, and like Japan for the past 15 years if we have plenty of advance warning and do slow infrastructure adjustment.
Quote:
If we can produce as much energy as we want with reasonable economics, why don't we all drive cars that require 500 gallons to the mile? You haven't given any reasons why we shouldn't.
Lets not turn a rather reasonable discussion into strawman games.
Even if we do get those 20,000 plants up and running, and somehow have enough fuel for them, what are we going to do in 30 years when it's decomissioning time?
We extend the licenses for another 30 years.
Sometimes. Typically, we just walk away from the mess.
What a pleasant world it will be with 20,000 new nuclear 'parks' after they are abandoned.
Of course, the land could be used for something else. Perhaps a wind farm, or a solar farm? After decontaminating the construction crews, the post-nuclear generation facilities would serve well.
How much land would 20,000 plants occupy? Has anyone ever heard of a "new" plant being built on the exact same site as an "old" plant? Or is the "old" site so contaminated that the "new" plant needs a "new" site? Is anyone thinking beyond one generation of new Nuclear plants?
What a pleasant world it will be with 20,000 new nuclear 'parks' after they are abandoned.
Of course, the land could be used for something else. Perhaps a wind farm, or a solar farm? After decontaminating the construction crews, the post-nuclear generation facilities would serve well.
How much land would 20,000 plants occupy? Has anyone ever heard of a "new" plant being built on the exact same site as an "old" plant? Or is the "old" site so contaminated that the "new" plant needs a "new" site? Is anyone thinking beyond one generation of new Nuclear plants?
Decommisioning plants is entirely possible. It will be done in Sweden. If the americans are to stupid to do it, then that's their problem.
Your belief that land use is the limiting factor for nuclear power is hillariuos. _________________ Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
France has decommissioned and is decommissioning a number of their oldest reactors. No problem.
Quote:
# Etape 1 : Mise à l'arrêt définitif (MAD) du site. Le combustible est déchargé et les circuits vidangés, ce qui élimine 99,9 % de la radioactivité. Les installations non nucléaires sont mises hors service et les systèmes et matériels non requis pour la sûreté démontés.
# Etape 2 : démantèlement partiel. Démontage des bâtiments non nucléaires. La partie nucléaire est confinée et placée sous surveillance.
# Etape 3 : démantèlement total du site. Le bâtiment du réacteur et les équipements encore radioactifs sont démontés, conditionnés et évacués. Le site devient alors réutilisable.
(Source: EdF)
My translation:
Phase 1: Definitive close-down of the site. The fuel is emptied and the circuits flushed, eliminating 99.9% of the radioactivity. Non-nuclear installations are taken out of service and the systems and materials not needed for safety are dismantled.
Phase 2: Partial decommissioning: non-nuclear buildings are dismantled. The nuclear part is confined and placed under monitoring.
Phase 3: Total decommissiong: The reactor building and equipment which is still radioactive are dismantled, treated and evacuated. The site then becomes reusable.
There are currently 6 reactors well into decommissing: Brennilis (Phase 2 finished last year); Bugey 1 (current state unclear, but phase 3 has probably started); Chinon A1 (Phase 2 finished in 1986, the site is now a museum, reactors Chinon A2 and A3 are in phase 3); Chooz A (phase 2 finished in 2003); Creys-Malville (this is the highly controversial Super-Phénix that the Government ordered closed; the reactor is still in phase 1, but other parts are in phase 2 and 3); St Laurent A (phase 2 was closed last year: a large irradiated graphite store is being decomissioned as part of phase 3 this year). _________________ Devil
Joined: Feb 20, 2005 Posts: 2886 Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
OT:
Could Super-Phénix be restarted, in theory? How far has the dismantling gone? _________________ Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Anything is possible, in theory, but not in practice.
The problem was incessant leaks in the reactor cooling and heat transfer system, outside the reactor. The cooling medium was liquid sodium, which, of course is a highly chemically reactive liquid, although natural sodium has zero radioactivity. It has 10 RA artificial isotopes but all with short lifetimes (the longest is 2.6 years). There was never any danger of RA leaks with Super-Phénix but the Greens in Lyon and Geneva caused so much stink that the French government had to allay the fears of the population by decreeing a shut-down. I'm not sure of the details, but I think the reactor was never taken up to full power. In the few years of "service" it was operational for only a few weeks.
The cooling circuit has certainly been emptied of sodium, now, and all the coolant tanks have been disposed of. _________________ Devil
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
