Why going nuclear is only a short term solution

undine · Coal Joined: Jun 10, 2006 Posts: 1

There's been some debate on this board about the likely lifetime of the nuclear energy option.

This is an excerpt from a paper by Paul Mobbs published in the Oxford Energy Forum which covers the issues very concisely (with good references) . If you're unsure about impacts of fast breeder reactors or want to links to credible information see the link below.

In brief:

"It was highlighted in OECD research six years ago, which noted that if the nuclear option were adopted without a radical change in technology then known uranium supplies would only last 'about a decade' ".

A longer excerpt:

'The Lifetime of Uranium Resources"

"The nuclear industry often expresses the contribution of nuclear energy in terms of electricity generation, but it's more realistic to look at its contribution in terms of global energy supply. This is because, as fossil fuels become scarce, nuclear energy would have to displace the energy currently supplied by fossil fuels. Although nuclear energy provides 16% of the world's electricity supply, recent estimates put the contribution to the world's total energy supply at between 6.1% and 6.6%."

"At the current level of uranium consumption (67,000 tonnes per year) known uranium resources (2.8 million tonnes of uranium) would last 42 years – a fact highlighted by the European Commission in their Energy Green Paper. The known and estimated resources plus secondary resources (such as the military inventory), a total of around 4.8 million tonnes, would last 72 years."

"Of course this assumes that nuclear continues to provide just a fraction of the world's energy supply. If capacity were increased six-fold then 72 years would reduce to 12 years. This is because nuclear energy, in terms of global energy supply, must increase by a factor of four to eight to make any significant difference to the use of fossil fuels around the globe. Consequently the expected lifetime of the uranium resource would fall by a similar factor."

"The actual lifetime of the uranium resource will depend upon the technologies adopted as part of any new nuclear capacity. New reactor designs are more thermally efficient (up to 45% to 50% rather than 30% to 35%) which could extend the lifetime of the uranium resource by a factor of 1.7. Introducing a number of fast breeder reactors, to increase the efficiency of uranium consumption, might increase the lifetime of the uranium resource by a factor of 2. Even so, taking these two factors together alongside a six-fold increase in capacity, the lifetime of the known and estimated uranium resource would still be less than 50 years."

"This stark problem, if one reads many papers on uranium resources produced by the nuclear industry, is an issue that is recognised but seldom explored. It was highlighted in OECD research six years ago, which noted that if the nuclear option were adopted without a radical change in technology then known uranium supplies would only last 'about a decade'. The recent MIT study briefly acknowledges the matter but, perhaps due to the USA's large indigenous uranium reserves, discards it. "

"Others have acknowledged the short term problems of capacity in the uranium industry, especially the problems that might arise if mining capacity does not expand before the military inventory is exhausted, but do not look to the longer-term lifetime of the resource."

"A very few portray a wholly unrealistic scenario, that forecasts hundreds or thousands of years of nuclear energy. This is because they do not take into account the need for the nuclear industry to grow massively in order to displace fossil fuel use, or that a significant part of the globe's entire theoretical supply of uranium may be unusable (because its extraction and use would take more energy than it would provide)."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published in Oxford Energy Forum May 2005, refer:

http://www.fraw.org.uk/mobbsey/papers/oies_article.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

EnergyUnlimited · Fission Joined: May 15, 2006 Posts: 2911

I have one problem with respect to your projected impact of fast breeder reactors.
You say that this would increase lifetime of supplies by factor of 2.
I cannot understand this assertion.
As we know, in natural uranium we have 2 major isotopes: Non fissile U-238 (99.3%) and fissile U-235 (0.7%).
In fast breeders U-238 is converted to fissile plutonium (Pu-239) and more Pu-239 is formed than amount of U-235 used.
Plutonium may then be used as alloy with U-238 or as mixed oxides (UO2/PuO2). Such a fuel fed to fast breeder process will produce MORE fissile Pu-239, than amount consumed. From time to time spent fuel reprocessing will be needed due to build up of fission products of high neutrons cross-section coefficient. They harm chain reaction process by absorbing neutrons and must be remooved for reaction to proceed.

As it is easy to see fast breeders would extend (in theory) life time of fuel supply by factor of 142 (100/0.7=142).
If you take into account inevitable losses during reprocessing you will end up with factor of ca. 70.

This mean: Fast breeders will allow to use existing supplies of uranium besed nuclear fuel for 70 TIMES LONGER< THAN CONVENTIONAL (AND WASTEFUL) LIGHT WATER REACTORS.

You have also forgotten, than we have also thorium (Th-232), three times as abundand as uranium is.
This thorium can also be converted in process very similar to fast breeder into fissile uranium (U-233). This isotope of uranium hardly exists in nature.
Having 3 times more thorium than uranium and assuming similar efficiency as in the case of uranium-plutonium process we have 3 x70=210 times as much nuclear fuel as wastefull light water process would allow.

This mean, that fast breeding technology could practically increase supply of nuclear fuel by factor of 70+210=280 times!

Could you explain from where you had taken factor of 2 if realistic factor is 280 please?
If you forget thorium this factor is still 70.
It looks like more than 2 orders of magnitude error Razz

rwwff

When opponents of nuclear power suggest it will only give us fifty years of power, I think that means that nuclear's a winner.

Its still not a forever fix. I'm not sure if there is such a thing as a forever fix; but there are all kinds of good things that could happen with a reliable fifty year supply of electricty.

Fortunately, I think the greens have finally realized that they've lost this argument and these plants are going to be built. So whether its fifty years or five hundred years; it is definately worth doing.

Regardless, I do still remain pessimistic about the GW side of the debate, as well as the end point transition from these power sources we know and love.

The_Virginian · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Jun 19, 2004 Posts: 1422

http://www.thoriumpower.com/files/latest%20news/Extract%20from%20FCW%2016-May-06.pdf

Looks like USA/ Russia are Nixing anything but "lightwater" becuase of nuclear proliferation, and cost factor fears.

Thorium needs "enrichment" from other sources to become U-233

"As noted on January 6th, Congress had directed DOE to discontinue the thorium extraction portion of the project and provide a report on future U-233 management. This report was completed in February and states that the project design will be modified to eliminate thorium extraction (if possible) and that the resulting down-blended material will be packaged for disposal as transuranic waste..."

http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/
_________________
Eickhorn Daggers!
www.pistolanddagger.com

Declan

clv101

Why Nuclear Power Cannot Be A Major Energy Source

Nuclear power promises much. It is based on a process which does not produce carbon dioxide. It is produced in a relatively small number of very large plants, so that it fits easily onto the national grid. And there is even the theoretical prospect of it being able to breed its own fuel. So, what's the problem?

This document, written by David Fleming, was published by Feasta in collaboration with the New Economics Foundation. It can be read in html format here [400KB pdf]
_________________
"Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen." The Emperor (Return of the Jedi)
The Oil Drum: Europe

Tanada

Heineken

Nuclear power plants won't solve the real energy problem, which is the looming shortage of affordable, portable liquid fuels. All they really do is substitute for coal, which is good with respect to global warming, but largely irrelevant to the liquid-fuel problem.

The economic crises that PO is likely to bring on may render the planned orgy of nuclear-power-plant building academic. My guess is that we're not going to be able to afford to plan, build, operate, and maintain very many more of these fantastically complex castles of technology.

The radioactive-waste-disposal problem still hasn't been solved, and IMO offsets the environmental benefits with respect to GW.

Powering down and scaling down is the only rational course, and the one that we'll ultimately be forced kicking and screaming to take.
_________________
"Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog

"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---Me and my brother

EnergyUnlimited · Fission Joined: May 15, 2006 Posts: 2911

EnergyUnlimited · Fission Joined: May 15, 2006 Posts: 2911

XOVERX · Heavy Crude Joined: Apr 18, 2006 Posts: 175

My view is that the world has no choice except to build nukes. We have got to extend dependable electricity as far out as possible. So we can to buy time to find a solution to the energy problem.

There may not be a "solution" in the energy future, I understand; nonetheless, we have got to try to find one if the trajectory of civilization as we know it is to continue for our children. Nukes must be part of the pattern when oil reaches serious depletion.

Extremely intelligent computers will be coming on-line in the very near term, and perhaps they will solve the most difficult mathematics that leads to breakthroughs to the energy problem.

While I understand the very real dangers associated with nukes -- and expect some of the horrors of nuclear to manifest themselves in the future -- from all I can tell, nukes are a dependable bandaid to generate electricity, and so, I say build them as quickly as possible.

To ignore nuclear is to surrender technology, which I am not prepared to do.

Andy · Intermediate Crude Joined: May 16, 2004 Posts: 519

This argument comes down to one's philosophy regarding sustainability. The nuclear zealots conveniently try to portray nuclear as our only large scale source of carbon free electricity when looking up every day on a bright sunny morning proves that patently false. They also downplay the fact that the technologies that would be needed for breeding, using thorium etc. have not yet been validated in reality at scale and will not be cheaper than already existing renewable alternatives like wind. I also have issues with the health effects of day to day operation in addition to long term problems though many will argue otherwise.

The waste problem despite the claims of the industry has not been acceptably proven to be sorted out. Even in the case of breeders and reprocessing, there is a lot of intermediate level waste, particularly in soluble liquid form that is generated and needs to be acceptably handled. This waste also tends to be greater in volume than the original volume of high level waste. Mining thorium will exacerbate the waste issues just as mining uranium had.

There are the issues of dealing with the low-level waste of a decommissioned plant; the fact that the plants, despite claims of safe operation use the process of fission, implying a concentration of poisonous nuclides which by any of three means, plant malfunction, sabotage [war or terrorism] or natural disasters (flooding, earthquakes, volcanoes etc.) may escape into the environment. (In other words, no matter how safe a plant is designed and operated, guaranteed prevention of escape of large amount of poisonous radionuclides to the environment is IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!! In my opinion, nothing short of that goal is acceptable when other technologies exist without such grave issues)

Despite all these problems however, owing to the fact that the technology has military applications, the powers that be will do whatever to ensure that they still have access and experience with the technology and hence we will subsidize unprofitable, unhealthy, and risky nuclear applications versus the more pragmatic efficiency and the appropriate portfolio of renewables.
_________________
For ionizing radiation “…the human epidemiological evidence establishes—by any reasonable standard of proof—that there is no safe dose or dose-rate…the safe-dose hypothesis is not merely implausible—it is disproven.” Dr. J.W. Gofman 4

Andy · Intermediate Crude Joined: May 16, 2004 Posts: 519

Just as a point of reference, the prototype wave power plants now are already generating electricity in the range of 10 - 12 US c/KWH, way better than wind at a similar stage of development. There are people now quoting concentrating solar power using gallium cell prices installed of US 3$/W working out to less than US 10c/KWH in good solar areas. Anyone familiar with PV technology should know that there are technologies right now in prototype manufacturing that will drive the price of flat panel PV down into the $3 - $4 per Watt range installed equating to 10c/KWH or less in good areas. This cost displaces retail electricity which sells for on average 8 - 10 c/KWH worldwide.

When OTEC, concentrating solar thermal, wind, efficient biofuels, micro hydro, geothermal, residential solar thermal and efficiency are considered, it becomes clear that nuclear is unecessary if at the political level the decision is made to support the alternatives.
_________________
For ionizing radiation “…the human epidemiological evidence establishes—by any reasonable standard of proof—that there is no safe dose or dose-rate…the safe-dose hypothesis is not merely implausible—it is disproven.” Dr. J.W. Gofman 4

gego · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Mar 03, 2005 Posts: 1334

Clouseau2