Expectation Management: Renewables

[Skull Pilot]

Expectation Management: Renewables

Can this back-of-the-envelope calculation be right? Are renewables in reality 13 times more expensive than nuclear?.....

In conclusion, an investment of approximately USD 1,800 bn between 2004 and 2014 (this leaves out hydro) has provided 1.4 percent of world's energy consumption during the same period of time. Calculated from these figures, if the world's entire energy consumption would be supplied by these renewable energy sources (wind, solar and other renewables excluding hydro) the price tag would be around USD 129 trillion.

To put this number in perspective let’s compare it to the massive nuclear power program started in mid 70’s in France, where the country installed 56 reactors over 15 years at an estimated cost of some FF 400bn in 1993 currency, i.e. some EUR 84bn or USD 76 bn today taking inflation into account. As a result of this decision, France now claims a substantial level of energy independence and almost the lowest cost electricity in Europe. It also has an extremely low level of CO2 emissions per capita from electricity generation, since over 90% of its electricity is nuclear or hydro, nuclear’s share being some 75 percent today. If from these figures we calculate an estimate for how much it would cost to build a nuclear infrastructure that supplies 100% of world energy consumption, we end up at a figure of USD 10 trillion. This is based on the cost of France’s nuclear infrastructure (USD 76bn), France’s share of world nuclear consumption (17.2%) and nuclear’s share of world energy consumption (4.4%).

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nuclear Power is safe

Safety of Nuclear Reactors - World Nuclear Association

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is no such thing as nuclear waste

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NUCLEAR WASTE

The Obama administration plans to cut all but the most rudimentary funding to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository and be content to allow spent fuel rods to sit in storage pools and dry casks at reactor sites while the administration devises a new strategy toward nuclear waste disposal.

So is this really the death knell for nuclear power? Not at all, says author William Tucker. The repository at Yucca Mountain was only made necessary by our failure to understand a fundamental fact about nuclear power: There is no such thing as nuclear waste.

Consider:

• Ninety-five percent of a spent fuel rod is plain old Uranium-238, the nonfissionable variety that exists in granite tabletops, stone buildings and the coal burned in coal plants to generate electricity.
• U-238 is 1 percent of the earth's crust; it could be put right back in the ground where it came from.
• Of the remaining 5 percent of a rod, one-fifth is fissionable U-235 -- which can be recycled as fuel; another one-fifth is plutonium, also recyclable as fuel.
• Much of the remaining three-fifths has important uses as medical and industrial isotopes.
• Forty percent of all medical procedures in this country now involve some form of radioactive isotope, and nuclear medicine is a $4 billion business.
• Unfortunately, we must import all our tracer material from Canada, because all of our isotopes have been headed for Yucca Mountain.

What remains after all this material has been extracted from spent fuel rods are some isotopes for which no important uses have yet been found, but which can be stored for future retrieval. France, which completely reprocesses its recyclable material, stores all the unused remains -- from 30 years of generating 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy -- beneath the floor of a single room at La Hague.

So shed no tears for Yucca Mountain, says Tucker. Instead of ending the nuclear revival, it gives us the chance to correct a historical mistake and follow France's lead in developing complete reprocessing for nuclear material.

- See more at: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NUCLEAR WASTE

 

[Asclepias]

I went on a date with this young lady that died of cancer literally 5 months afterward our date due to exposure during the Chernobyl disaster.

 

[RollingThunder]

Nonsensical bullshit created by he nuclear power industry in a futile attempt to save their asses (and their investments). Posted by one of their delusional stooges.

In the real world...

Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive: The Truth About Nuclear Power
Physicians for Social Responsibity

The nuclear industry seeks to revitalize itself by manipulating the public’s concerns about global warming and energy insecurity to promote nuclear power as a clean and safe way to curb emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce dependence on foreign energy resources. Despite these claims by industry proponents, a thorough examination of the full life-cycle of nuclear power generation reveals nuclear power to be a dirty, dangerous and expensive form of energy that poses serious risks to human health, national security and U.S. taxpayers.

Nuclear Power is Dirty

Each year, enormous quantities of radioactive waste are created during the nuclear fuel process, including 2,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste(1) and 12 million cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste(2) in the U.S. alone. More than 58,000 metric tons of highly radioactive spent fuel already has accumulated at reactor sites around the U.S. for which there currently is no permanent repository. Even without new nuclear production, the inventory of commercial spent fuel in the U.S. already exceeds the 63,000 metric ton statutory capacity of the controversial Yucca Mountain repository, which has yet to receive a license to operate. Even if Yucca Mountain is licensed, the Department of Energy has stated that it would not open before 2017.

Uranium, which must be removed from the ground, is used to fuel nuclear reactors. Uranium mining, which creates serious health and environmental problems, has disproportionately impacted indigenous people because much of the world’s uranium is located under indigenous land. Uranium miners experience higher rates of lung cancer, tuberculosis and other respiratory diseases. The production of 1,000 tons of uranium fuel generates approximately 100,000 tons of radioactive tailings and nearly one million gallons of liquid waste containing heavy metals and arsenic in addition to radioactivity.(3) These uranium tailings have contaminated rivers and lakes. A new method of uranium mining, known as in-situ leaching, does not produce tailings but it does threaten contamination of groundwater water supplies.

Serious Safety Concerns

Despite proponents’ claims that it is safe, the history of nuclear energy is marked by a number of disasters and near disasters. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine is one of the most frightening examples of the potentially catastrophic consequences of a nuclear accident. An estimated 220,000 people were displaced from their homes, and the radioactive fallout from the accident made 4,440 square kilometers of agricultural land and 6,820 square kilometers of forests in Belarus and Ukraine unusable. It is extremely difficult to get accurate information about the health effects from Chernobyl. Government agencies in Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus estimate that about 25,000 of the 600,000 involved in fire-fighting and clean up operations have died so far because of radiation exposure from the accident.(4) According to an April 2006 report commissioned by the European Greens for the European Parliament, there will be an additional 30,000 to 60,000 fatal cancer deaths worldwide from the accident.(5)

In 1979, the United States had its own disaster following an accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor in Pennsylvania. Although there were no immediate deaths, the incident had serious health consequences for the surrounding area. A 1997 study found that those people living downwind of the reactor at the time of the event were two to ten times more likely to contract lung cancer or leukemia than those living upwind of the radioactive fallout.(6) The dangers of nuclear power have been underscored more recently by the close call of a catastrophic meltdown at the Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio in 2002, which in the years preceding the incident had received a near-perfect safety score.(3)

Climate change may further increase the risk of nuclear accidents. Heat waves, which are expected to become more frequent and intense as a result of global warming, can force the shut down or the power output reduction of reactors. During the 2006 heat wave, reactors in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Minnesota, as well as in France, Spain and Germany, were impacted. The European heat wave in the summer of 2003 caused cooling problems at French reactors that forced engineers to tell the government that they could no longer guarantee the safety of the country’s 58 nuclear power reactors.(3)

Proliferation, Loose Nukes and Terrorism

The inextricable link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons is arguably the greatest danger of nuclear power. The same process used to manufacture low-enriched uranium for nuclear fuel also can be employed for the production of highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. As it has in the past, expansion of nuclear power could lead to an increase in the number of both nuclear weapons states and ‘threshold’ nuclear states that could quickly produce weapons by utilizing facilities and materials from their ‘civil’ nuclear programs a scenario many fear may be playing out in Iran. Expanded use of nuclear power would increase the risk that commercial nuclear technology will be used to construct clandestine weapons facilities, as was done by Pakistan.

In addition to uranium, plutonium can also be used to make a nuclear bomb. Plutonium, which is found only in extremely small quantities in nature, is produced in nuclear reactors. Reprocessing spent fuel to separate plutonium from the highly radioactive barrier in spent fuel rods, as is being proposed as a ‘waste solution’ under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program, increases the risk that the plutonium can be diverted or stolen for the production of nuclear weapons or radioactive ‘dirty’ bombs. Reprocessing is also the most polluting part of the nuclear fuel cycle. The reprocessing facility in France, La Hague, is the world’s largest anthropogenic source of radioactivity and its releases have been found in the Arctic Circle.

In addition to the threat of nuclear materials, nuclear reactors are themselves potential terrorist targets. Nuclear reactors are not designed to withstand attacks using large aircraft, such as those used on the September 11, 2001.(7) A well-coordinated attack could have severe consequences for human health and the environment. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that a major attack on the Indian Point Reactor in Westchester County, New York, could result in 44,000 near-term deaths from acute radiation sickness and more than 500,000 long-term deaths from cancer among individuals within 50 miles of the reactor.(8)

Nuclear Power Doesn’t Mean Energy Independence

Assertions that nuclear power can lead us to energy independence are incorrect. In 2007, more than 90 percent of the uranium used in U.S. nuclear power reactors was imported.(9) The U.S. only has the ninth largest reasonably assured uranium resources in the world.(10) Most of it is low to medium grade, which is not only more polluting but also less economical than uranium found in other nations. The U.S.’s high-priced uranium resources and world uranium price volatility mean that current dependence on foreign sources of uranium is not likely to change significantly in the future.

One country that the U.S. continues to rely on for uranium is Russia. The Continuing Resolution signed into law in September 2008 extended and expanded the program to import Russian highly enriched uranium that has been down-blended for use in U.S. commercial reactors. This program, which was set to expire in 2013, has been extended through 2020 and expanded to allow more uranium imports per year from Russia. While the program is an important non-proliferation measure (highly enriched uranium can be used to make a nuclear weapon), it means that the U.S. will continue to rely on Russia for a significant amount of uranium for commercial nuclear reactors.

Nuclear is Expensive

In 1954, then Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission Lewis Strauss promised that the nuclear industry would one day provide energy “too cheap to meter.”(5) More than 50 years and tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies later, nuclear power remains prohibitively expensive. Even among the business and financial communities, it is widely accepted that nuclear power would not be economically viable without government support.(11) Despite this poor economic performance, the federal government has continued to pour money into the nuclear industry the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included more than $13 billion in production subsidies, tax breaks and other incentives for nuclear power.

The most important subsidy for the nuclear industry and the most expensive for U.S. taxpayers comes in the form of loan guarantees, which are promises that taxpayers will bail out the nuclear utilities by paying back their loans when the projects fail. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the failure rate for nuclear projects is “very high well above 50 percent.”(12) The nuclear industry is demanding $122 billion in federal loan guarantees for 21 reactors. If these guarantees were authorized, taxpayers would be on the hook for at least $61 billion.

Making the Safe, Sustainable Investment

It is clear that alternatives to fossil fuels must be developed on a large scale. However, nuclear power is neither renewable nor clean and therefore not a wise option. Even if one were to disregard the waste problems, safety risks and dismal economics, nuclear power is both too slow and too limited a solution to global warming and energy insecurity. Given the urgent need to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the long lead times required for the design, permitting and construction of nuclear reactors render nuclear power an ineffective option for addressing global warming.

Taxpayer dollars would be better spent on increasing energy conservation, efficiency and developing renewable energy resources. In fact, numerous studies have shown that improving energy efficiency is the most cost-effective and sustainable way to concurrently reduce energy demand and curb greenhouse gas emissions. Wind power already is less expensive than nuclear power. And while photovoltaic power is currently more expensive than nuclear energy, the price of electricity produced by the sun, as with wind and other forms of renewable energy, is falling quickly. Conversely, the cost of nuclear power is rising.(3,11)

When the very serious risk of accidents, proliferation, terrorism and nuclear war are considered, it is clear that investment in nuclear power as a climate change solution is not only misguided, but also highly dangerous. As we look for solutions to the dual threats of global warming and energy insecurity, we should focus our efforts on improving energy conservation and efficiency and expanding the use of safe, clean renewable forms of energy to build a new energy future for the nation.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sorry you are still wrong.

You cannot solely use cost numbers for outdated light water reactor designs as the future is smaller molten salt reactors which cost far less to build

And Nuclear has a stellar safety record by any and all metrics. Proliferation is an irrational fear as the new designs do not produce any fissile material that can be weaponized and in fact they will use our current nuclear waste stockpile as fuel.

Nuclear is not expensive

The Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry body, says that last year generating electricity from a nuclear plant in America cost on average 2.40 cents per kilowatt-hour ($24/MWh). That is still cheaper than gas- or coal-fired power (see chart 2), but the nuclear average disguises wide variations. The least efficient nuclear plants have higher operating costs per unit of electricity than either coal or gas. Since the main cost of nuclear power is building the reactor in the first place, the narrowing gap in operating costs is ominous for the industry. And American gas prices are still plunging.

We can recycle nuclear waste and get a piece of the multi billion dollar medical isotope industry which we are currently frozen out of because the idiots in congress won't allow it

The numbers are not on your side with the intermittent low density diffuse sources of wind and solar as compared to the energy dense abundant reliable power that nuclear can provide

 

[Skull Pilot]

I went on a date with this young lady that died of cancer literally 5 months afterward our date due to exposure during the Chernobyl disaster.

Rates of cancer in th exclusion zone are no higher than anywhere else in Russia

 

[HenryBHough]

There is nothing more dangerous than dihydrogen oxide.

In its natural state one can easily drown in it.

In its frozen state it's slick and leads to concussions when people fall.

When it's heated sufficiently it can scald if allowed to flow freeely.

But, when heated and confined, it can explode the vessel containing it.

Please let us forever outlaw deadly dihydrogen oxide!

Our lives depend on it.


(think that last line through before making an ass of yourself)

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hard core environmentalists come to their senses and see nuclear power as our best option
Pandora's Promise

 

[Asclepias]

I went on a date with this young lady that died of cancer literally 5 months afterward our date due to exposure during the Chernobyl disaster.

Rates of cancer in th exclusion zone are no higher than anywhere else in Russia

OK

 

[Skull Pilot]

I went on a date with this young lady that died of cancer literally 5 months afterward our date due to exposure during the Chernobyl disaster.

Rates of cancer in th exclusion zone are no higher than anywhere else in Russia

Go ahead and look it up or watch the documentary I linked

 

[Skull Pilot]

I went on a date with this young lady that died of cancer literally 5 months afterward our date due to exposure during the Chernobyl disaster.

Rates of cancer in th exclusion zone are no higher than anywhere else in Russia

OK

Look it up or watch the documentary i linked

You will see that people and wildlife are thriving in the so called hot zone this very day

 

[Skull Pilot]

Environmental scientists tout nuclear power to avert climate change - CNN.com

For more on the future of nuclear power as a possible solution for global climate change, watch CNN Films' presentation of "Pandora's Promise," Thursday, November 7, at 9 p.m. ET/PT.

(CNN)Four top environmental scientists raised the stakes Sunday in their fight to reverse climate change and save the planet.

Climate and energy scientists James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley have released an open letter calling on world leaders to support development of safer nuclear power systems.

Wait -- pro-nuclear environmentalists? Isn't that an oxymoron? Apparently, not so much anymore.

Embracing nuclear is the only way, the scientists believe, to reverse the looming threat of climate change which they blame on fossil fuels. Depending who you ask, they're either abandoning -- or leading -- traditional environmentalists who for a half-century have rejected clean-burning nuclear power as too expensive or too dangerous. Opponents cite disasters at Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile island.

The fear is that time is running out. Without nuclear, the scientists believe global energy consumption will overtake the planet's ability to reverse the buildup of carbon dioxide pollution from burning oil, coal and other fossil fuels. At risk, said Hansen, are disintegrating polar ice sheets and rising sea levels which will threaten coastal regions.

The letter is among the scientists' strongest public statements backing nuclear power. It also comes as CNN plans to air "Pandora's Promise," a documentary about environmentalists and longtime nuclear opponents who've done complete 180s on nukes.

By releasing the letter, the scientists are "putting their reputations on the line to do something that the ultra-greens regard as treason," said Stanford University Nobel-winning physicist Burton Richter.

Nuclear power is burgeoning in some parts of the world and shrinking in others. Asia is embracing it -- except Japan -- which is still struggling to figure out how to safely deal with the dangerously radioactive Fukushima nuclear power plant.

The Japanese disaster left Germany so unnerved that they've chosen to phase out their 17 nuclear facilities by 2022.

"We've got four top guns in the environmental movement telling [German Chancellor] Angela Merkel, 'You're wrong to shut down nuclear,'" said Richter. "I think that's a relatively big deal."

Are we witnessing the birth of a mutiny within the environmental movement? Will typical 21st-century environmentalists eventually embrace the power of the atom? A leading environmental group opposed to nuclear power says no.

"I don't think it's very significant that a few people have changed their minds about nuclear power," said Ralph Cavanagh of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Nuclear fuel may burn cleaner, the NRDC says, but comes with too many safety issues and too high of a price tag.

The letter admits "today's nuclear plants are far from perfect." However, "... there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power."

Read the letter

The four scientists say they have no connection to"Pandora's Promise," which blames resistance to nuclear energy on groundless fears rooted in the Cold War, Chernobyl in 1986 and 1979's Three Mile Island.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nuclear scare stories are a gift to the truly lethal coal industry | George Monbiot

 

[Asclepias]

I went on a date with this young lady that died of cancer literally 5 months afterward our date due to exposure during the Chernobyl disaster.

Rates of cancer in th exclusion zone are no higher than anywhere else in Russia

OK

Look it up or watch the documentary i linked

You will see that people and wildlife are thriving in the so called hot zone this very day

Thats ok. I have first hand knowledge. I dont need to see any propaganda trying to convince me otherwise.

 

[skookerasbil]

Im laughing.............

Renewable energy is going to be laughable for decades.

30 years from now, China will be using 50% more coal than NOW!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

I went on a date with this young lady that died of cancer literally 5 months afterward our date due to exposure during the Chernobyl disaster.

Rates of cancer in th exclusion zone are no higher than anywhere else in Russia

OK

Could be elevated rates from Chernobyl.. But they would so ethereally mathematical that you couldn't attribute individual cases. In the USA -- the 2nd highest cause of lung cancer is Radon gas. Estimated kill rate over 100,000 per year (again -- no individual names attached).. And we do virtually NOTHING about that radiation other than sell test kits at Home Depot..

Way I look at it. You'd have to have alien technology to beat running your entire house on just 0.7 ounces of waste a year. The weight of a "AA" battery.. Surely we can deal with that..

 

[Skull Pilot]

I went on a date with this young lady that died of cancer literally 5 months afterward our date due to exposure during the Chernobyl disaster.

Rates of cancer in th exclusion zone are no higher than anywhere else in Russia

OK

Look it up or watch the documentary i linked

You will see that people and wildlife are thriving in the so called hot zone this very day

Thats ok. I have first hand knowledge. I dont need to see any propaganda trying to convince me otherwise.

One anecdotal case

Yeah that's scientific

Chernobyl's Harm Was Far Less Than Predicted, U.N. Report Says

I think I'll take the 600 page report over the "I knew a girl" evidence