"New Nuclear Reactor every 2 days is not feasible"

[Deeg]

@qazwart

*…and we still have no idea where to store the radioactive wastes.

We have a very good idea for storing radioactive waste–Yucca Mountain.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Leaffan]
Before construction can be granted to nuclear power plants, all decommissioning plans and costs must be in place approved by the nuclear regulator.
[/QUOTE]

And those costs are also factored into the price per kilowatt and the total budget for the plant. It’s not like they just go ‘well, guess we are done with the power plant now. Good luck guys, we’re out of here!’.

The nuclear industry is one of the safest and most regulated of all industries. Yes, there have been disasters, and yes the industry learns from these, just as the airline industry learned from their disasters over the years.

Exactly. And the disasters have been pretty few and far between, and generally have brought about new and tighter regulation when they happened (leaving aside Chernobyl, since I’m fairly sure we already knew not to shut down all the safety systems and then do a stress test on the system to see what would happen :p).

[tracer]

@Dr.Strangelove

There is a big difference between a nuclear plant and a nuclear reactor. A single reactor produces about a gigawatt, so we want about 8000 reactors. But most plants have multiple reactors; as many as 7. This might well go higher if we were trying to place large numbers of new reactors.

Plus … wasn’t Cecil/Nocera basing his numbers on the efficiency of nuclear power plants currently in operation?

Somewhere I read that a breeder reactor could get 100 times as much energy per kilogram of uranium ore than a conventional light-water reactor could. (This assumes that the U-238 that doesn’t make the cut during the enrichment process for the light-water reactor is just thrown away.)

And, heck, even an Advanced CANDU reactor can get away with less-enriched uranium fuel.

[Dr.Strangelove]

@tracer

Somewhere I read that a breeder reactor could get 100 times as much energy per kilogram of uranium ore than a conventional light-water reactor could. (This assumes that the U-238 that doesn’t make the cut during the enrichment process for the light-water reactor is just thrown away.)

That’s true, but it just means that our uranium reserves last that much longer. The breeder reactors themselves actually tend to have lower power outputs than light water reactors (though this is probably because they’re mostly prototypes). So unfortunately, it doesn’t help with the actual construction of so many reactors. That said, there are other technologies like LFTR that might help in this regard.

[Chronos]

Quoth qazwart:

And, then there’s the real world examples of what happens when things don’t quite go right with nuclear power plants. When a regular power plant blows up, the damage is quite localized, and rebuilding can take place almost immediately. When a nuclear power plant goes, the damage is widespread and long lasting. In Ukraine, the exclusion zone covers over 1000 square miles, and may be in effect for 180 to 350 years. And, don’t forget the continent wide economic damage to Europe as the cloud of radioactive particles rained down upon the soil in Finland and Scandinavia.

Chernobyl wasn’t an example of “things not quite going right”. Chernobyl was an example of doing everything conceivable and a good many things inconceivable to make things as unsafe as humanly possible. XT actually falls well short of the mark when he says “… shut down all the safety systems and then do a stress test on the system to see what would happen”, since he leaves out “while neglecting to tell the current shift on duty that you’re doing so”, and doesn’t mention that this is all being done on a reactor that’s inherently unstable and was deliberately built using flammable materials instead of cheaper and more efficient options, and all without any sort of containment structure. Chernobyl was truly stupendous in its monumental stupidity.

[AK84]

So apparently the only thing they forgot to do was to ask the VVS (Sov Air force) to bomb the plant.

[Lumpy]

One of the all-time design flaw fails had to be control rods tipped with graphite- a moderator- that would momentarily boost the reaction as they were inserted.:smack:

[Irishman]

@Chronos

… and doesn’t mention that this is all being done on a reactor that’s inherently unstable and was deliberately built using flammable materials instead of cheaper and more efficient options, …

Wait, what?

[Chronos]

One of the major aspects of the Chernobyl disaster was a graphite fire. Graphite was used because it works pretty well as a moderator. But do you know what works even better as a moderator, and which is used at pretty much all reactors in the First World? Water.

No, I don’t know why the Russians didn’t use water, either.

[DHMO]

@Habeed

I have to take issue with this blanket statement. In the hypothetical future world of 2050 described, education and industrialization has spread world-wide, and there is now a market of 9 billion consumers, many of whom hold useful skills, who demand Poland-level amounts of energy per-capita.
This is a straight economics question. Right now, fully loaded nuclear reactors have a drawback - they are expensive.[…]
Neverthless, at current prices, it’s only 1.5% of the global economy, so the world could afford to spend quite a bit more money. In fact, if you think about it, if we had a world with 9 billion people, a good chunk of them educated as STEM workers, I think we could probably devise a way to give everyone a lifestyle closer to that of a high end first world country.
[…] However, that isn’t the point : I’m saying that Cecil’s argument is complete malarky. For the nations of the world that have the technical skill, we could in fact run everything using nuclear power. It would probably be more expensive than the methods we use now, and there’s the nasty fact that with this many power reactors (we are talking about thousands, eventually tens of thousands of them) meltdowns will be a common occurence, but basic reasoning says it could be done this way.[…]

The main thrust behind the referenced columns is NOT that we would not have the resources [money, raw material, educated workers or whatever] to construct and commission the 8 terawatts of power which, under extremely [FONT=Trebuchet MS]optimistic [/FONT]projections, would be enough to provide the world with a minimal standard of living [comparable to Poland in 2011]. He is stating, quite succinctly, that the world does not have the political will to embrace nuclear power to the extent required to bring that many plants online in such a short timeframe.

@Habeed

Exact quote :
*But in Nocera’s analysis, just to keep up with expected demand over the next 40 years we’d have to open an additional nuclear power plant every two days.
5. Not going to happen, obviously.
*I suggest you read the linked articles, and read posts in their entirety before making uninformed comments. I specifically also mention that this is a fantasy world, as established in Cecil’s premise. Cecil is assuming we need as much energy per capita as Poland. Given that assumption, the world must be making the GDP of Poland, and sufficient nuclear reactors to generate enough power is affordable. (but probably not the optimal solution)

His comments are certainly NOT “uninformed.” The response was manifestly on-point that the column made no [FONT=Trebuchet MS]reference [/FONT]to the commissioning of that many nuclear reactors is “not feasible.”

@Habeed

That doesn’t say we can’t do it, it just says we won’t. There is a reason for this, and I quoted in the OP. Nuclear is expensive per KwH, and is very, very, very expensive upfront.

@Habeed

Given the context, if you don’t assume Cecil meant “not feasible”, his article does not make any sense.

It makes all the sense in the world to interpret those columns to mean that the world is not going to construct enough energy-producing plants, from whatever source, to meet the needs of even a minimally-affluent global society in the next half-century, even if we exploit every possible alternative to fossil fuels we have [FONT=Trebuchet MS]available [/FONT]to us today.

[Habeed]

@DHMO

His comments are certainly NOT “uninformed.”

Your comment is also uninformed. Think about it for a moment. The scenario is, it’s 2040 and we are out of other good options to generate energy.

“Political will” is one thing when we can get our energy somewhere else. It’s something entirely different than when it’s nuclear or starve to death. (at a world population of 9 billion, vast quantities of nitrate fertilizers have to be made artificially, costing energy)

[sevenwood]

@Habeed

Your comment is also uninformed. Think about it for a moment. The scenario is, it’s 2040 and we are out of other good options to generate energy… It’s something entirely different than when it’s nuclear or starve to death.

I have to ask where you’re getting that scenario from, because it doesn’t synch with everybody else’s.

For example (and just using one alternative energy source),the EIA department of the USA’s Department of Energy is currently forecasting US recoverable coal resources to last the USA for the next 196 years (and international coal reserves to last 129 years).

Is coal a particularly good energy option? No, but if our political choice is mining existing coal reserves or pouring a significant amount of the country’s economy into building that many nuclear power plants, which choice do you think folks are going to make?

[Spiff]

@Deeg

We have a very good idea for storing radioactive waste–Yucca Mountain.

I can’t tell if you are being serious or not.

Because there is no place on earth where anyone can store radioactive waste for the thousands of years that are required to keep it contained.

I could go into great detail, but I’ll just ask you this: What material do you propose to use to encase this radioactive waste that will last for even 500 years, not to mention a few thousand?

[Deeg]

I am completely serious. Storing highly toxic waste in a single, well protected area is way better than what we do now: spew the pollution into the air and water.

[TimeWinder]

@Spiff

What material do you propose to use to encase this radioactive waste that will last for even 500 years, not to mention a few thousand?

A few billion tons of stone…incidentally, the same thing that’s storing most of the earth’s radioactive materials now.

[Irishman]

I suppose throwing it down a subduction fault to press it back into the mantle wouldn’t work.

[FXMastermind]

Deep burial works just fine. But nobody wants to actually bury spent fuel rods. The material in them is far too valuable.

[drewder]

My physics professor, whose PhD was in nuclear physics, in college suggested there was a way to pelletize the waste and incase it in a ceramic casing that would survive a volcano. She also said they would be great if you dropped one in your water heater cause you would get free hot water, after all if there is energy being released then why not use it. Also a lot of the waste that comes out of a plant isn’t really waste it’s stuff that has been around radiation, gloves and what have you, so called low level radioactive waste which really is only treated special due to it’s origins. A cinderblock is made from the stuff they scrape off smokestacks after burning coal. The trick is that many sources of coal have uranium in them so cinderblocks would read as hot as the llrw does.

[Spiff]

@Deeg

I am completely serious. Storing highly toxic waste in a single, well protected area is way better than what we do now: spew the pollution into the air and water.

You didn’t answer my question.

[Deeg]

We bury it under tons of earth, rock, and glass. Could it eventually become a hazard? Sure, but CO2 is a major hazard right now.

Spiff, are you expecting your energy source to be completely hazard free?