# Still support nuke power plants? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 14, 2011, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647 "2011-03-14T11:56:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 29
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/561 "2011-03-20T04:59:12Z")
> [@matt](#): > > Radiation and “radioactive contamination” has been measured at the reactor site, in the evacuation zone, in the surrounding town, in Tokyo and across the Pacific. In Part 1 I explained how the reactors are having to periodically vent steam to keep cool, and that since the fuel rods have very likely overheated and been damaged, that steam will contain radioactive fission by-products. We can identify these elements in incredibly small amounts, which means the press will be reporting “contamination” all around the world for quite some time. > > The problems with the reactors seem to be under control for the moment. This is partly because the reactors are generating much less heat now and partly because some power is coming back on line, restoring the ability to circulate cooling water rather than just boil it off and vent the steam. The dreaded “meltdown” Three Mile Island style has been avoided, although with hindsight it probably would have been better in the long run to drain all the water after the first couple of hours (where the decay heat would have dropped about sevenfold) and then let the meltdowns happen. > > The spent fuel pools are a seperate matter. These are large deep “swimming pools” full of spent fuel rods still giving off decay heat, and they are each on top of a sort of concrete cube that comprises the Mark I reactor building. The pools were roofed over by a steel-frame-and-cladding structure that has basically been blown to shit on reactors 1, 3 and 4. The pools are essentially sitting in the open. > > The fuel rods are normally under a deep layer of water, which is kept circulating to maintain a temperature down at around 30 deg C. However, circulation requires power and there hasn’t been any, so these pools have been slowly getting hotter. Additionally some water may have slopped out during the earthquake, and the hydrogen explosions may have blasted away some more. As the water level in those pools drops through evaporation, the upper ends of the fuel rods become exposed. Depending how long it’s been since they were pulled from a reactor, the exposed rods will get hot, possibly hot enough to rupture their zirconium claddings and so dump the same fission products into the remaining pool water, as described in part 1 for the reactor cooling water. If the fuel pools drain completely, there is a risk that the rods will get up to a white heat and the zirconium cladding will catch fire, sending heavy fission products into the atmosphere. That would be a true, Chernobyl-level contamination disaster, and something of the kind was feared to have happened at reactor building 4 after the fires there. > > However, more recent reports tell a slightly different and less alarming story. The fire at building 4 was not at the fuel pool and did not directly involve the fuel rods, but nevertheless it was asociated with a large increase in the measured radiation level. The fire was reported to be an oil fire in a circulation pump. The circulation pumps are deliberately kept above the level of the fuel pools so that if the circulation loop was ruptured by the fire, the pool wouldn’t drain, but nevertheless, any water in that loop and pump, and any accumulation of radioactive material within that pump during its years of service, would have been released by the fire. Additionally, while the fuel pool at building 4 was not empty, it was certainly low and the exposed rod ends would have heated up considerably. Not necessarily enough to melt, since the fuel rods had been cooling for some time, but maybe enough to rupture their claddings and let the more volatile contaminants escape. > > The fuel pools have been topped up by long-range fire hose and helicopter and their temperatures are being monitored at reactor buildings 1, 2 and 3. They have never reached boiling point at those buildings and probably never allowed their rods to become exposed. Reactor building 4 is something of an unknown - the building has been extensively damaged and there were fears that its fuel pool was cracked and empty. It has been reported that in fact the pool’s steel lining is intact and that it still held water at the time that the helicopters were dumping into it, but there’s no temperature data (sensor presumably lost) and no direct observation of the water level. > > The majority of the high radiation levels reported on the site are probably due to the reactor building 4 fire, the reactor building 4 low-water event in its fuel pool, and the torus rupture of reactor 2. Radioactive material has been distributed over the site. Measured radiation levels have been dropping quite rapidly suggesting that short-lived isotopes are responsible for the most part. > > There’s not really enough data to predict what the health consequences of this will be, especially since it still isn’t even over yet. ``` Are you suggesting that because we can measure radiation in small amounts, we should dismiss them as irrelevant. The fact that they are spreading all over is a cause of alarm. It would also tell you that closer ,they are much worse. ``` And as usual, the company is hiding information and lying to the public. They do not know the pool is intact. if it were they would not have to endlessly pump it full of water. The level is normally 30 feet over the rods. It has been reported many times that the tank is not holding water. Many experts have been saying the water levels are low or gone . [http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=16126](http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=16126) Americas expert info. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/562 "2011-03-20T05:04:06Z")
It’s not just the company. The US is complicit in this, as is the Japanese government, and anyone else in on it. CNN (turns head and spits) and every other bunch of corporate whores are also either fools or liars, since not one of them ever asked the question, or pointed out the obvious. They may actually believe what they are saying, or they are just good actors. Or good whores. But none of them ever acted like a reporter or a news agency in all this. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/563 "2011-03-20T05:04:52Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It doesn’t seem that the neutron saturated steam corresponds to the radiation that is being detected. At least now they have water canons that can hit the buildings. I left out that they were going to change from (I hope I remembered this right) building 4 to building 3. Whatever the correct number it appears they are still doing triage with open sources of water. The cores are damaged so there are certainly fission products in the steam now, not just neutron activation. And yes, triage is probably not too strong a term. Contrary to what some people may think, I don’t want to trivialise what’s happening. I just think the discussion should be reasonably technically informed, rather than rants based on what someone imagines a drone may have filmed and is now being covered up, which itself was based on a paraphrase of one niche news source citing The Manichai Daily news, citing un-named sources. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/564 "2011-03-20T05:09:10Z")
> [@matt](#): > > …The fire was reported to be an oil fire in a circulation pump. … Perplexed. The radiation that the circulating oil is exposed to is so intense, it renders that very oil a rad-hazard? Such that burned and dispersed, the oil is so radionasty, it raises the measurable radiation to an alarming degree? That seems out of proportion to me. Surely, they listen to those brothers on _Reactor Talk_, discussing the importance of changing your oil? But seriously folks, either the oil is exposed to an amazingly radioactive environment, or the oil is there for a _loooooong_ time. Otherwise, doesn’t seem like a small amount of oil could absorb enough radioactivity such that its sudden release would be so dramatic. Probably missing something. Advise. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/565 "2011-03-20T05:11:20Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Are you suggesting that because we can measure radiation in small amounts, we should dismiss them as irrelevant. No, just that a _small amount_ of radation IS irrelevant as a health concern. > [@gonzomax](#): > > The fact that they are spreading all over is a cause of alarm. It would also tell you that closer ,they are much worse. Agreed. > [@gonzomax](#): > > And as usual, the company is hiding information and lying to the public. > They do not know the pool is intact. if it were they would not have to endlessly pump it full of water. The level is normally 30 feet over the rods. It has been reported many times that the tank is not holding water. Many experts have been saying the water levels are low or gone . > [http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=16126](http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=16126) Americas expert info. Lying, being wrong, and being optimistic are different things. They are not pumping the pool full of water, they are spraying a great big arcing jet of water onto the top of the building, which still has a partial roof, and hoping some goes in. Otherwise you are correct - pool 4 is an unknown and the company should say that. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/566 "2011-03-20T05:11:39Z")
Since you want to play the expert, how much concrete blocks gamma radiation? What happens to the temperature of concrete when exposed to gamma rays? What happens to metal when exposed to gamma radiation. Does gamma radiation obey the inverse square rule? (yes) Can you detect gamma radiation by it’s effect on matter? Is it possible to fly an aircraft through a cloud and sample the air? And then analyze the air sample to tell not only the molecules in it, but the amount of each element in the air sample? Those sort of technical details will help. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/567 "2011-03-20T05:27:21Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > But seriously folks, either the oil is exposed to an amazingly radioactive environment, or the oil is there for a _loooooong_ time. Otherwise, doesn’t seem like a small amount of oil could absorb enough radioactivity such that its sudden release would be so dramatic. > > Probably missing something. Advise. Pretty much agree. The oil itself could not have been the source of radiation during the fire. Some spent fuel pool water might have resided within the pump, or the oil fire might have been started by heat from the exposed ends of fuel rods, but those are both WAGs. What is less of a WAG is that a zirconium cladding fire is unlikely, especially so in reactor 4 where the rods had been cooling for months. See my post 88. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/568 "2011-03-20T05:33:54Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > I would humbly suggest that you need to do more reading. Cites have been provided previously in this thread. I have read quite a bit on this subject (albeit from a layman’s understanding). I would be happy to read the cites in this thread but at 550+ posts I am not willing to trudge through finding the few you mention. If you recall roughly where they were or some key words I can use to zero in on them I’d like to give them a look. > [@](#): > > There is plenty of wind and solar and geothermal resource and others and even without natural gas plants as complementary power generation in a regional mix intermittency is a solvable issue. Most renewable can go up in an instant and while major wind farms and solar plants may take time a few years to plan and site, more distributed generation can go up in a matter of months. I simply do not believe this. Not that some energy generation can be put online quickly but that you can put up enough to meet the energy needs of the US as well as solve distribution problems and solve the intermittent nature of many of these options. If you are filling the gaps with enough natural gas plants to meet full (or near enough) need then you are back to fossil fuel consumption. Natural gas reserves have shot up but I am sure you have seen the guy who can light his tap water on fire due to fracking. Not to mention CO2 emissions. Natural gas is not without its problems. Current estimates, at 2008 consumption rates, suggest the US has enough total gas reserves for 90 years. This of course assumes 2008 consumption rates do not rise. The current volume of “economical” gas we can access is a bit more than 10% of that. ([cite](http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/energy_technologies/how-natural-gas-works.html)) So, while there is a lot more to be had it will be more expensive. Do your economic calculations account for that? Natural gas power generation in the US is about 23% of total electricity generated. Double that and those reserves don’t seem that big any more. Decades sure but only decades…not even close to 100 years. A child born today will likely see it run out well within their lifetime. There is more to be had worldwide of course but you are back to dependence on foreign energy sources. Think of all the fun that has brought us so far with oil (not to mention other countries are having increasing energy needs). > [@](#): > > If there was a reasonable monetized price placed on the carbon emitted, be it by a carbon tax or cap and trade, many forms of renewable would be cheaper than natural gas generation even at today’s relatively low natural gas prices, and be far cheaper than unsubsidized nuclear. Get the CO2 monetized and then stop subsidizing nuclear and renewables both, and I can guarantee you that you will not see a rush to build dozens of nuclear power plants, but you will see lots more natural gas and renewable options. Reactors like the Traveling Wave would be far cheaper to operate. You build it, turn it on and let it run. A great deal of the cost of current reactors is turning them off every two years, taking the fuel out, storing that fuel for a decade and refueling the reactor and starting it again. I have not seen a financial rundown of that or other designs. But if you monetize the CO2 emissions that makes your natural gas more expensive as well. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/569 "2011-03-20T05:36:27Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Since you want to play the expert, how much concrete blocks gamma radiation? What happens to the temperature of concrete when exposed to gamma rays? What happens to metal when exposed to gamma radiation. I claim no expertise, only enough technical literacy to absorb what Iv’e been reading. Gamma penetrates strongly. It’s mainly a matter of now much mass you can get in the way. IIRC you’d need a couple of yards thickness of concrete. Gamma heats what it passes through, be it concrete or metal, and is ionising as well. Don’t think it’ll have any lasting effect on metal though. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Does gamma radiation obey the inverse square rule? (yes) > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Can you detect gamma radiation by it’s effect on matter? Gamma is ionising so it’ll click a geiger counter or darken an exposure badge or photographic film, so in that sense, yes. However it won’t activate what it irradiates so you can’t tell it’s seen gamma by looking afterwards. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Is it possible to fly an aircraft through a cloud and sample the air? And then analyze the air sample to tell not only the molecules in it, but the amount of each element in the air sample? > > Those sort of technical details will help. Yes, and absolutely. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/570 "2011-03-20T05:39:42Z")
I am very confused how **FX** goes from a [report](http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110319p2a00m0na005000c.html)\* that states that > [@](#): > > footage taken from an RQ-4 Global Hawk drone was passed on to the Japanese government with permission for public release from the U.S. Air Force. U.S. military sources said that the decision to release the footage – or not – was up to the Japanese government. … The U.S. Air Force has been flying the state-of-the-art UAV based in Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, over quake- and tsunami-ravaged areas since March 12 – a day after a massive quake and tsunami struck eastern Japan – in response to a request from the Japanese government. > > Because Japanese Self-Defense Force aircraft have trouble flying over the stricken Fukushima power plant due to large amounts of radioactive materials detected in the air, the Global Hawk has been filming the area around the clock. Footage is transmitted via satellite to a U.S. Air Force base in California, and is also supplied to the Japanese government. The Japanese government, however, has yet to disclose the footage, which is being analyzed by nuclear power experts and others at the California base. to statements that the site is being monitored by that drone 24/7 , knowledge of what the drone has allegedly recorded, and in direct contradiction to the cite, that only the Japanese have seen this footage. BTW, **Matt** , thank you for the detailed explanations. It remains a frightening circumstance and with real risk of becoming a much worse disaster than already exists. \*link to the Japanese newspaper article ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/571 "2011-03-20T06:24:46Z")
> [@](#): > > The U.S. Air Force **has been flying the state-of-the-art UAV based in Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, over quake- and tsunami-ravaged areas since March 12** – a day after a massive quake and tsunami struck eastern Japan – in response to a request from the Japanese government. > > Because Japanese Self-Defense Force aircraft have trouble flying over the stricken Fukushima power plant due to large amounts of radioactive materials detected in the air,\*\* the Global Hawk has been filming the area around the clock\*\*. I can see why that might be confusing. First, ‘around the clock’ means ‘all the time’, or 24 hours a day. ‘nuclear power experts and others at the California base’ means members of the United States military and government agencies, as well as any outside experts they have included. ‘The Japanese government, however, has yet to disclose the footage’ means the Japanese government hasn’t shown anyone else, or disclosed that they have highly detailed visual and infrared video of the entire site, 24 hours a day. And night. It’s up to them because the US has to respect their wishes in the matter, and can’t show the world footage of another nation with out their permission. Not disclosing that they have been taking the footage all along, is deception. The Japanese also have repeated over and over they couldn’t see what was going on, which is straight up telling huge lies. And of course there were the three explosions, and the fires, and the release of material, all of which everyone in the loop was looking at in detail, but not telling anyone about it. You may agree that it’s in the best interest of the military and government officials to lie and deceive the public. But please, don’t try to say it wasn’t happening. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/572 "2011-03-20T06:30:42Z")
The questions about gamma radiation, concrete and sampling air, all relate to how somebody can tell what is going on at the disaster site, while not exposing anyone to the radiation. And why it’s possible to see through concrete and know what is going on inside the buildings. And why the governments involved know exactly what is coming out of each building, and in what amounts. Of course some might say they don’t have any idea what is going on, which means the world is incompetent and no government and no military has the ability to observe events and radiation at a distance. Which of these ridiculous assumption you choose doesn’t matter. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/573 "2011-03-20T06:59:24Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > The questions about gamma radiation, concrete and sampling air, all relate to how somebody can tell what is going on at the disaster site, while not exposing anyone to the radiation. And why it’s possible to see through concrete and know what is going on inside the buildings. Using gamma? How exactly do you think you would do that? There’s no way to focus it. When you use radioactive sources to test welds, you use a small source to approximate a point radiator and put a photographic film right up against the weld to inspect, with the source on the other side. You get a density-shadow image off that. No aerial gamma-detector will be able to form an image remotely, using the gamma sources inside the reactor buildings. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > And why the governments involved know exactly what is coming out of each building, and in what amounts. Exactly what, I’m sure they do. They don’t even need to sample the plumes: detecting what’s landing on the ground would tell you. Quantities would be something of a estimate though. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Of course some might say they don’t have any idea what is going on, which means the world is incompetent and no government and no military has the ability to observe events and radiation at a distance. Which of these ridiculous assumption you choose doesn’t matter. If you mean there’s stuff that isn’t being released to the general public, very likely. If you mean there’s stuff being hidden that adversely affects public safety, I personally doubt it but you’re entitled to your opinion. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/574 "2011-03-20T07:15:35Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > The questions about gamma radiation, concrete and sampling air, all relate to how somebody can tell what is going on at the disaster site, while not exposing anyone to the radiation. And why it’s possible to see through concrete and know what is going on inside the buildings. > > And why the governments involved know exactly what is coming out of each building, and in what amounts. > > Of course some might say they don’t have any idea what is going on, which means the world is incompetent and no government and no military has the ability to observe events and radiation at a distance. Which of these ridiculous assumption you choose doesn’t matter. Nah, you are using now the “logic” of 911 thruters, ignoring what others are reporting about the levels of radiation is just more fun, like thruters forever ignoring about what caused the towers to collapse, talking about conspiracies is more fun. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/575 "2011-03-20T07:45:41Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I would be happy to read the cites in this thread but at 550+ posts I am not willing to trudge through finding the few you mention. If you recall roughly where they were or some key words I can use to zero in on them I’d like to give them a look. Post 300, but to save you the effort here is the [wind resource](http://www.pnas.org/content/106/27/10933.full) link again. > [@](#): > > a network of land-based 2.5-megawatt (MW) turbines restricted to nonforested, ice-free, nonurban areas operating at as little as 20% of their rated capacity could supply \>40 times current worldwide consumption of electricity, \>5 times total global use of energy in all forms. Resources in the contiguous United States, specifically in the central plain states, could accommodate as much as 16 times total current demand for electricity in the United States … > [@WAM](#): > > I simply do not believe this. Not that some energy generation can be put online quickly but that you can put up enough to meet the energy needs of the US as well as solve distribution problems and solve the intermittent nature of many of these options. If you are filling the gaps with enough natural gas plants to meet full (or near enough) need then you are back to fossil fuel consumption. From the same cite is this bit about intermittency: > [@](#): > > An important issue relating to the integration of electricity derived from wind into a grid incorporating contributions from a variety of sources relates to the challenge of matching supply with load demand, incorporating a contribution to supply that is intrinsically variable both in time and space and subject to prediction errors. This challenge can be mitigated to some extent if the variations of wind sources contributing to an integrated transmission grid from different regions are largely uncorrelated. An anomalously high contribution from one region can be compensated in this case by an anomalously low contribution from another. To investigate the significance of this potential compensation, we examined the covariance of wind resources from 3 specific regions, one in Montana, the second in Minnesota, and the third in Texas, as indicated in Fig. 6. Analysis of 6-h averaged potential wind-generated supplies of electricity from the 3 regions over the 4 seasons, winter, spring, summer, and fall, yielded the results summarized in Table 3. Contributions from the 3 regions are essentially uncorrelated during the winter months (October through March) with r values of \<0.07. Correlation coefficients (r values), however, are relatively high in summer (July through September) with values ranging from 0.28 (Montana versus Texas) to 0.37 (Montana versus Minnesota) with intermediate values in spring. The analysis suggests that wind power could make a relatively reliable contribution to anticipated base load demand in winter. It may be more difficult to incorporate wind power resources into projections of base load demand for other seasons, particularly for summer. Note that solar has a complementary set of advantages and disadvantages and similar location of resource density. Using [both in the same network](http://www.triesteassoc.com/files/pdfs/documents/windsolarstudy.pdf) substantially decreases the risk of variable resource strength, even in Summer: > [@](#): > > including solar generation sites into arrays of geographically diverse wind sites can further reduce the total variability beyond what is possible for either resource type alone. Finally, it was observed that, at least in the modeled system, only a small > subset of the potential sites in an interconnected array need to be included to achieve these variability reductions. Also intermittency is not a significant issue until a particular renewable resource is significant fraction of a regions power supply, something we have a fair ways until we get to. Get up to 10%, retiring maybe the dirtiest 20% of our coal plants, and then we’ll worry about how much higher we can go. There are also other storage solutions for the intermittency issue. As for [solar power’s potential](http://seia.org/galleries/FactSheets/Factsheet_Land_Use.pdf): > [@](#): > > In five minutes, enough sunlight will shine upon the United States to satisfy America’s energy demands for an entire month.The U.S. Southwest has particularly abundant and high quality resources for utility‐scale solar power. There is a lot of unexploited resource falling on factory rooftops, heating up buildings in Summer instead of producing electricity. [Even GM](http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/gm-to-host-worlds-largest-rooftop-solar-array.php) is getting in this act. > [@](#): > > General Motors has partnered with Clairvoyant Energy, Veolia Environmental and the Government of Aragon to install what will be the world’s largest rooftop solar array on its Zaragosa, Spain assembly plant. > > According to GM the array will be 12 MW in size and cover two million square feet and consist of approximately 85,000 panels. Installation is expected to be completed this fall. The space for the project will be leased from General Motors by Veolia Environment and Clairvoyant Energy, who will operate and maintain the installation. According to GM the project will help the corporation reduce costs, while at the same time providing green power to the local electric grid. > General Motors already opeates rooftop solar arrays on two of its California warehouses, which provide up to 50% of electricity used in these facilities. > [@WAM](#): > > Natural gas reserves have shot up but I am sure you have seen the guy who can light his tap water on fire due to fracking. Not to mention CO2 emissions. Natural gas is not without its problems. > > Current estimates, at 2008 consumption rates, suggest the US has enough total gas reserves for 90 years. This of course assumes 2008 consumption rates do not rise. The current volume of “economical” gas we can access is a bit more than 10% of that. ([cite](http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/energy_technologies/how-natural-gas-works.html)) So, while there is a lot more to be had it will be more expensive. Do your economic calculations account for that? See post 331 but again, here is [my DOE cite](http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/nat_gas.html). > [@](#): > > Historically, world natural gas reserves have generally trended upward (Figure 59). As of January 1, 2010, the world’s total proved natural gas reserves, as reported by Oil & Gas Journal,16 were estimated at 6,609 trillion cubic feet—355 trillion cubic feet (6 percent) higher than the estimate of 6,254 trillion cubic feet for 2009 [55]. … Despite high rates of increase in natural gas consumption, particularly over the past decade, the above increases in reserves imply that reserves-to-production ratios for most regions have remained substantial. Worldwide, the reserves-to-production ratio is estimated at 60 years And North America has less than 5% of those reserves. So indeed I agree that natural gas is at best a medium term fix, for a few decades. I’ve tried to be clear that I would want it as part of the mix and do not view it as the silver bullet. But we need to retire these oldest dirtiest coal plants NOW. A mix of natural gas generation and renewables can allow for that. Yes, a natural gas plant still releases CO2, again about 50-70% less than a typical coal plant. We’d be replacing the oldest ones. Even if nuclear could be brought on line as cheaply as gas plants can, the fact remains that getting them online is a very slow process and cost so much that no one wants to do it unless we the people absorb all the risk and much of the cost for them. Again, as it stands we will be lucky if we can build enough of them to replace what ages out. > [@WAM](#): > > Reactors like the Traveling Wave would be far cheaper to operate. You build it, turn it on and let it run. A great deal of the cost of current reactors is turning them off every two years, taking the fuel out, storing that fuel for a decade and refueling the reactor and starting it again. > > I have not seen a financial rundown of that or other designs. But if you monetize the CO2 emissions that makes your natural gas more expensive as well. You may be interested in [this article](http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=6964). Besides making the same point I’ve been making, that the poor economics of nuclear was dooming nuclear in America in the near term anyway long before the Japan quake, is some bits on possible future designs: > [@](#): > > despite a very cold winter, natural-gas prices have generally stayed below $4 per thousand cubic feet, which is about half the level seen as recently as 2008. > > On Sunday morning, I discussed the economics of nuclear with a senior executive in the U.S. nuclear utility sector. He asked, “How can you compete with natural gas when it’s priced at less than $4?” The answer, said the executive, who asked that his name not be used because he was not authorized to speak the media, is, “you can’t.” > > Indeed, last September, Exelon Corporation, one of the largest nuclear operators in the U.S., decided to delay construction of a planned two-reactor project in Texas. The company explained that natural-gas prices needed to be at least $8 for the project to make economic sense. Other officials in the nuclear sector have told me that natural-gas prices need to be above $7 for reactors to be economically viable. … Electric providers can build gas-fired generators much faster than new nuclear plants. Better still, they can do it for one-fifth the cost … > > … Among the more attractive prospects: licensing and construction of modular reactors by companies like Babcock & Wilcox, which could, given their lower cost, allow utilities to invest relatively modest amounts of capital in reactors that could provide baseload capacity. In addition, scientists in India, as well as at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, continue working on research that could allow use of thorium in the reactor core. That element (which sits two doors to the left of uranium on the Periodic Table) is far more abundant in the earth than uranium and when used in a reactor, may help reduce the proliferation of weapons-grade material. Maybe those can be ready for prime time in a few decades. Maybe not. But they aren’t _right now_ while natural gas is, and renewables are doing a warm-up lap. ---
**Author:** ![Norse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a9adbd/32.png) [@Norse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Norse)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/576 "2011-03-20T08:12:09Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > > [@Norse](#): > > > > OTOH, the reactors in St. Petersburg (the original St. Petersburg in Russia, that is) and Kola _are_ scaring the shit out of me. > > Why? According to nukies, nuke plants are safer than cars. There are nuke plants, and there are nuke plants, just as there are cars and there are cars. If you’d used a minimum of rational thinking and bothered to read the whole of my post, you’d have the answer to your “question”. I’ll repeat the key point here just in case you can’t be bothered to scroll up and re-read my post: > [@Norse](#): > > They’re constructed the same way as Chernobyl was. But I guess that that would have ruined your chance for a snark. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/577 "2011-03-20T08:33:05Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Maybe those can be ready for prime time in a few decades. Maybe not. But they aren’t _right now_ while natural gas is, and renewables are doing a warm-up lap. Another nice thing about gas: not only is it lower-carbon per unit of energy thanks to the high hydrogen content, but in a good combined-cycle plant you can burn it at up 60% thermodynamic efficiency. I’m not entirely convinced renewables are even doing a warm-up lap as yet but I’ll be more than happy if it turns out I’m wrong. I’m also quite happy that we could develop a fission-based future over the next century or more using uranium, thorium and breeder reactors, with global economic growth, raising the developing and third worlds out of poverty, and stabilising atmospheric CO2 levels. I still think it could be done safely. I haven’t studied the case that it _should_ be done, or that renewables are a viable alternative, to any great degree. For a very optimistic but kind-of inspiring vision of how distributed generation using renewables might develop, check this lecture out: [http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2010/the-empathic-civilisation](http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2010/the-empathic-civilisation) (warning: long, positive, possible inducer of good feelings.) ---
**Author:** ![Norse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a9adbd/32.png) [@Norse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Norse)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/578 "2011-03-20T08:34:15Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > We built plants smack on the San Andreas fault. That I suppose is fine for you? :rolleyes: Of course it isn’t. And my first reaction to the pictures from Fukushima was “WTF?? They’ve built those things on the fucking beachfront with a fucking view to the main fault line! :smack: :smack: :smack:” And still, in spite of that, radiation pollution has been really, really small. The “increased levels” measured in Tokyo _spiked below_ the background radiation level in London. [Cite](http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/20/why-i-stay-in-tokyo/). _sigh_ I guess a balanced viewpoint, recognizing the other party’s valid arguments, is out of the question. Even here in GD. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/579 "2011-03-20T09:04:12Z")
[ > [@](#): > > Responding to the ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan, officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission sought Thursday to reassure nervous Americans that U.S. reactors were 100 percent safe and posed absolutely no threat to the public health as long as no unforeseeable system failure or sudden accident were to occur. ]([http://www.theonion.com/articles/nuclear-energy-advocates-insist-us-reactors-comple,19740/](http://www.theonion.com/articles/nuclear-energy-advocates-insist-us-reactors-comple,19740/)) Offered without comment; just providing information, eh. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/580 "2011-03-20T13:15:55Z")
Well, at least we know what you base your thinking on. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647.md?page=30)