Baskil's Brain Ep. 22 - Re: Stop The Nuclear Bailout

[injimbwoo]

Okay, the man is right on. We are not cave men anymore, burning stuff for "power".

I wish the Prez would have considered investing in some some assets e.g. electric trains down the interstate medians and building new nukes and Manhattan Project'ing electric storage technology.

I would much rather bury some spent graphite balls in epoxy cubes and dump them in some mountain. Believe me.... the alternatives are horrendous.

Well, now I know I'm not alone. At least there are 2 of us!

[hahyonhwatha]

part of the worry is the danger of the present nuclear reactor. both civil and military require processed uranium - as iran is in the middle of this.

there is another nuclear choice. canadian candu. quite different. not capable of melt-down (china syndrome) or explosion (chernobyl). the fuel rods of candu just remove the rock from the ore. system looks like a swimming pool. (heavy water moderation) we've had a dozen such running in canada for a half century. no prob.

[NorskeDivision]

CANDU is a great technology! The economics behind developing it were (perhaps) questionable, but it's without doubt something that Canada should be proud of. It has real potential for world wide deployment, especially if people are particularly worried about melt downs. With the up-coming nuclear renewal Canada has a chance to really make the development of CANDU pay off for everyone.

[hahyonhwatha]

baskil you're on target again. i agree nuclear is a lesser evil. it's good to make an effort to intake info on the larger picture. 2 things to share from your bit.

i think baskil, the prinicple reason for the nuclear bailout is the general fear of the public, and the complete lack of coherent expert consensus.

keep preaching sir.

[milofonbil]

Why is it that pro-nukes always compare themselves to coal? Coal plants should be replaced when they come end of life, or sooner.

Nukes do have emissions. We don't have a place for 80,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste and it will take 20 years to transport.

[milofonbil]

(Con't) Mining accidents - there is nothing inherently more safe about nuclear mining versus coal mining.

Coal Has Black Lung, Nukes have accidents and releases cause cancers. I suppose you did not read the 1997 study on TMI.

Yes Coal makes CO2. The entire nuclear fuel cycle makes about 1/2 as much CO2 as a clean gas plant. Pareto's law tells you to replace the worst offender with the cleanest and most viable - wind.

[milofonbil]

(Con't) Reactor history is a bit like stock history. Past results are not an accurate prediction of the future. The reason I say this is that you know very well that risk increases with complexity. Every day is another day of nuclear russian roulette. Will you have an INES 6 or 7 accident today? You never know.

[baskil]

Take away nuclear, take away coal, take away natural gas.  What are you left with? Less than 10% of the energy supply. When you take away Hydroelectric since there are limited places it can build, you have 2%. Half of that is wood burning. That's why we compare it to coal.

[milofonbil]

There are many locations that damless hydroelectric and mini-hydro can be located without harm to the environment. Why don't you eliminate nukes because there are limited places where you can build a nuke. You need cooling water, lots of it.

[baskil]

Not true. Most of the expansion can be done at existing sites. Also, reactors like PBMR don't even use water.

[milofonbil]

A PBMR does not even have a containment building. You guys laugh at Chernobyl. Well I'm laughing at PBMRs.

[milofonbil]

Following the April 26, 1986 Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident and graphite fire in Ukraine, the West German government revealed that on May 4, the 300-megawatt PBMR at Hamm released radiation after one of its spherical fuel pebbles became lodged in the pipe feeding the fuel to the reactor. Operator actions during the event caused damage to the fuel cladding.

[milofonbil]

Radioactivity was released with the escaping helium and radioactive fallout was deposited as far as two kilometers from the reactor. The fallout in the region was high enough to initially be blamed on Chernobyl. Government officials were then alerted by scientists in Freiburg who reported that as much as 70 % of the region's contamination was not of the type of radiation leaking hundreds of miles away in Ukraine. The PBMR was shut down permanently.

[milofonbil]

So your argument here is look at what supplies our energy today. And then you say we don't have any renewables. And therefore we should not build any. It's really a baseless argument.

Instead, why not look at what makes sense to build. Nukes require IMPORTED fuel - uranium. For the 3,000 million dollars you invest in a nuke, you can build 3,000 5 GW wind turbines now.

[baskil]

It's really not all that complicated.

-There is plenty of uranium here to use without importing.

-I'm not proposing an either or. It would take close to fifty years for coal, gas, and nuclear to be replaced by renewables.

-By doing both, we can eliminate fossil fuels entirely in less time, more like twenty years.

-Left to the market, renewables will actually decrease as a percentage of power.

[milofonbil]

"It's really not all that complicated."

1) The US is importing now.

2) No need to replace old nukes with more nukes.

3) Nukes release a relatively very large amount of GHGs through their life cycle, comparable to natural gas.

4) Many renewables are actually market competitive with nuclear power now.

[ShordansWorld]

interesting

[onboardvideo]

Coal is terrible. I have a friend who worked for the Native American lobby. Before they did casinos they wanted to set up huge arrays of solar panels on reservations, but were blocked by the coal lobby. Nuclear is a good transitional source, it has come a long way. The problem: Where do we put nuclear waste?

[baskil]

Anyplace that is desolate, has a low water table, and low seismic activity. I can think of a few places where that would work. Otherwise, they're perfectly safe sitting at the reactor sites in dry storage until the US decides that reprocessing is okay like the rest of the world has.

[zassounotsukushi]

Coal deaths:

United States

direct deaths - 30 / year

indirect deaths - 25,000 / year

China

direct deaths - 5,000 to 6,000 / year

indirect deaths - ?? probably around the population of California.

[milofonbil]

Nuke deaths:

World-Wide:

direct deaths - 30-50 to date

indirect deaths - 100 million to date

We would not be boiling water with nukes if it were not for nuclear weapons programs.

[milofonbil]

Native Americans (Navajos) don't even want to mine uranium anymore due to the high rates of cancer in their tribe. The NEI has done a "good job" at smearing well respected epidemiologists that have shown increased cancer rates attributable to nuclear power. When they can't rationally argue something, they start with the ad hominem attacks.

[onboardvideo]

I guess there really is no easy answer. I guess we should all just be more conscious of our energy use. Here in California, we had a storm last week that knocked out electricity of hundreds of thousands. I have been surrounded by people, including my parents, who are just now getting their electricity back. I've noticed that it really makes people aware of how dependent they are on electricity.

[milofonbil]

We've had our share of power outages too due to storms here in Washington state. These outages are what's caused me to develop an interest in reliable energy for heat, electricity and transportation. You should be able to use passive solar in California for heat.  For transportation check out electric.

[milofonbil]

Why do we need a transition to something incredibly complex (complexity -> unreliable) if viable answers are here?

For example nukes need loads of water and we have a water crisis: msnbc. msn. com/id/22804065/

Keep it simple, invest in renewables now.

[baskil]

Not all nuke plants need water.

[milofonbil]

Not many

[Aeroslin]

Great Vid Baskil.

[kuronekoyama]

Wind and solar combined are currently under 1% of our electricity generation, to be honest. Which is regretful. And wind IS poised to start growing exponentially soon, at least until it reaches the maximum level of economic grid integration.

And if we were to eliminate coal, natural gas, and nuclear, that'd be closer to 90% of the total energy generation. Over 90% if you include fuel oil.

Good video.

[milofonbil]

World wind power generation more than quadrupled between 2000 and 2006. The limit of grid integration you are talking about are being addressed with grid storage and the intelligent grid. Also, when windmills are deployed for steady, reliable wind instead of peak winds, the capacity factor is higher.

[DrBuzz0]

Wind power has quadrupled and yet it is still less than 1% of energy production. It will have to quadruple many many more times before it can even be on the same level as nuclear...if ever

Even in the best conditions the capacity factor and reliability is poor. it doesn't matter how "intelligent" your grid is. If you don't have the generating capacity you're stuck.

[milofonbil]

Wind is the world's fastest-growing energy source with an average annual growth rate of 29 percent over the last ten years. Using the rule of 72, this means that we are doubling wind resources every two years. The U.S. has installed 9,100 megawatts of wind power capacity. How many more doublings will it take before you think it's significant?

[milofonbil]

Now that the technology is proven, the installed capacity factors are up to 40% now, and the cost per kWh delivered to the grid is below hydro that growth rate is increasing. It's a young industry. Give it a chance.

"...And if you don't have the generating capacity you are stuck" It applies to nukes too: msnbc. msn. com/id/22804065/ And nukes are centralized. One outage means lots of GWs.

[milofonbil]

Wind is growing exponentially and has been over the last 10 years at 29% per year. Also, I will have to find my reference, but there is no maximum level of economic grid integration. Current capacity factors are well into the 40%'s now.

[lwnf360]

yes they are. yes they are.