Atomic Energy - It's Worth A Lot

[atomicrod59]

BeondaPale

I have been advocating the use of smaller nuclear plants for at least 15 years in public forums. The first article I published on the topic was in April, 1995.

For the record, I am a former nuclear submarine engineer officer. I gained my nuclear knowledge operating smaller nuclear plants.

[BeondaPale]

I wonder if Rod knows that small Nuclear power plants (found on subs and aircraft carriers) are much much better and much less dangerous than the vastly enlarged commercial nuclear power plants like the ones that failed in Fukushima

[disigny]

Everyone who advocates Nuclear Fission power should face the fact that the public has lost a lot of trust in "experts" telling them that something scary is safe, from smoking to LWR nuclear plants; the more uneducated they are, the more difficult to have a rational discussion. It is my( very recent) information that Thorium LFTR plants, which have been developed and demonstrated, can be said to be "failsafe" in the sense that lwr plants can never be. Let's talk about that.

[jibbi4one]

Over half of environmentalists agree the only real way of preserving wildlife is to bury non recyclable high level nuclear waste in wildlife preserves.

Keep human activity away from wildlife.

[pauloz386]

Please learn about nuclear power, before discounting it. Nuclear power is as natural as water. The sun is Nuclear.

Environmentalists can't have it both ways, nuclear is clean and safe. Solar panels are expensive and ineffective to supply base load requirements, to steel works,cement works etc. Burning coal and fossil fuels is dirty and expensive, I would be more than happy to have a nuclear power station in my backyard, Nuclear = cheap clean power, Solar= expensive, space hungry energy.

[BeondaPale]

@pauloz386

"The sun is Nuclear."

-- True - But the sun is 93 millions miles away

"Solar panels are expensive and ineffective to supply base load requirements"

- Untrue, please Google:"solar cheaper than oil and nuclear in 5 years" and "artificial photosynthesis"

"Solar= expensive, space hungry energy"

-- You're wrong. NANO solar is very different and is the future.

[atomicrod59]

milofonbil:

I never blame Environmentalists - I blame fossil fuel interests and even some established "nuclear industry" interests for placing as many barriers to entry as possible.

In one example - licensing the reactors that I have been working on for 17 years requires me to pay the government $258 for every hour that they spend in the review process. I get no say in how long they spend. They do not even provide a checklist of all of the standards we have to meet.

[pippicat]

This issue has been extensively discussed on the Energy Resources Group – groups(dot)yahoo(dot)com/group­/energyresources – and the international consensus is that nuclear power can only offer a partial replacement for the world's current energy demand.

[atomicrod59]

I happen to agree with the consensus. Nuclear power is only a "partial" solution. What remains to be discovered is just how big that part can be. I intend to work for a very long time pushing the boundaries. Based on my analysis, there will be a long time before any asymptotes are reached that limit the growth potential.

My point about the popular renewables of wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal is each one fails several of the criteria I listed.

[pippicat]

Why Nuclear Power Cannot Be a Major Energy Source

by David Fleming, April 2006

groups(dot)yahoo(dot)com/group­/energyresources/message/90725

It's an excellent analysis with a few mistakes (such as the purpose of moderators).

[pippicat]

Here's the same study by Fleming, updated and corrected:

theleaneconomyconnection(dot)n­et/nuclear/index.html

theleaneconomyconnection(dot)n­et/nuclear/Nuclear.pdf

"The fact that the alternatives are in trouble does not tell us anything about whether nuclear energy is the solution.  And in fact, nuclear energy is in the biggest trouble of all."

[atomicrod59]

pippicat: Fleming is not an engineer, not a scientist, and not a uranium miner. He quotes studies by van Leeuwen and Smith that has been widely discredited and that uses severely outdated information. For example, he describes in situ leach as being dependent on sulfuric acid - most modern mines use carbonated water.

[milofonbil]

The remaining toxic soup still contaminates the groundwater and nearby aquifers no matter what kind of acid, weak acid (CO2 is a weak acid) or oxygenation system you use. You know this Rod.

[milofonbil]

That was some excellent reading. Thanks!

[CrossoverManiac]

Why nuclear power, despite the crap that David Fleming spews, can be a major energy source by France(70% of their energy is nuclear).

[milofonbil]

Natural uranium prices have risen more than TENFOLD (1000%) since early 2003. With that kind of fuel price increase, how long until you would not be able to afford your nuclear cruise?

[atomicrod59]

No commodity price increases in a straight line. I fully expect that the price of uranium will fall - the cost of production for the material is about 1/10th its current price. The market is not transparent and is subject to manipulation and speculation. There is PLENTY of uranium in the world.

[milofonbil]

I agree with you that the commodity prices go up and down. They are afterall controlled by a free market with buyers and sellers on both sides. And yes, it's not a free market and includes speculation. However, the demand is increasing and the supply is not increasing.

[atomicrod59]

I will grant that the total amount of uranium on earth is not increasing. However, the commercially available supply is increasing rapidly and is sufficient to last humans for many thousands of years. If that is not enough, we can also begin to use thorium, which is 4 times as abundant.

[soylentgreenb]

"Natural uranium prices have risen more than TENFOLD (1000%) since early 2003. With that kind of fuel price increase, how long until you would not be able to afford your nuclear cruise?"

A pound of uranium contains 50 barrels of oil equivalent of heat in a traditional LWR(uses only ~1% of the energy in the fuel, the rest is thrown away as "waste", or at least that is what "environmentalists" hope.).

[milofonbil]

It's very interesting as to how pro-nukes are all for the free market until things cost money. Also, you blame everything bad on environmentalists.

It's fully possible for the nuclear industry to build a reprocessing plant right now. Reagan revoked a Carter executive order banning spent-fuel reprocessing. What is stopping you from building it??? Ahhh that's right, you did not get a 30 Billion dollar feeding trough. It's cheaper to burn uranium once-through so you don't reprocess.

[pippicat]

Rod, you say this about "renewable" energy sources:

"None of those alternatives can replace the far more profitable fossil fuel as a source of reliable, weather-independent, cost-effective, concentrated energy."

Nuclear could only do so with widespread fuel reprocessing.  Even then, the problem of a limited uranium supply would remain.

[soylentgreenb]

See Deffeyes an McGreggor on the distribution of uranium in the Earth. Every time you go down in oregrade by a factor 10 the abundance goes up by about a factor 300.

The price of yellowcake is a very small part of the cost of operating a reactor and it wouldn't put much of a dent in bottom lines to pay 10 times the current price. The cost of extracting uranium from sea water(which contains some 4 billion tonnes) is likely to become economical somewhere under that price as well.

[pippicat]

Cost is not the issue, because money is an artificial social construct. What matters most are the energy inputs. What is the Energy Returned on Energy Invested with uranium from seawater?

I suspect that the EROEI of nuclear power will limit it to a minor role in the coming transition away from fossil fuel.

[seangreenday]

Thank you for the smart argument. Better than musicians talking about topics they know nothing about.

Nuclear engineer = knows about nuclear energy.

Musician = knows how to make music

There's a reason why we shouldn't listen to the musicians about this.

[atomicrod59]

My current auto averages about 44 MPG.

However, I am not sure about a mandate for 35 MPG. When I was raising children, I liked having an AWD mini van that gave us plenty of room for trips, carpools, and sports gear. That car only got about 19 MPG. Size matters when it comes to fuel economy. Families larger cars than people who live by themselves.

I also worry about the effects on plumbers, carpenters, farmers, and other professionals with pick-up trucks.

[pixman83]

I'm surprised that you didn't mention the nuclear powered icebreakers and the Sevmorput. Civilian nuclear powered ships for the win!

[atomicrod59]

I thought about them, but there are always things one has to leave out. I was shooting for keeping the video at less than 5 minutes.

Maybe the next time I talk about atomic ships, I will include some cool video clips I have from the Yamal (one of those nuclear icebreakers you mentioned) visiting the North Pole with a bunch of school children as passengers!

[pixman83]

I've gotten some pretty interesting reactions from people who see those icebreakers and talk about how cool (pun not intended) to be on one, until I mention that they are nuclear. They are always good for a smile.

I also like the idea of the floating power plants that Russia is producing based off of the engine design for those icebreakers. Talk about cheap power anywhere!

[opensource1212]

I dont know a lot about atomic energy yet, but to me it appears preferable to our current energy situation!

[gsxjimg]

Yes, this is the same reason why Oil companies like Hydrogen, it is a comody that needs to be produced for a profit. The only efficient method today is to use natural gas.

[atomicrod59]

Oil companies are already the world's largest consumer of hydrogen for their normal production processes.

H2 has two main uses in refining - it is used in the process of removing sulfur from sour oil and it is used to "crack" heavy oil to allow increased production of lighter distillate products.

If the subsidized research does result in lower cost methods of H2 production, the main beneficiary will be the oil companies.

[gsxjimg]

H as a whole is more expensive to produce than the benefit you receive out of using it as a fuel. My point is that, there is plenty of hydrogen on this earth, but it is trapped in water. There is an overall net loss trying to use it as a fuel because it first has to be created. It becomes a product to be bought and sold on the open market, just like gas from raw oil. H2 must first be refined and there you have the profit for oil companies have to control

[flyinhillbillyman]

atomicrod59 (Rod Adams) FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

[mcperly]

Yup.  Correct.

[benhealy]

I think you're a decent public speaker. I'm still on the fence about nuclear energy, but your video is a helpful contribution to the debate.

[setb]

Yeah- worth a lot to the nuke companies-

[BrandNameChapstick]

You're an idiot.

[andresfusion]

GREAT VIDEO THANK YOU!