nuclear vs coal, solar, wind power

taken from comments on http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/over-half-germany-renewable-energy-owned-citizens-not-utility-companies.html

energy_guy • 8 months ago
That 17 GW of installed PV capacity only produces 2GW continuous or offset power and comes at the same level of insolation as at Alaska right. That could have been produced by a single large 2GW nuclear plant and at far lower cost and be practically invisible to the scenery.
But as Merkel shuts down nuclear she replaces it with 20GW capacity of CO2 emitting fossil plants. What sense does that make. Yet nuclear actually produces 100 times less radiation emissions than does coal for same power produced at least according to Scientific American. Pushing all out for renewables really means switching back to coal or Gazprom gas to make up for what solar and wind don't really provide, base load.
9  1 •Reply•Share ›

Sh0rtbus • 8 months ago • parent
Nuclear; The most expensive way to boil water. And then there is that wee problem of stashing the waste...
15  •Reply•Share ›

energy_guy • 8 months ago • parent
According to Scientific American Dec 07, coal plants produce more than 100 times the radiation emissions of nuclear and they leave that in the environment as fly ash along with all sort of toxics. So what about that wee problem. Nuclear plants at least lock their waste down in a small area.

The next generation of SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) built in factories are priced at about $4/W. Coal and gas plants are half that but between them they produce CO2, methane, mercury and radioactive wastes, earthquakes, moonscaping just to begin with as well as being depleted in no time.

Most of the hard nuclear waste as you call it is really unspent fuel, an unfortunate consequence of the choice of Uranium as the nuclear fuel going back to the cold war and the need for weapons plutonium. As such most designs opt for the easy single cycle where only a few percent of the energy is extracted and the rest is left alone for the future to sort out or to be burned in fast breeder reactors.

Thorium is the other option that is fully burned down in the LFTR to waste that contains useful rare earth minerals and radio isotopes which can be extracted in 5 years. These reactors can also burn up the waste from Uranium reactors as well as weapons material and Plutonium solving several problems in one go.

For each GW year of power, 1 Ton of Thorium goes in, several hundred pounds is left for 300 years storage before it reaches background. That is a truly tiny problem to deal with compared to either fly ash or current nuclear waste.

Thorium is about 4 times more abundant than Uranium and there is enough to power all of humanity for millenia at todays western standard of living. It can also be used for process heat to synthesize liquid fuels from CO2 and water.

When you eliminate fossil fuels and nuclear you are left with only 10% of the energy inputs and that is heavily dependent on hydro, intermittents and biofuel.

So take a look at "flowcharts.llnl gov" to see the magnitude of the problem. Every single US citizen is consuming 10kW continuous or about 2500 gallons of oil/yr and there is no way for solar or wind to produce that much energy. Most people have no clue about the sheer size of the issue, they think their utility, fuel bills reflect their footprint, it is but a tiny part of the true picture.
12  •Reply•Share ›

Charles Hammonds • 8 months ago • parent
Just ask Japan!!
2  •Reply•Share ›

energy_guy • 8 months ago • parent
Charles Hammonds: If Japan does not restart the other nuclear plants after reviewing the safety changes, they will be forced to go fossil fuel big time either coal or gas, it is the quickest way to get power back up to normal levels.

I am sure you will be quite glad to see a small amount of temporary radiation damage be replaced by many Giga tons of CO2 emissions. Also coal power produces about 100 times the radiation of nuclear power in it's fly ash, ever thought about that.

Also the Fukashima reactors worked perfectly well, they shutdown when the earthquake happened as they were supposed to. It was the backup diesel generators that got flooded out by the tsunami and hence led to the situation.

Do you know who installed those back up generators, US contractors. There is plenty of blame to go around for not considering the historical data.

If those generators had been properly located, you would never have heard about it, but the lessons learnt were sent to every other nuclear plant in the world. Beware of tsunamis, esp in Germany and Switzerland!!!
3  •Reply•Share ›

android9 • 8 months ago • parent
energy_guy: So Big Energy sez...tell it to the Japanese people, who are demanding that all nukes be deccommisioned, and are furious at their government and industry for lying and laxity in regulation.
1  •Reply•Share ›

energy_guy • 8 months ago • parent
android9: I suspect the Japanese will quietly restart some of the nuclear plants and the people will be happy for the energy. They can still change their mind later and start other energy projects.
2  •Reply•Share ›

android9 • 8 months ago • parent
When a fully funded and staffed EPA decides they are really safe "enough", I'd be willing to consider.  But until then, I'll remain skeptical about the nukes.  Clearly the record on nuke regulation to date does not inspire confidence, after so many years of evisceration and manipulation by corporate interests, despite best efforts of EPA, ESA, et all to do their job, without the necessary resources and backup in Congress.
0  •Reply•Share ›

energy_guy • 8 months ago • parent
android9: You also have to consider how many people die from each energy source for creation of each TWhr. Obviously coal is right at the top of the list esp in China, and gas and oil should be there too when you add in the consequences of the CO2 and methane effects.

Since nuclear concerns are about radiation, consider that coal emits 100 times the radiation of nuclear.

The renewables also have more deaths because they are more labor intensive, people fall of roofs or buildings in dangerous heights since so many structures are involved.

The best way for nuclear to move forward is to demand total passive by design and move away from pressurized designs to other designs, but there are always tradeoffs. LFTR solves most of the issues when it gets built.

A quick google for safest energy sources shows many articles. Funnily enough the Heartland Institute is pro nuclear, pro coal/oil/gas, pro tobacco, and anti AGW, sad bed fellows for sure. Not all pro nuclear people are like these guys.

Radiation is part of the nature of things, without it the universe couldn't exist. Not only do we come from super nova explosions, every thing around us all the heavy atoms were made in the their death and all the radioactive elements exist because of a massive neutron burst. Fascinating stuff.
3  •Reply•Share ›

energy_guy • 8 months ago • parent
I forget to include my usual clinger.

Once upon a time there was the Shoreham nuclear power plant capable of producing continuous 540MW for about $340M (in 1975 it was about $75).

The Treehuggers and Greenpeace cheered as the mighty monster was slain and left in peace, never having produced a single kWh.

Decades later the Treehuggers and Greenpeace get their dream power plant built almost on the same site, twas solar powered of course. It produces 4.5MW offset (32MW nominal) for just 4500 homes at a cost of $298M.

That fine example on the same site shows solar to be 100 times more expensive than the nuclear it replaced. Also the power is not even base load, it is a weak variable that will rely on other power sources to carry the load when the sun don't shine.

Now if those other fossil fuel plants that cover the solar plants rear end were also replaced by more solar, what exactly will power the grid when the sun don't shine or wind don't blow.

I guess if the folks in Long Island were to put the kettle on for a cup of tea using just that solar goodness, that will be one very expensive cup of tea!!!!
2  •Reply•Share ›

koopapoopas • 8 months ago • parent
How else can we scatter depleted uranium all over the Middle East.

Thorium reactors BTW, can be used for energy, but not as easy for making weapons.

Still very expensive.
2  •Reply•Share ›

Jeffrey Ferreira • 8 months ago • parent
Thorium Reactors are the shit! Everyone should youtube it. Thorium is the only way to go, I think China is build like 10 reactors in the next few years.
4  •Reply•Share ›

energy_guy • 8 months ago • parent
Jeffrey Ferreira: To be more accurate, China is mostly building a bundle  of conventional Uranium based PWRs, the AP1000 from GE at about $2B for each GW base load and at 2 years per plant. But they are also building even more mega coal plants too....

They are also taking on the challenge of developing the Thorium LFTR envisioned by Weinberger since they seem to appreciate the advantages.

But yeh, people should google for it.
1  •Reply•Share ›

energy_guy • 8 months ago • parent
Depleted Uranium should never have been used for weapons in the first place, even US troops are affected by the munitions when they get close to the kill zone. Besides the fissile U238 is still nuclear fuel that could be used in breeder reactors.

Thorium as in LFTR is very difficult to exploit for weapons. Since LFTRs don't run pressurized, nor can they melt down (already are molten) they should be much less expensive than PWRs but that is a decade away unless China really pulls through.