Future nuclear bill and subsidies

[j_b]

interesting how nuclear isn't held to the same standard (economically feasible without government intervention) as other alternatives to fossil fuels :

 

" The proposals that Senator McCain is considering would provide a 50-50 cost-sharing arrangement, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies, to gain federal certification for three new designs for nuclear plants. On Monday he met with Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chairman and chief executive of General Electric, which constructs nuclear plants.

 

Such subsidies are still anathema to most environmental groups, which believe that the nuclear industry got far more than its fair share of government aid in the last generation, while their technologies of choice were left hungry.

 

"The notion out there from some of these deep thinkers is that we have to take our medicine and if only we could accept nukes, the global warming problem would be solved," said Anna Aurilio, the legislative director at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. "We have a whole bunch of solutions already that are not as risky." These include, Ms. Aurilio said, increasing national energy efficiency and investing in solar, wind, geothermal and biomass energy, like ethanol.

 

Thomas B. Cochran, the director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's nuclear program said: "The issue isn't: Do you support nuclear? The issue should be: Do you support massive subsidies to the tune of billions of dollars for nuclear power?" He said, "The answer is no."

 

NYT article

 

can we now put to rest the dishonest argument that wind and solar have to show profitability solely with private investment?

[JayB]

I think that one factor that's working in nuclear power's favor, at least with respect to subsidies, is its output (wattage).

 

However - given the massive public investment in nuclear power over the course of the preceding decades -I'd prefer to see the bulk of the public investment in energy R&D go towards improving efficiency, and wind, solar, etc.

[j_b]

I think that one factor that's working in nuclear power's favor, at least with respect to subsidies, is its output (wattage).

 

watts per what? dollar invested and total cost? I strongly doubt it.

 

However - given the massive public investment in nuclear power over the course of the preceding decades -I'd prefer to see the bulk of the public investment in energy R&D go towards improving efficiency, and wind, solar, etc.

 

well, good for you. we occasionally agree on a few things. although you should beware that acknowledging the necessity and worthiness of significant input of public money toward infrastructure and R&D just may lead to excommunication in some quarters that you are very familiar with. you also know that i'll try to remind you of this fact so that you can explain your choices in selecting when and to whose benefit it is fair to dispense with the "free market".

[Stonehead]

The future may be nuclear according to what Steward Brand says.

 

He predicts that over the next ten years, "the mainstream of the environmental movement will reverse its opinion and activism in four major areas: population growth, urbani­zation, genetically engineered organisms, and nuclear power."

( Environmental Heresies )

 

"The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere is nuclear power."

[JayB]

Well - I think it comes down to how one defines subsidies. I generally oppose paying people to produce goods and services in excess of effective market demand, and tarrifs or quotas that protect enable producers to charge consumers higher prices than they would be able to command in the absence of such impediments to competition.

 

In other cases - when there's something that amounts to the government making a capital investment in improving the nation's productive capacities or competitiveness with public funds - I am generally in favor of such expenditures, especially when the goal in question like, say, putting a man on the moon - could not be accomplished with private funds or there exists no effective demand in the marketplace, such as an investment in research to find treatments for rare diseases. But the reality is that the potential for such investments is infinite, resources to fund them are finite, and there will always be intense disputes about how to allocate resources amongst competing perogatives and interests.

 

My basic contention is that the best way to insure that we have adequate means to fund worthy causes is to insure that the economy remains sound. Where you and I differ is with respect for the best way to go about doing that.

[selkirk]

My concern has always been that alternative sources have either

1. limited capacity on the upper end (only so much available hydro and without new mountains were not going to get anymore)

2. limited energy density (exactly how many acres of windmills does it take to provide power for NY or Atlanta?)

3. limited locational availability (i'd love to see a solar powered Seattle )

4. Storage issues, unless someone has a great way to store huge amounts of electricity for later use (would be needed with Wind, Solar, tidal etc)

 

Until someone can seriously show that these issues can be overcome and account for transmission losses, lifetime costs etc. i'm going to be awfully skeptical (Last I heard few solar cells actually produce more power in their practical lifetime than it takes to produce them)

 

Nuclear may have issues (high input cost, and very long term waste storage) but at least we have the waist contained (as opposed to fossil fuels) and it overcomes all of the issues of alternative sources.

[Dru]

You might want to think of Hanford before you say you have the waste contained

[selkirk]

You might want to think of Hanford before you say you have the waste contained

 

Hanford was a product of very early nuclear technology and practices, not representative of modern nuclear plants. That's like comparing a charcoal grill to a coal fired power plant in how efficient and clean the final output is

 

Not to mention that Hanfords primary purpose was never power generation but refinement of Uranium/Plutonium for use in weapons .

 

Very nice red herring though. Would you like to talk about Three Mile Island, or Chernobyl?

 

How about that fact that the plant down at the INEEL that vitrifies nuclear waste is powered by a coal power plant... but the coal plant has to be outside the boundaries of the vitrification plant, as it outputs to much radiation to meet NRC specs.

[Dru]

Big power is on its way out.

 

For about 25% more in construction costs you can now build a home that will produce enough of its own power using efficient design, solar and geothermal generation, to require no net new power. When it's producing excess, you just run it into the grid, and your meter runs backwards. We're building more of these every day, and the price of solar keeps getting cheaper.

[selkirk]

Lets all hope your right. But i'm still skeptical. The house may power itself but that doesn't mean it's truly self sufficient. We still need enough excess to drive manufacturing, cities and metropitan dwellings where this isn't feasible, mass transit, not to mention the power cost of building the house and all it's neat gadgets, power your electric car, etc......

 

I'm sure someone has done an analysis of where our electricity is consumed, but i'm too lazy to look it up. My instinct says that households aren't the majority of it though, and may even be a small minority.

 

Where are these houses and what tech. are they using? I've looked at Off the grid houses a bit, and on a small scale your right, they can be effective, typically though there is still the requirement of some alternative source (often a propane generator) as many of the power generation systems can't run all the time, and are good only when matched with a storage mechanism, so you can store energy as it's produced, since usage is cyclical, not at a constant rate, while production is also cyclical, but not on the same cycle. One bugaboo here though is the storage mechanism of choice... usually something akin to loads of deep cycle batteries (tractor batteries). That's just what I want in everyones yard! Or do you have some other novel technique?

 

keep trying though

[Dru]

If you're on the grid you just feed it back into the grid, and get paid for it. No need for storage mechanism. No battery farm in the garage.

[selkirk]

But there is still a storage need. Electricity isn't used at a steady rate. Assuming something like Solar it's produced most heavily mid-day, where household use is highest in the evening when solar is dropping off, and this would go for everyone.

 

So, in this case where does the electricity everyone needs in the evening come from? when everyone is drawing more than their producing? Or how about during the winter? Windmills might be uneffective but the usefullness of solar drops off significantly when you've only got a few hours of low angle light.

 

Are you saying that the traditional power production technologies should just reduce power production during the day, and increase it from 4:00 to 8:00 everyday? Talk about a crappy return on your initial investment, monstrous costs for the power plant to generate power for 4 hours each day, or maybe the government should pick up the tab?

 

This would only be feasible if you had the entire world on a grid to average out the effects of day, night, weather, season etc. but then you'd butt up against horrendous transmission losses (why do you think power plants are located everywhere, instead of just in texas). It all comes down to either having power on demand and excess capacity (pretty much what we do now) or being able to store it as it's produced and tap it when needed (but you'll still require backup generation schemes, for those bad winters when there isn't any sun, but your heating costs are high).

 

keep trying

[Dru]

I don't think you really understand how the grid works. If you lived near a dam or power plant you might note that they don't shut it down at night even though the local demand may diminish then.

[fern]

Or do you have some other novel technique?

 

Another storage mechanism is to use the excess to pump water uphill. Then when you need the energy back you release the water back down through a turbine or whatever. I think this method is used in places in concert with windmills to smooth out the cyclicity of wind.

[selkirk]

granted, power plants run pretty much 24/7, and as needed they sell the power elsewhere, (though elsewhere isn't global). Even if every house produces enough net electricity for it's own needs, sells some to the grid during off peak, and purchases some back from the grid during peak, your not going to be able to get rid of the power plants or the capacity to produce, even if everyone does it.

 

You still need to account for peak ussage and the variation for when power is produced vs when it's consumed. The "grid" isn't mystical, it's just a bunch of power lines connecting those who make it to those who use it. And everyone likes to use it at the same time (when it's too cold, when it's too hot, and when were at home cooking or watching the TV)

 

so were back to

1. on demand.

2. storage.

 

Assuming all of north america did this, and we ignore transmission losses, it still wouldn't be effective. It would be prone to disruption by major storms and weather systems, night, and by seasonal shifts, all of which happen to be times that having it available is pretty important.

 

though it would probably work great ok in the summer when all you need to power is the AC and have lots of sun

[selkirk]

Or do you have some other novel technique?

 

Another storage mechanism is to use the excess to pump water uphill. Then when you need the energy back you release the water back down through a turbine or whatever. I think this method is used in places in concert with windmills to smooth out the cyclicity of wind.

 

good idea, but I would like to see the scale analysis and efficiency issues. While feasible for a house, how much water/how high an elevation, or how many storage plants for a city seattles size? My instinct... it becomes prohibitive.

 

As for efficiency, just off instinct (and mine should be ok, as i'm an ME studying fluid mechanics) it would be a miracle if you could get 75 or 80% probably closer to 50% (losses in transit, turbine inefficiency, pump inefficiency), though this is a good low tech solution (relatively small environmental impact, low energy cost to develop and maintain. Those are actually some of the biggest benefits of windmills)

 

The problem is not everything scales well. For a single house in the country, if your usage is low you can absorb a lot of inefficiency in storage capacity combined with nearly continuous generation.

 

Trust me, I would very much love to see these things come to pass! But I don't think there's a silver bullet, and in the meantime we need something, cause what were doing is lacking.

[Dru]

We're not talking back-conversion but simply new construction. Maybe if you find the subject so interesting you should sign up for some architecture and E. engineering courses and find out how they do it.

[selkirk]

I'm working on a PhD in Aeronautics and Astronautics focusing on fluid mechanics/dynamics experimentation and computational modeling... it's more than enough. And with my background in Mechanical Engr. matched with discussions with my brother-in-law the Architect I've got a reasonably good grasp of at least some of the issues

 

Though i've always been a fan of Nuclear Power (two grandfathers were in it, and my dad was for a while as well). It's not the best quasi-permanent power source, but until we can develop something that will be on demand, and clean, it's better than the current feasible options. (and my friends studying fusion/plasma physics sing the same song that fusion people have been singing for a long time, fusion is 20yrs out with sufficient funding)

 

silly boy

[selkirk]

We're not talking back-conversion but simply new construction. Maybe if you find the subject so interesting you should sign up for some architecture and E. engineering courses and find out how they do it.

 

In which case with the current construction rates and reclamation of old property how long will it take before this is even remotely feasible without back conversion say (20% of all homes have this technology integrated)?

Thats kind of what I thought

[Dru]

Well since BC gets >90% of its power from green energy already I don't think we're gonna be busting out the nukes anytime soon. Have fun getting rid of the waste, shit 30 years of planning and you STILL can't even decide if you're going to store it at Yucca Mtn or what

 

RAPID TRANSIT

-------------

Rapid transit.

Public service.

I'm standing in my line.

 

Melt down.

Containment.

I'm standing in my line

 

Hang ten pipeline, let's go trippin'

Hang ten pipeline, let's go trippin'

Hang ten pipeline, let's go trippin'

Every wave is new until it breaks.

 

Go!

 

Secret service

Public enemy

I'm standing in my line

 

Hang ten pipeline, let's go trippin'

Hang ten pipeline, let's go trippin'

Hang ten pipeline, no way rockin'

Every wave is new until it breaks.

 

Go!

[PaulB]

If you lived near a dam or power plant you might note that they don't shut it down at night even though the local demand may diminish then.

That's true for base load plants (nuclear, coal, oil, hydro), but there are lots of peak load plants (usually gas turbines) that might run for a few hours a day, might run 24 hours a day for a week, or might go unused for a month.

[PaulB]

We're not talking back-conversion but simply new construction.

I can't afford to buy a normal house (at least not in North Van) so it's unlikely that I'll pay the extra 25% to build a super-duper environmentally correct one. As with hybrid cars, the limitations of the current technology mean you'll never recover the money you spent to get a warm fuzzy for "going green".

 

As Selkirk says, it'll be great when/if the alterntives are feasible, but in the meantime nuclear is a logical solution.

[selkirk]

I'm guessing primarily hyrdo? I can't imagine there is the right terrain for monstrous wind mill farms, and I doubt theres enough long term sun for solar? So what else is green?

 

Now tell me how this applies to say New York, or Kansas? Spot solutions are a different story. The NW US is primarily hydro but it's not broadly applicable. So... 90% green in an area with a population of what? where there's relatively abundant hydro? Net effect is small. It's not providing power for BC or Washington that has issues. It's the plains, the east coast, and the south, and california that are the problems. You know the places where lots of people live....

 

keep trying.....

[murraysovereign]

 

4. Storage issues, unless someone has a great way to store huge amounts of electricity for later use (would be needed with Wind, Solar, tidal etc)

 

At least here in the NW, storage is pretty simple, and already in place. By using solar power or wind power when they're available, we reduce the amount of water that needs to be drawn from the Hydro reservoirs, so that amount of water stays in the reservoir - effectively "storing" the equivalent of that day's wind & solar production for use later when the sun &/or wind isn't available. The same basic principle works with coal - if we can find some other way of generating Thursday's power, then an equivalent amount of coal won't have to be burned until Friday, so that energy remains "stored" until it's needed. Same with nuclear - don't "burn" the uranium until you absolutely have to. Instead of using the non-renewables as a last resort, we've built our entire system around using up the non-renewables first. I say we start shifting some of our consumption toward renewables wherever possible, and in so doing reduce our reliance on the non-renewables, so they'll still be available to us in the future. What we're doing right now is kind of like burning all the furniture in the house, and even tearing out interior walls in order to burn the studs, while there's a forest of trees outside that we could be burning instead. But it would "cost" too much in time and effort to go cut down one of those trees and buck it into fireplace lengths and split it, so we bust up another bookshelf instead. We're just lazy, and as long as the easier thing is to keep burning the furniture, that's what we'll do. I'm not saying we shouldn't ever burn the furniture - it may be necessary some day, and we should be prepared for that - but shouldn't we be trying to delay that as long as there are alternatives?

[ChrisT]

amen brother!