Seriously thoughtful Will more nuclear power plants be built?

[YGG-]

Originally Posted by tirsales

[...] Whatever the industry might be telling - nuclear power is not perfect.

With all due respect, Tirsales, saying a technology isn't perfect amounts to saying rain is wet & fire burns the question is "between 2 evils etc."...
(And yes, France, where I live, did choose nuclear pover 30 years ago).

[HarryT]

France is a shining example to the rest of us when it comes to nuclear power and low CO2 emissions.

[YGG-]

Originally Posted by HarryT

France is a shining example to the rest of us when it comes to nuclear power and low CO2 emissions.

And no one as of today has solved the issues w/ nuclear waste, Tirsales is right...

[moz]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

30l per person per day? Thats about 8 gallons per person per day? this includes drinking water, water for cooking, bathing, toilet flushing and personal hygiene?

It doesn't include toilet flushing or watering the garden, but apart from that yes. Our washing machine uses 50-70 litres per wash (7kg), the rest is just a matter of paying a bit of attention. With a 6l/min shower head a two minute shower is only 15 litres or so (including waiting for the hot water to come through). Showering while standing in a rectangular plastic bin means shower water flushes the toilet, and washing dishes in a smaller bin effectively makes the sink smaller, so we use less than 10 litres of water for a load of dishes. It works for us, and it's not especially difficult. It probably saves time overall, as we spend less time standing in the shower

Poorer countries are usually under 10lpppd, the global average is dragged up by our favourite wastrels but even Australians seem to struggle to get close to 100lpppd. Slightly nutty in a dry country like this one.

[moz]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

You've got that backwards. Today's nuclear plants use fission... the separation of atomic particles.

Yup, I was talking about stars. In case you didn't misspeak above, the separation of atomic particles stage is the energy-expensive part of the process (enrichment), it's the stimulated fission part that releases stored solar energy.

So-called "renewable" energy is almost entirely solar-derived, most of it in ludicrously inefficient ways that only work because the sheer amount of solar energy available is so large. Unfortunately that tiny fraction of it that is available for fission plants is both hard to get and unable to give us more than another brief consumption boost before running out.

I think we need to decide how long we want the human race to be around for and plan our resource use accordingly. So any plan to replace much of our existing electricity generation with nuclear fission needs to clearly tell us how long that will be for - none of the estimates I've seen suggest even a millennium worth of fissionables exist on Earth, let alone enough for a more acceptable timeframe. It would be a shame to discover later that transuranics are actually useful and we've burnt them all up, as seems likely to happen with fossil fuels.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by moz

none of the estimates I've seen suggest even a millennium worth of fissionables exist on Earth, let alone enough for a more acceptable timeframe.

Yeah, well - the same (more or less) is true for wind power (this is not a joke - wind power plants do have an impact on the rotational speed of the earth and the overall "wind available"), etc
Actually there are only two power sources "available in large amounts": Fusion (if we ever solve this puzzle) and solar energy.

[moz]

Originally Posted by tirsales

wind power plants do have an impact on the rotational speed of the earth

Can you provide a cite for this, or even a plausible explanation?

Sure, wind power is a limited resource, just like direct solar. But the scale is so vast that it's difficult to imagine us using all of it in the near future.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by moz

Can you provide a cite for this, or even a plausible explanation?

Have to redo the search, sorry. But will do.

Sure, wind power is a limited resource, just like direct solar. But the scale is so vast that it's difficult to imagine us using all of it in the near future.

I never talked about "near" future, sorry if that was misphrased - lets say some millenia.
And I'm not talking about one or two wind power plants - but the production of *all* of our energy out of wind power plants. Wind power is a totally fine power for some time, to a given amount and under given presumptions (there are not that many places where you have enough place and strong enough wind to make wind power plants feasible - let alone get enough power out of them to replace nuclear power plants).

The only thing I wanted to state is, that the solution is not as simple as many politicians would like to believe. Neither oil, nor coal nor fissionable material is present in large enough amounts to use them for a long time (not talking 'bout one or two generations here). With oil and coal other problems exist in addition - e.g. CO2 and we really need oil for other purposes (e.g. chemistry). I strongly dislike simple (or simplified) solutions - reality is too complex to fit it into two sentences.

To the best of my knowledge, solar and fusion are the only power sources available to a greater degree. Sure, our sun will die in some years (earth will be cold much earlier), and in some time hydrogen will run out (well, we can fusion He too) - but we are talking about a really different time frame here. I just believe it very, very short sighted (of most political systems) to disobey fusion (or solar) research.

[moz]

Originally Posted by tirsales

but the production of *all* of our energy out of wind power plants. ... I just believe it very, very short sighted (of most political systems) to disobey fusion (or solar) research.

I don't think anyone has ever suggested getting all our energy, or even all our electricity from wind power. Personally I think it's currently a useful way to generate electricity in terms of both financial and environmental cost but it's got real limits that won't go away.

Fusion research is IMO a bit of a joke right now - we know what's required to make hot fusion go and we know that we can't provide those conditions. So the useful research is really indirect, stuff like better magnets and fundamental physics that might lead to sidestepping many of the current problems altogether. Which is why it's important to fund weird stuff as well as the current fixation with "a theory of everything" and straight commercial science.

I suspect that we'll never get very good efficiency from photovoltaic systems, but if we can make something cheap and back it with thermal generation (solar thermal, that is) I think we'll have the worst of the problem solved. Again, cheap both financially and environmentally. Cheaper than trees, anyway. Coz we already have trees...

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by moz

I don't think anyone has ever suggested getting all our energy, or even all our electricity from wind power.

Yeah, well, they did I can remember some political suggestions along those lines.

Fusion research is IMO a bit of a joke right now - we know what's required to make hot fusion go and we know that we can't provide those conditions.

To the best of my knowledge it is currently unknown whether we are able to provide said conditions or not: We might not be able to do so ATM, but perhaps next year? Or in ten years? Or in fifty?
Let me phrase it differently: Whats the alternative? We do NOT know whether it will work - so lets just find out.

So the useful research is really indirect, stuff like better magnets and fundamental physics that might lead to sidestepping many of the current problems altogether. Which is why it's important to fund weird stuff as well as the current fixation with "a theory of everything" and straight commercial science.

Yes! Thanks!
We do not know what will be the breakthrough. Maybe tomorrow someone finds the cure - well, fine. But we dont know what will be the breakthrough - so we just have to go on (and on and on).
Simply focusing on a "simple" solution is never right.

I suspect that we'll never get very good efficiency from photovoltaic systems, but if we can make something cheap and back it with thermal generation (solar thermal, that is) I think we'll have the worst of the problem solved. Again, cheap both financially and environmentally. Cheaper than trees, anyway. Coz we already have trees...

Depends. There are some political problems with (efficient) photovoltaic or -thermic (just look at the map - which countries would be the leaders in energy production. Can you spell Africa big enough?)
There are some approaches / theories using satellite systems (hey, they do produce lots of energy. Problem is: Who will catch all those batteries raining from heaven?), but they are (again: AFAIK and ATM) far from being feasible.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Who will catch all those batteries raining from heaven?), but they are (again: AFAIK and ATM) far from being feasible.

These people will.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/15/s...d-solar-power/

BOb

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

These people will.

[url]http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/15/solaren-corp-to-supply-california-with-space-based-solar-power/[/url

And I do hope they fix all the issues with this approach - its quite fascinating to see this "SciFi-esk idea" put into real-world usage
Thanks for the link.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by moz

[SNIP]
Fusion research is IMO a bit of a joke right now - we know what's required to make hot fusion go and we know that we can't provide those conditions. So the useful research is really indirect, stuff like better magnets and fundamental physics that might lead to sidestepping many of the current problems altogether. Which is why it's important to fund weird stuff as well as the current fixation with "a theory of everything" and straight commercial science.
[SNIP]

The late Dr. Bussard had an approach that may work (or may not). The theory appears good (according to a couple of physicists of my acquaintance) but the engineering has not been demonstrated. The talk I've seen on the subject gave an estimate of $20Million to build a test article that would either prove or disprove the theory while also giving enough data to design full-scale plants. One would only bother with designing larger devices if the test article is successful, of course.

But although his approach is solidly main-stream in terms of physics and theory, it's out of step from the main-stream of fusion research. And for some reason, no one has seen fit to fund that $20M. I've been poking some of the local Green organizations, and suggesting that they collaborate with, say, the Edison Institute or the Electric Power Research Institute to fund it and find out. There's no knowing what the odds are without giving it a try, but the potential pay-off is so large it seems like a good idea to me.

My thinking is that the green folks have the enviro credentials and the electric power folks have the money and the business interest. They should be natural partners on something like this. Right?

Xenophon

P.S. Due to Cheop's Law*, I've been noting that a budget on the order of $40M or even $50M would be a more appropriate estimate. *Cheop's Law: Everything always takes longer and costs more.

[Xenophon]

On renewable resources:

• Wind power is fundamentally a combination of solar power and the rotational energy of the Earth. Both are limited in the end, although perhaps not on any human time-scale.
• Tide power draws from the rotational energy of the Earth-Moon system. Also not truly renewable, but the magnitude of the source and the time-scale for drawing it down are so large that we mayfly humans may as well think of it that way.
• Solar power is, of course, limited by the life of the Sun. Or of whatever star we may eventually draw on. See previous comments.
• All of the above appear to be limited by the half-life of the proton. Lower limit thereof is currently though to be around 6.6x10**33 years [see wikipedia for references]

Wearing my engineering hat for a moment, I note that "renewable" power sources simply draw on power with larger supplies. They are not fundamentally different from saying "we'll never run out of {coal, wood, oil, uranium, whatever}". Only the timescale differs.

Xenophon

P.S. I admit that the magnitudes involved appear to make the limits meaningless from a human point of view. But that's what people believed about coal a few hundred years ago...

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

My thinking is that the green folks have the enviro credentials and the electric power folks have the money and the business interest. They should be natural partners on something like this. Right

At least in Germany "green folks" tend to read "OH MY GOD - its NUCLEAR power". As (everyone knows that *sheesh*) nuclear power is the evil per se, "green folks" tend to abolish fusion research.