Nuclear Power: A Change for the Better

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush shared his opinions on nuclear power in the Ocala, Fl  Star Banner:

"Change" seems to be the operative word this election season. It's on the lips of political contenders and on the minds of the voters. But politics isn't the only arena where change is in the air. Change is happening in the world of energy as well, specifically when it comes to nuclear energy.

Against the backdrop of a larger discussion about how we will meet our future energy demand while keeping our environment clean, nuclear energy is experiencing a renaissance. Americans are beginning to shed the emotional debate about nuclear energy and are taking a practical look at why it is essential to meeting our future energy demand.

They like what they see. The support for nuclear energy is diverse. It's one of the few issues in Washington, D.C., these days that feels bipartisan. Even former naysayers are coming around to the merits of nuclear.

There are now 104 nuclear power reactors in the United States that are safely producing 20 percent of the nation's electricity - notably, without producing any of the harmful greenhouse gases some believe to be a major factor in climate change. Americans are beginning to recognize that nuclear energy caters to both our lifestyle and our greening mentality. And it offers the most proven means for our country to achieve much needed energy security.

Patrick Moore, the co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, personifies the sea change in public opinion. Moore has significantly changed his tune in the last 30 years from a Greenpeace protester to a pro-nuclear environmentalist who has embraced nuclear energy as a realistic way to meet electricity demand without polluting the environment. He is just one of many who have taken another look at nuclear and have given it a second chance. Moore is now co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, of which I am a member.

American are demanding changes in energy production and the utilities are listening - there are 31 new nuclear power plants on the drawing board to be built over the next 15 to 20 years. Three of those are proposed for Florida.  . . .

By 2030 the South Atlantic Grid is expected to require 26 percent more energy than it produced in 2006. And nationally, the numbers are even higher. As a country, we will need 40 percent more electricity to power our way of life by 2030.  . . .

It is time to shine a little light on this critical sea change, which has produced energy's comeback kid - nuclear power. It has my vote."

While not an energy expert, Jeb Bush is very recognizable figure in American politics and his opinions are worth considering.  While energy conservation should remain our priority and renewable energy (solar, wind, ocean, and geothermal) expanded as fast as possible, our power needs in the next 20-30 years cannot be met by these efforts.  That leaves clean coal with sequestration and nuclear power to fill this gap. Federal energy policy is not moving to require sequestration, and generation III+ nuclear technology will not be available (in the US) in "production" quantities until the first few of this generation of nuclear power have been demonstrated.  Thus we have to revert to clean coal power in the meantime. The only recourse is for the banks to require an allowance for the cost of sequestration in their evaluation for a loan, see previous post. If you have not seen The Oil Drum post "Olduvai revisited 2008" you should read it and all the comments for a excellent discussion on our future energy choices. Its an onerous task to write such a post, I hope I will have my own version in the not too distant future. If you are not familiar with the Olduvai Theory see the entry in Wikipedia.  It is my belief that when enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) are commercially developed, the price of PV solar drops to less than $2.00 per Wp and PHEVs and EVs become widely available, sometime between 2012 and 2020, we will be able to sustain the growth of energy consumption on renewable energy, so the period of dependence on fossil fuels will end in the foreseeable future.

Comments

[Al Fin]

Nuclear energy is indispensable for a balanced and reliable electricity supply. Enhanced geothermal and better storage for large-scale renewables will help immensely.

We will need diesel and gasoline for longer than the next decade also. If we can get those liquid fuels from biomass, all the better.

Humans will need vastly greater amounts of energy (thinking otherwise is delusional), and most people are convinced of the need for clean energy, rather than dirty.

For those who want to "return to the simple days gone by" and forget about a high energy future, good luck. For those who want 90% of humans to just go away, my suggestion is "you first."

[Will]

Nuclear Power may well prove an essential component of future energy growth, but the claim that it comes with none of the Co2 emissions of standard plants is false - Co2 is released in the mining and refinement of its standard fuel.

[IpsoFacto]

Nuclear energy is light on carbon emissions only at the moment of producing electricity; all other phases of the life cycle are not good. The impacts of mining uranium as well as guarding it from terrorists needs to be considered, and carbon output of refining uranium and making concrete for the plants are both startling, no bargain at all! The weight of the nuclear waste being trucked out to Nevada's Yucca Mountain ups the carbon output, and the residents who live near that repository will need to be compensated for the risk of being near that nuclear traffic, and the need to guard all repositories of nuclear waste is a long range expense.
And worst of all, Yucca Mountain may not be that secure. Who are we to overshadow future generations for 150,000 years with nuclear waste?
Nuclear energy is estimated up to $4000 per kW installed and its need of water for cooling is a real limit to its applicability.
That's a lot of hurdles. Ipso.

[scott]

Currently no energy source is totally CO2 free. Making solar cells is a highly energy intensive process and ive heard its takes 4 years to produce the energy needed to create the cell. Solar thermal uses tons of steel which require heat to forge and make, though ive heard the payback there is closer to 1 year. Mining of course can have all sorts of problems outside of CO2 productions. And of course there are always transportation costs in any power plant. The important number is years of energy production needed to offset production of the plant (more necessary for solar and wind) and sustained mining.

[scott]

IpsoFacto, cooling is necessary for just about any heat related energy production, but it does not have to be wet cooling. Are there good reasons apart from efficiency that nuclear plants cant use dry cooling? i know many solar thermal plants have to rely on dry cooling as water in the desert is not always available. Ive also read that 45% of our fresh water is used for electricity production... which i found a bit alarming... not sure i trust that number.

[bob]

People, the claim "mining uranium leads to CO2 emissions" is silly. By that CO2-counting method, mining COAL leads to CO2 emissions too. The rub is that getting energy from uranium is CO2-free, unlike energy from coal. Stop being childish.

The claim that we're screwing over future generations with nuclear waste is also incredibly narrow-minded. I wonder how those future generations feel about the greenhouse gases we're saddling them with? All currently-feasible large-scale energy production means cause pollution ... it's a question of having the pollution in a solid compact store-able form (nuclear), or having it floating around into peoples' lungs. Note that coal releases not just CO2, but also heavy (i.e. always toxic and sometimes radioactive) metals into the air.

[Mike Keller]

Dry cooling towers could be used with conventional nuclear plants. Basically, the low pressure (vacuum actually) steam discharged from the steam turbine can be turned back into liquid water in an air cooled condenser. This is done on some combined-cycle power plants. However, for a nuclear unit, the size of the air condenser would be stupefying huge – and expensive. A nuclear plant produces about 4000 megawatts of heat, most of which goes into the environment – the plants are about 33% efficient. Mechanical draft cooling towers or hyperbolic towers are normally used and these units use something like 30 million gallons a day – evaporated water into the air.

[Derek]

With reference the loss of water during cooling or of any other use. Water never disappears it moves along. We as human beings pass water through our bodies where does that go to? What happens to the CO2 we produce? Can anyone isolate that CO2 from that produced by other methods when analysing the the CO2 content of air? What about all the water going down to the sea to be turned into salt water. I thought thought that all the water we use is recycled by rain.

[david foster]

"45% of our fresh water is used for electricity production"...not sure what "used" would mean in this context. Cooling water from a river or a lake circulates in the condenser, thereby condensing the steam: after looping through the condenser coils, the cooling water is then discharged back into the body of water from whence it came. It's still the same water, not used up or polluted, but a bit warmer.

[Dezakin]

The impacts of mining uranium as well as guarding it from terrorists needs to be considered, and carbon output of refining uranium and making concrete for the plants are both startling, no bargain at all!
You realize nuclear power consumes less than 1/10th the steel and concrete of similar capacities of wind before introducing dispatchable power to make up for the intermittency.

[Brian]

From Per F. Peterson, Department of Nuclear Engineering. The Future of Nuclear Energy Policy: A California Perspective 2005:

Nuclear power plants built in the 1970’s used 40 metric tons of steel, and 190 cubic meters of concrete, for each megawatt of average capacity.

Modern wind energy systems, with good wind conditions, take 460 metric tons of steel and 870 cubic meters of concrete per megawatt.

So 60,000 tons per year of waste from 443 reactors worldwide generating 372 gigawatts. Multiply the 60,000 tons by the 60 years of avg life for a nuclear plant for 3.6 million tons of waste stored.

Wind would need 468 million tons more steel (460-40 tons) * 3 times more operating efficiency from nuclear* 372000 power generated and 759 million tons more concrete to manufacture the equivalent wind capacity. Concrete and steel production have industrial deaths and carbon emissions from their mining and manufacture.

[Rick]

amazing how green house gasses are automatically labeled "harmful" - even while astonishing number of people and animals are suffering and being killed by cold.

[Alex]

Fine Ok. back to nuclear. Back to technology which has not really changed since WW2. The concept is unfocused and the trade-off unbalanced. Nuclear = less CO2 = more nuclear waste to dump in third world countries. I suppose Greenpeace approves even that!

[noah]

Is it surprising Jeb doesn't mention nuclear fuel-to-waste cycle? Fision Production is the small step of the cycle compared to mining, refining, and decommissioning. You know you are hard spent for creditable support of subsidized dangerous tech when jeb is your notable spokesperson

[technofossil]

From above: While energy conservation should remain our priority ...

The key word is should. In my opinion, we (our society) greatly undervalues conservation. It seems that as a nation, conservation is the lowest priority. If we put as much effort into thinking of ways to improve energy efficiency as we do arguing about Nuke vs Solar vs Coal, we might not need a new nuke or coal plant, and it would be cost less, taste better, less filling, more jobs, etc.

Look at the per capita electric consumption by state and the huge disparity across the country seems like a big opportunity. Could we find ways to eliminate waste and install that faster than we can build new power plants?

I think the word conservation brings up images of an ascetic lifestyle-- we should live like the Amish but in clustered little huts, etc. I like the words efficiency and productivity better as this is associated with improved lifestyle and wealth.

I suppose from a business point of view, it's easier to plan and install a 1000MW nuclear plant than get 10M people to cut 100W of wasted electricity.

It doesn't take any more steel to make an electronic device that really turns itself off when not in use-- it just takes awareness.

Personally, I'm tired of the pro-nuke vs anti-nuke debate-- we should be arguing about the units to show on yellow energy-guide stickers (for anything that uses energy), how much insulation and thermal mass should be on a building, putting in solar tubes instead of fluorescent lights, etc.

[IpsoFacto]

So many issues, so little time. first water use -- check out USGS website which finds that 39% of our nation's withdrawals of fresh water goes to thermo electric cooling, which is different from consumption, which is much less and differs by regions and by types of cooling. Both figures cause real trouble to any region (like GA and SC) suffering severe drought. In the arid west, new nukes are greatly hindered by the amount of water they need, as are coal plants. second, is the question really nuclear waste vs co2, or are there other schemes? What waste-free renewable mode of generation could present base load dispatchable power? Concentrating solar with storage in the SW, and geothermal, and down the road, wave and tidal energy. Third: let's talk rising cost of uranium. see http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/fuel-supply.html for a pretty strong discussion of uphill pricing for this fuel. All of these considerations need to go into the pot. my money is on waste-free, low water use, renewable energy for the whole economy, eventually. The question is how much $$$ and time will we waste of modes that take as much as they give? Ipso.

[DaveMart]

Ipso Facto,
Do you realise how small a percentage of total cost of nuclear energy is represented by the fuel?
Cost increases for the vast amounts of material used for wind power are far more significant.
Well before we have a problem with fuel costs, we can get uranium from seawater -uranium has been too cheap to bother before.
The actual waste from a nuclear reactor is around 20 tonnes a year - and we are developing nuclear reactors which will be able to burn it.

[Brian]

$$$ is not wasted. We have gotten the electricity needed to run society (like the computer you used to enter your messages) from nuclear and other power sources. PV Solar is 1/20th of 1% and concentrated solar is a smaller fraction of that.

You list issues but do not put the actual scale of almost any of the issues. Water is used for cooling all the big power plants fossil fuel and nuclear, and is not for solar or wind. And yet nuclear power still has 90% operating efficiency while solar is down around 20% and wind at 30%. Solar has the issue of night time and less than high noon and clouds. Wind has calm summers and other intermittency.

Uranium prices rose and yet nuclear electric power prices barely budged. Because fuel costs are only a tiny fraction of the cost of a nuclear power plant. Plus the raw uranium cost is an even smaller portion. Most of the fuel costs are for enrichment. This is because uranium has 20,000 times the energy density of coal so very little is needed to run a nuclear power plant.

The key thing that is forgotten is scale. Scale of the energy problems and what are solutions that are able to scale and make a difference.

[David B. Benson]

Meanwhile, some of our energy needs can be met, with ever increasing efficiency, via bioenergy:

http://biopact.com/2008/03/new-study-shows-way-to-fourth.html

[bob]

I see that the anti-nuke people here have resorted to non-sequiturs and ad hominems ... guess they're out of reasonable points to argue. Keep making fun of how old nuclear power is and how unpopular the Bush family is, though, you're doing great!

[Alex]

Careful! you are very near to convincing us that nuclear energy is a renewable energy source ! But because none has touched upon the issue directly, could you inform us please as to what exactly happens to nuclear waste ?
I think nobody disputes the fact that nuclear will carry the weight of near future "human evolution" even Mr, Jed Bush who possibly sees this outlook as an excellent business venture, given near future oil shortages. @bob: ....sic transit gloria mundi !

[Paul F. Dietz]

But because none has touched upon the issue directly, could you inform us please as to what exactly happens to nuclear waste?

It cools for a few years, then gets sealed in armored 'dry casks', filled with inert gas, for several centuries, or until someone wants to do something useful with it. The volume is so small that this strategy is quite affordable, even if you have to guard the casks for that time.

[GreyFlcn]

Well speaking of Nuclear water use.

Nuclear evaporates (or "consumes") as much as 900 gallons of water per MWh.
http://greyfalcon.net/nuclearwater.png

Nuclear consumes/withdraws more water than Coal, and much more than Natural Gas.

[GreyFlcn]

SolarThermal/GeoThermal of course rank similar to Nuclear.

However, given their lower capital cost, they have an option Nuclear doesn't
(Given it's already obscenely high capital cost with open loop cooling).

More expensive near-zero water consumption cooling.
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pdfs/2007/dersch_dry_cooling.pdf

[JDT]

Nuclear Power may well prove an essential component of future energy growth, but the claim that it comes with none of the Co2 emissions of standard plants is false - Co2 is released in the mining and refinement of its standard fuel.

Nonsense - this is miniscule. Perfection is the enemy of good. I guess the nuke plant operators also exhale CO2. So lets shut the plant down.

Numbers please.

And what is the CO2 emission ratio to Coal?

Numbers talk, selective rationalizations walk.