re 3: It looks like it would increase the cost of nuclear electricity by 25-30 %, due to lower utilization of capital in a fully nuclear grid. Likely more economic to build pumped storage and a few less nuke plants, but the savings from series build on this scale will more than make up for it. If the world builds 5-10000 reactors to solve global warming once and for all, reactor number 500 through 7825 is not going to cost as much as flamaville 3
RE: 4: well, the entire primary energy production has to be replaced with something. My attitude is exorbitant because the problem is. As far as I can tell, nuclear is the only option that really could do this if we are willing to expend enough effort on it. Wind has its selling points, but we are going to run out of good locations for it way before we get to that goal, so, not really an answer. (Might work out for the US. EU population density is just too high) Solar on a scale to match with primary energy production makes me break out in hives, because it really would entail concreting over too much of the world.
This is not under discussion. The question is, what can be built in the next 5, 10, 15 years?
So, we can estimate (with some work) how much new nuclear capacity can come online in the next 5, 10, 15 under various scenarios of building steel forges and training engineers (neither of which happen instantly).
And, given such estimates, you will find there is room for new windpower installations as well, even if your preference would be for all new installations to be nuclear, given that wind is preferable to coal or gas. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
Re 3: 25-30%? Could be higher, but worse is that not only does a full provision of variable power from nuclear look technically unfeasible, but such operation in general looks to bring maintenance problems. The mass-production cost decrease argument applies for all modes.
Re 4: your attitude is exorbitant because you seem to insist on a solution with one generation mode only -- and make untested to unreal assumptions for your choice mode to see it able to deliver. I don't know what's the present estimate for the exploitable wind resource in the EU, but last I looked, it was equivalent to current consumption. Population density is not that much a limit, especially not in the comparison to the resource of the USA (I think you were told about this in the past, too), the available wind is more. And this image of yours of solar needing the covering (and now even concreting!...) over of the world should not recur either after the calculations I gave you before, even less when thinking on a European rather than just German scale. Meanwhile, if HDR geothermal would become commercial technology, the exploitable resource would be several times current consuption of even primary energy (which, as said before, would be reduced if f.e. transport would be electrified the right way). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
So, really, for nukes to work as a global warming fix, breeders are necessary. - Plausible designs for rapid adoption would be the IFR and the Russian BN-800 design. - This actually has hilarious consequences in the opposite direction, since the ore requirement for a breeder reactor in operation is roughly one tonne of fertile, (not fissile!) material per year, so after the initial fuel load, the stockpile of already mined depleted uranium (1.5 million tonnes) could keep the world in power for about a thousand years..
Indeed, and it may not even be feasible: again size of supply and speed of extraction are different things. The Uranium2007 study says:
Seawater may also be regarded as a possible sourcc of uranium, due to the large volume of uranium contained (about 4 billion tU) and its almost inexhaustible nature. However, because of the low concentration of uranium in seawater (3-4 ppb), it is estimated that it would require the processing of about 350 000 tonnes of water to produce a single kg of uranium. Nonetheless, with the exception of its high recovery cost, there is no intristic reason why at least some of these significant resources could not be extracted from various coast lines at a total rate of a few hundred of tonnes annually.
So, really, for nukes to work as a global warming fix, breeders are necessary.
Yep. But, for that, one would need:
a) the design works without problems (unlike the Superphénix or the never even started Kalkar), b) the breeder plant is paired with another novelty, a flawlessly working reprocessing plant (in contrast to the dirtiest branch of the nuclear industry: Sellafield, Hanford, Mayak, Le Havre, Hanau, Tokaimura...).
So, I'm not saying it's impossible, but I don't see a breeder future any less hypothetical than a fusion future. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
For example, an almost unknown mining project in northern Sweden (Myrviken), an vanadium, uranium, molybdenum and nickel deposit, is big enough to fuel all our nukes for 20 years! And this from a country which the IAEA classifies as having "zero" uranium reserves. The uranium ore is not rich enough to mine by itself, but the other minerals make it possibly profitable. There are lots and lots and lots of big low grade deposits like this scattered all over the world.
Total known world recoverable uranium reserves are 5.5 million tonnes. In spite of this, there's 1 million tonnes of the stuff lying around in a single small Swedish mountain (Billingen) which is not included in any data because of the low grade. At what cost is this ore profitable? No one knows. Is it possible to mine it? Yes, it was mined to get uranium to our weapons program.
Oil reserve data is bad, gas reserve data is awful, coal reserve data is horrible and uranium reserve data is nonexistent. The only thing we can say about uranium reserves with any measure of safety is that there's really plenty of the stuff around, and whenever people head out and look for it they find a lot more than is consumed any given year. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
So, in just these two areas there's as much uranium as in the official numbers for the entire world. Think about that for a while. On the other hand, the low concentrations and the thin deposits (3 metres) means that most of these deposits would have to be mined in a way which looks a lot like open pit coal mining. Myrviken is an exception, because here the alum shale is not 3 metres thick, it's 200 metres. Myrviken would look very much like and have about the same dimensions as the Aitik copper mine in northern Sweden.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
There is
Which is ahem cough problematic from a public relations standpoint in the west
It may also be problematic considering the power sector safety culture there, especially considering the liquid sodium pool. I shudder at the thought of a commerical-scale Chinese fast breeder reactor operated with the same care coal plants or indeed photovoltaic factories are. The same goes for large-scale reprocessing.
Anyhow, though I think that my 10 year minimum applies, for purposes of a timescale, it is wholly uncertain when Beloyarsk-5 (or a Chinese equivalent) will be up and running (I haven't found any officially stated concrete dates). But looking further East, here is a timescale:
Mitsubishi to develop Japan's next fast breeder reactor
Mitsubishi to develop Japan's next fast breeder reactor 18 April 2007 The Japanese government has selected Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) as the core company to develop a new generation of fast breeder reactors, in an initiative promoted by the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA). ...The company plans to establish a new unit by March 2008 to orchestrate engineering activities and carry out development, looking towards construction of a demonstration FBR by 2025 and a commercial reactor for introduction by 2050...
The Japanese government has selected Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) as the core company to develop a new generation of fast breeder reactors, in an initiative promoted by the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA).
...The company plans to establish a new unit by March 2008 to orchestrate engineering activities and carry out development, looking towards construction of a demonstration FBR by 2025 and a commercial reactor for introduction by 2050...
The concern here is one of proliferation, but that is political. If the answer to our global energy needs were thorium-fuelled breeder reactors the motivation would be there to get serious about non-proliferation. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
RE: 4: well, the entire primary energy production has to be replaced with something. My attitude is exorbitant because the problem is. As far as I can tell, nuclear is the only option that really could do this if we are willing to expend enough effort on it. Wind has its selling points, but we are going to run out of good locations for it way before we get to that goal, so, not really an answer. (Might work out for the US. EU population density is just too high)
I do not agree that it is realistic with an all nuclear approach. Two years ago I wrote a rather fun poll: European Tribune - How many reactors should we have?
As seen from that drawing and comments there are all kinds of pro- and anti-nuclear stances. So just to make things interesting I would like to know: How many reactors do you think we (as in all the world) should have around 2030? Some premises. While accounts appear to differ, nuclear power is about 1/15 of the worlds energy supply, and about 13/15 being made up by fossile fuels. And we have today around 450 reactors with a bunch in production. Say 500 for good measure. Of course reactors can be of different effect, but assuming around todays values, replacing todays fossile fuels with fission reactors would demand some 6500 new reactors, bringing the total to 7000. Then perhaps there should be some more for all new electrical gadgets.
As seen from that drawing and comments there are all kinds of pro- and anti-nuclear stances. So just to make things interesting I would like to know: How many reactors do you think we (as in all the world) should have around 2030?
Some premises. While accounts appear to differ, nuclear power is about 1/15 of the worlds energy supply, and about 13/15 being made up by fossile fuels. And we have today around 450 reactors with a bunch in production. Say 500 for good measure.
Of course reactors can be of different effect, but assuming around todays values, replacing todays fossile fuels with fission reactors would demand some 6500 new reactors, bringing the total to 7000. Then perhaps there should be some more for all new electrical gadgets.
Solar on a scale to match with primary energy production makes me break out in hives, because it really would entail concreting over too much of the world.
How much of the planet? A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
