PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The end of nuclear power?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
raspberry-blower



Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 1445

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:03 pm    Post subject: The end of nuclear power? Reply with quote

In the comments section of Moonbat's latest there is this nugget:
Quote:
@georgemonbiot

Energy is the master resource - the capacity to do work. Our modern society is the result of the enormous energy subsidy we have enjoyed in the form of fossil fuels, specifically fossil fuels with a very high energy profit ratio (EROEI). Energy surplus drove expansion, intensification, and the development of socioeconomic complexity, but now that we stand on the edge of the net energy cliff, that surplus (above that which has to be reinvested in energy production) is rapidly diminishing. Societies would have to greatly increase gross production to make up for reduced energy profit ratio, but production is flat to falling. Net energy available for all society's other purposes will fall even more quickly. The implication is that society will inevitably be simpler.
A plethora of energy fantasies is making the rounds at the moment. Whether based on unconventional oil and gas, nu nuclear tech, or renewables (that are not actually renewable), these are stories we tell ourselves in order to deny that we are facing any kind of energy scarcity, or that supply could be in any way a concern. They are an attempt to maintain the fiction that our society can continue in its current form, or even increase in complexity - an attempt to deny the existence of non-negotiable limits to growth. The touted alternatives are not energy sources for our current society, because low EROEI energy sources cannot sustain a society complex enough to produce them.
We are poised to throw away what remains of our conventional energy inheritance chasing an impossible dream of perpetual energy riches, because doing so will be profitable for the few in the short term, and virtually no one is taking a genuine long term view. We will make the transition to a lower energy society much more difficult than it need have been.

*
Don't take the "we" personally. It's meant to be a generalization.


Monbiot: End of nuclear? Careful of what you wish for
_________________
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools - Douglas Adams.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13958
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

His article does inadvertently point up the total and utter failure of the European ETS. We knew it was going to be a failure all along, but they just have do all the wrong things first, don't they?
_________________
"Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fụck the Buddhists" - Bjork
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7587

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's fairly good article from Monbiot, but I'm not convinced IFR is the answer, certainly not for the decades old, really dirty waste.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 5633
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

clv101 wrote:
That's fairly good article from Monbiot, but I'm not convinced IFR is the answer, certainly not for the decades old, really dirty waste.
IFR sounds like a cracking idea! Why the hell isn't a ton on money being pushed into developing it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
raspberry-blower



Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 1445

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevecook172001 wrote:
clv101 wrote:
That's fairly good article from Monbiot, but I'm not convinced IFR is the answer, certainly not for the decades old, really dirty waste.
IFR sounds like a cracking idea! Why the hell isn't a ton on money being pushed into developing it?


Steve - from the Wiki on IFR there is this:
Quote:
IFR opponents also presented a report[22] by the DOE's Office of Nuclear Safety regarding a former Argonne employee's allegations that Argonne had retaliated against him for raising concerns about safety, as well as about the quality of research done on the IFR program. The report received international attention, with a notable difference in the coverage it received from major scientific publications. The British journal Nature entitled its article "Report backs whistleblower", and also noted conflicts of interest on the part of a DOE panel that assessed IFR research.[23] In contrast, the article that appeared in Science was entitled "Was Argonne Whistleblower Really Blowing Smoke?".[24] Remarkably, that article did not disclose that the Director of Argonne National Laboratories, Alan Schriesheim, was a member of the Board of Directors of Science's parent organization, the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[25]

Despite support for the reactor by then-Rep. Richard Durbin (D, IL) and U.S. Senators Carol Mosley Braun (D, IL) and Paul Simon (D, IL), funding for the reactor was slashed, and it was ultimately canceled in 1994 by S.Amdt. 2127 to H.R. 4506 (Note: both Illinois Senators voted to cancel the reactor funding in the end).


That would appear to be the answer to your question although the Wiki then goes on to say this:
Quote:
In 2001, as part of the Generation IV roadmap, the DOE tasked a 242 person team of scientists from DOE, UC Berkeley, MIT, Stanford, ANL, LLNL, Toshiba, Westinghouse, Duke, EPRI, and other institutions to evaluate 19 of the best reactor designs on 27 different criteria. The IFR ranked #1 in their study which was released April 9, 2002.[26]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor
_________________
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools - Douglas Adams.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13958
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A2″ designates thyroids with cysts
_________________
"Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fụck the Buddhists" - Bjork
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18552
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
After years of failed repair attempts to repair a broken nuclear reactor in Florida and years more of stalling, Duke Energy has finally accepted the inevitable, and decided to retire the Crystal River nuclear plant.


http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2013/02/05/duke-energy-shuts-down-crystal-river-nuclear-plant/
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13958
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 1:16 pm    Post subject: Re: The end of nuclear power? Reply with quote

Sorry to hijack this thread ever-so-slightly.

raspberry-blower wrote:
Monbiot: End of nuclear? Careful of what you wish for


On the whole, I like and agree with much of what George Monbiot writes. His latest piece, Overgrowth, shows that he revises his positions from time to time as he learns more; this is good, very good indeed.

I don't agree with his position on nuclear but, with time, he may change his views. In the meantime, I'm glad to say that he's moderated his views on meat-eating quite considerably of late.

Basically, his views and mine now somewhat coincide: he now sees meat as an occasional addition to the diet, provided we are fully - and completely - aware of how it's produced.

Quote:
A survey by the US Humane Research Council discovered that only 2% of Americans are vegetarians or vegans(11), and more than half give up within a year. Eventually, 84% lapse. One of the main reasons, the survey found, is that people want to fit in.


Laughing

Note, that's got nothing to do with diet.
_________________
"Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fụck the Buddhists" - Bjork
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vtsnowedin



Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Posts: 4249
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

PostPosted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meanwhile back at the ranch!
Vermont's only nuclear power plant shuts down permanently this week.
This will leave a 640 megawatt hole in New England's generating capacity and puts 230 people out of work at an average of $110K per year each.
Decommissioning and cleanup will take years if not decades.
It is going to take a lot of windmills to replace that. Shocked
Quote:

BRATTLEBORO Entergy Nuclear prepped its last crew of control room operators Monday, one of the last steps in getting ready for the permanent shutdown of Vermont Yankee next week.

Senior trainer Brian Stewart said the last group of control room operators went through the shutdown procedure in the training simulator, starting at 8 a.m. and ending around 2 p.m.

He said the permanent shutdown training was very similar to shutdowns for which Yankee staff members had trained for decades the refueling outages every 18 months.

But Stewart said the training was a little different from the refueling outage training. There is no restart, he said, and workers dont have to do tests they would ordinarily do to prepare for restarting. In that way, its simpler, he said.

http://www.timesargus.com/article/20141223/NEWS03/712239905/0/SPORTS3010
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18552
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vtsnowedin wrote:

Decommissioning and cleanup will take years if not decades.

How's it done that quickly?
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
vtsnowedin



Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Posts: 4249
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

PostPosted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:

Decommissioning and cleanup will take years if not decades.

How's it done that quickly?

It depends on how you define the term "decommissioned" I suppose.
From what little I've read they plan to store waste in dry casks when it is cool enough and eventually move it off site. That's moving the problem not solving it I know but probably what will happen.
A search turned up this list of FAQs.
http://vydecommissioning.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Vy-PSDAR-FAQs.pdf
Seems it will take seven years for all the fuel rods to cool enough and be placed in dry casks on site and there is presently nowhere licensed to move them to. The plant itself will sit mothballed until about 2040 to let the trust fund grow enough to cover the cost of final dismantling. There is currently a sixty year limit on how long they have to do the job but of course that can will probably get kicked down the road a couple of times.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7587

PostPosted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vtsnowedin wrote:
Decommissioning and cleanup will take years if not decades.

The UK is in the process of decommissioning ~39 reactors. There's a lot of detail of the process here: http://www.magnoxsites.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Magnox-Plan-Summary-2013.pdf

We won't be 'done' until 2105.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7587

PostPosted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vtsnowedin wrote:
The plant itself will sit mothballed until about 2040 to let the trust fund grow enough to cover the cost of final dismantling.

Surely that's not the reason to wait until 2040!

In the UK we refer to this delay as the care and maintenance phase. It's purpose is to "To allow radiation levels to decay naturally, thus enabling simpler and more cost-effective decommissioning". Nothing about allowing trust funds to grow.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
vtsnowedin



Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Posts: 4249
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

PostPosted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

clv101 wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:
The plant itself will sit mothballed until about 2040 to let the trust fund grow enough to cover the cost of final dismantling.

Surely that's not the reason to wait until 2040!

In the UK we refer to this delay as the care and maintenance phase. It's purpose is to "To allow radiation levels to decay naturally, thus enabling simpler and more cost-effective decommissioning". Nothing about allowing trust funds to grow.

The owners give both reasons in support of their proposed plan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18552
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vtsnowedin wrote:

The owners give both reasons in support of their proposed plan.

A better reason might be that the owners will be dead by then and it will be someone else's problem. That's kinda how the system works.

Meanwhile, there's trouble at Chernobyl's neighbour:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-turns-off-reactor-at-nuclear-plant-after-accident-9947540.html
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group