As a result of my last post, Sage asked the following question;
"Did you work in the nuclear industry? Do you think nuclear really cost effective, if it is done both safely and all cost are accounted for?"
Sage is one of those bloggers that seems very straight forward but whether he intends it so or not, I often find additional layers to his posts. I originally answered his question but in hind sight I feel it needs more elaboration, especially as regards my background and motivations.
Did I work in the Nuclear industry?
No, I worked in the petroleum industry for a number of years. I know that industry all too well and fully understand the disaster we are heading towards with depleting reserves. It is insane for us to be using such an amazing raw material for fuel. Adding to foolishness is the potential impact on our environment now that we have reopened the carbon loop. The environmental problems from the Exxon Valdez grounding and the Union Alpha blow out are minor in comparison.
I personally became acquainted with the power industry through my involvement with the Omar Hill project for the Kern River Cogeneration company.
I also know a number of engineers who worked on power plant design in the 70's and 80's for SCE, PG&E, Fluor and Babcock. All of them were concerned with the long term safety issues related to the then current breed of light water reactors. Failure mode in those plants was "ON" which was what created the problems at Chernobyl and TMI. During one of the energy crises of the 70's, the DOE initiated a project to perfect Breeder reactor technology. Scale up tests of breeder technology has proven the technology to be more efficient, safer and generate less waste than current designs in service. The safest designs are a "fail off" mode and will shut down if there is an incident. I view the main stumbling block to breeders being political, not engineering.
"Do you think Nuclear really cost effective if done both safely and all costs are accounted for?"
Yes
The question though has several facets. As currently accounted for, if Nuclear has a cost of $1.00, the same amount of energy from coal is about $1.33. Oil and Gas are significantly higher still. Green sources such as Solar and Wind are even higher still. Hydroelectric is limited in its availability so I have excluded it from discussion.
Costs though are never completely accounted for. Nuclear still has the waste disposal issue. Coal and other fossil fuels have a HUGE pollution cost that will not become completely clear for several decades yet. Recent accidents in the coal industry prove that it is still not as safe as one would hope.
Finally, on the topic of radioactive release I think it is worth while to consider how much radiation the typical coal plant releases in the environment every year. It is much more than is generally recognized and is ignored because of its dilution among the rest of the exhaust.
Sage, thanks for the great question.
*S*
7 comments:
A Good Answer
The thing is human's have an inherent belief that science will provide the solution (answer)
We survived the pollution from the Industrial Revolution and cleaned up the dirty industries of Old Europe.
But the bottom line is people like their personal transport chariots or cars - and cheap air travel.
And the pollution will double as demand doubles, I'm not sure China and India hav taken into account what the cost of Crude Oil might be if the car to person ratio rises to EU & US levels over the next ten to twenty years.
I mean here it's a £1.00 a litre and the Treasury is laughing all the way to the bank, mind you when you think we sell scotch for between £20 and £30 a litre, I guess petrol is still cheap - lol
Blah... yuck!
My fear with nuclear fuel isn't with the safe usage and disposal of nuclear fuel, but in the UNSAFE usage and disposal. Corporations cheat. They do it all the time. They cheat in their disposal of hazardous wasts and carbon emissions, lobby Washington hard to get breaks to continue to skirt their responsibilities in order to maximize profit. They do it now with hazardous chemicals. What are they going to do with nuclear waste?
It's this sort of Republican-sanctioned willingness to trade death for dollars that is my prime concern for the future of nuclear power.
yeharr
Q9- I am thinking it is underpriced however much we charge for it
Daniel- concise and accurate, I like that *G*
BP= you know how I feel about corporations. There will be a tendency to sleaze whatever business they are in
hmm...this is way over my head;)
BTW, whatever happen to Mike the midwest hick? DId he stop blogging or what?
I stayed in a hotel in Missouri last year on my way to Indiana... Seems we were close to a plant... the rooms had evacuation manuals... well one room has one less now *L* Thats right! I STOLE it... it was interesting reading!
I Love when you get all smart!
Post a Comment