backtop


Print 57 comment(s) - last by Ringold.. on Mar 3 at 12:52 AM

Electricity production costs drop to the lowest point in the industry's history.

You won't hear this on CNN, but the U.S. nuclear power industry set a record last year.  Despite rising costs of fuel and regulation, the average production cost of electricity dropped to an astounding 1.66 cents per kilowatt-hour.  This is a figure well below the cost of coal-generated electricity, and a tiny fraction of the cost of solar or wind power.  Furthermore,  nuclear plants generated 36% more electricty than they did 15 years ago, without a single new plant being built.  The industry just keeps getting better and better.

Nuclear power is a true clean, green energy source, with zero CO2 emissions, and less environmental impact than solar or wind.  Those sources of energy are extremely diffuse--which means they must be collected and concentrated.  A 1,000 MW solar plant requires 2 million tons of concrete, 600,000 tons of steel, 75,000 tons of glass, 35,000 tons of aluminum, and a whole host of rare and exotic elements.   This is several hundred times the materials needed by a nuclear plant the same size.  And the nuclear plant will have much higher availability and require much less maintenance.  Most telling of all is the costs which, for solar power, currently average a painful 28.6 cents per kW-hour.

Other nations are wiser here than the US.  France  generates 76% of its power from nuclear, South Korea has several new plants on order, and Finland is building a new one, specifically to meet its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol.

Expanding the US nuclear power industry would allow the US to dramatically reduce carbon emissions ... and to save money while doing so.  And it's a solution available today, without the need for years of additional research and development.  Its high time we pulled our heads out of the sand, and started using it to its full potential.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

No argument here.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/28/2007 7:55:08 AM , Rating: 2
It has been a long known fact that Nuclear is better in every way. Sadly though your right, the US doesn't want to build anymore, everytime they talk about it people go nuts over Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. But we also have a problem with oil in this country. It's not as if we don't have enough oil, we have tons. We lack the capacity to refine it. So.... what we have here is...

Need more Nuclear Power Plants (More Electricity)
Need more Oil Refineries (More Gasoline)

Energy crisis solved? MAGIC! :D




RE: No argument here.
By DeltaNiner on 2/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: No argument here.
By JDub02 on 2/28/2007 10:10:21 AM , Rating: 3
There are plenty of desolate areas on the US to contain spent fuel without putting it in someone's "backyard". The Navy's been successfully using nuclear power and managaging fuel for quite some time.


RE: No argument here.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/28/2007 10:20:02 AM , Rating: 2
We have uses for the depleted fuel, and the byproduct of enriching Uranium to be fuel in the reactors.... It's called Depleted Uranium and is a pretty kickass kinetic weapon. Other than that we can store it until we find better uses for it later. Storage is easy and safe. It might have been an issue back in maybe the 40's but modern storage technology is more than sufficient to ensure there will be no radiation contaminiation.


RE: No argument here.
By arazok on 2/28/2007 11:55:08 AM , Rating: 5
Depleted Uranium still has something like 97% of the energy of the original uranium rods available, and it's possible to use the depleted rods in a fast-breeder reactor. New fast-breed reactor technology could also allow for waste that is toxic for only a hundred years or so, as opposed to thousands.

The downsides are that you need a separate reactor to process the depleted uranium, adding cost. The depleted rods must be transported to it, which is dangerous, and the fast-breeders produce plutonium, so certain precautions need to be taken. There are ways to render plutonium ineffective for weapons, so there is nothing stopping this technology from being implemented if we want to. It's just complex, and expensive, but I think that one day this will be the norm.


RE: No argument here.
By ElJefe69 on 2/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: No argument here.
By Beh on 3/1/2007 12:36:20 AM , Rating: 2
you need help


RE: No argument here.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/1/2007 2:14:43 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
depleted uranium is responsible for thousands of civillian cancer based diseases.

Depleted Uranium does not cause thousands of civilian cancer based diseases. That has been screamed for years and without a shred of evidence to support it. If anything I would think the tank crews would be growing 3rd eyeballs given how much exposure they have to the shells. So no, that point is false.

quote:
shitheads fire it from their multimillion dollar tanks and forget that/dont care rather, that they are poisoning the third world with spent rounds. But, dailytech is full of pro-whatever-is-a-big-penis-solution, so I doubt anyone would know about this occurence.

This paragraph is just FUD and anger, you have no evidence to support your rant.

quote:
Also, nuclear reactors have decimated lakes and waterways, changing the biogrowth to all disgusting/unhealthy forms of bacteria and choking out fish and aquatic plants. yay. I wonder what shithead was paid off for this article. The heat from reactors is not retained for future use, the excess is let off into natural bodies of water. thats a lot of freakin heat.

This one is at least partially correct. Older reactors required the water to be cycled out and into a local lake and the boiling temperature water would kill plant and aquatic life. Newer technology and upgrades to older reactors have minimized this, using closed loop systems, the water is recycled without pushing it out to lakes anymore. So, not an issue, your facts are slightly outdated.

quote:
Solar is LESS green? um? yeah ok. wind? oh yeah, that has huge environmental impacts, yeah that wind, damn, cant stand it. talk about concrete, ever see a nuclear reactor?

Solar is less green because of the amount of energy and resources that must be spent to produce a large enough field and array to harvest any speakable quantity of energy from the sun.


RE: No argument here.
By exdeath on 3/1/2007 2:31:25 PM , Rating: 4
Uhm you guys have serious misconceptions...

"Depleted uranium" is natural uranium stripped of 99.99999% of its U-235 isotope so that all that remains is the stable non radioactive U-238 isotope. Depleted uranium is not radioactive, save for insignificant trace quantities of whatever U-235 remains after refinement. Natural uranium as it is only contains about 0.7% U-235 by mass. For all intents and purposes, depleted uranium, that is, the U-238 waste remaining after refinement, used in munitions for its higher mass density, is no more dangerous or poisonous than any other toxic heavy metals such as lead or mercury.

Spent fuel rods on the other hand are not ‘depleted’. Fuel rods result from refining natural uranium until they contain about 4-5% by mass of the U-235 isotope, the radioactive kind. This is far more radioactive than natural uranium’s 0.7%. When the fuel rod is ‘spent’ it only means it is not putting out sufficient energy to power the reactor, it doesn’t mean all the U-235 has decayed completely. So ‘spent’ fuel rods are still retain dangerous concentrations of U-235 so you cannot use this as ‘depleted uranium’, however they no longer serve their purpose as sufficient fuel.

What I don’t understand however, is why we don’t return and recycle spent fuel rods back into the original refining process. You could extract the remaining U-235 from piles and piles of spent and consolidate it into a higher concentration to make new fuel. I.e.: take the bad part out of the spent fuel, add it all together to make new fuel which stays in a reactor. What is left over then becomes depleted and safer.

The problem with that is that years of bombardment by neutrons, and the fission process itself, creates an assortment of other elements that taint the pure uranium. What starts out as pure uranium (4% U-235 and 96% U-238) is now a random glob of just about anything on the periodic table, some of them radioactive in their own right and useless as a fuel.

We could still refine and separate all those elements and put them to uses in places (cesium in the medical industry, etc). Costly, but better than storage for 1000 years.


RE: No argument here.
By exdeath on 3/1/2007 3:14:11 PM , Rating: 2
Just to refine a few things (no pun intended):

As per my previous post a new fuel rod goes in with 96% harmless U-238 and 4% U-235, which is the active fuel.

After 20 years of fission in a reactor, what is left is still mostly 90-95% harmless U-238. A tiny bit of that will have been transmuted to Pu-239, which can be used as reactor fuel itself.

The primary waste components are the fission products of the actual 4% U-235 fuel component. Remember that fission is simply the splitting of an atom into two or more other random elements, giving off useable heat energy in the process. After a fuel rod is spent, most of that U-235 has become now mostly a random collection of radioactive actinides. These may or may not be useful for any particular purpose including new fuel. This is the true waste of a nuclear reactor. 90-95% of the mass of the spent fuel is just as harmless as when it came out of the ground.

One issue with reprocessing spent fuel from a political perspective is the accumulation of recovered Pu-239, which may violate weapon proliferation treaties, etc. Pu-239 results from the bombardment of stable non radioactive U-238 with slow neutrons which starts a long chain of events that eventually stabilizes into Pu-239.


RE: No argument here.
By JonB on 3/2/2007 1:40:02 PM , Rating: 2
Uranium 238 is radioactive, but barely. It has a decay half life of 4.5 Billion Years. Uranium 235 has a decay half life of 700 Million Years. There is only one other naturally occurring isotope, Uranium 234, but its half life is so short (only thousands of years) that there isn't any in the ground.

There are scientists who have dated the formation of our planet and solar system by the decay rates of U238 and U235. When they start with the assumption that it was a even mix of the three isotopes, they first toss out the U234 since it decayed away millions of years ago. Since the natural percentage of U235 is now 0.7% to U238's 97.3%, they do the math and come up with appropriately large numbers. See the wikipedia entry. The accuracy of rock dating using this is greater than 99%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating


RE: No argument here.
By Rovemelt on 2/28/2007 4:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't the USN just drop spent rods onto the ocean floor? I don't know if I consider that 'managing.'

In any case, I think nuclear is the way to go until solar catches up. The waste and security issue is a serious matter, but I believe both can be addressed with some common sense approaches. I much prefer nuclear over coal...coal puts mercury, CO2, NOx, SOx, and radiation into the air. Unfortunately, China is building a huge number of coal plants to support their booming economy...wish they would choose something better.


RE: No argument here.
By Ringold on 2/28/2007 6:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
Hardly. I'm having a though time finding a link, but no, there's a quite expensive program in place that processes the fuel and takes it away somewhere. Submarines are especially expensive to refuel.. they don't exactly have an 'eject' button; if I'm not mistaken they have to be partially disassembled and the reactor rebuilt.

There are a couple nuclear submarines on the sea floor from past accidents and losses, but extensive monitoring was done to make sure the reactor's containment wasn't breached.


RE: No argument here.
By The Boston Dangler on 2/28/2007 9:15:13 PM , Rating: 2
For many years, the Soviets really were just dumping anything and everything into the ocean. I doubt the Russians, et cetera are any better.

The US military has never been "clean", but improvements have been made.


RE: No argument here.
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2007 10:23:13 AM , Rating: 4
> "Perhaps Masters kenobi and Asher would consent to have those pesky spent fuel rods buried in their back yards..."

If you live in a New England or Rocky Mountain state, you already have radioactive nuclear waste buried in your own backyard...waste left over from when Mother Nature made the planet. The first meter of topsoil in one acre alone contains 60 kg of thorium, 20 kg of uranium, 5 kg of radium, and 70,000 kg of potassium...all of it radioactive.

Lord Marshall of the U.K's Central Electric Generation Board once caused a furor by announcing that one of their electric plants had released a kg of uranium into the air the day earlier...and in fact had been releasing that amount daily for many years. When shocked reporters pressed for details, he named a coal -powered plant. The uranium released was that found naturally within the coal itself.


RE: No argument here.
By Matty P on 2/28/2007 8:14:17 AM , Rating: 3
Nuclear power is a reasonably green energy source right up until you come to decommision your spent powerstation and fuel. Then it gets messy for several thousand years. That is what people worry about. We in Britain worry about it a bit more as we seem to process half of the rest of the worlds nuclear waste as well as our own!
From an actual power generation point of view, nuclear is not the ultimate solution. It is very good at providing baseline power needs but you can't turn it on or off, so you still need a form of power generation which can cope with the peaks and troughs of usage (ie. fossil fuels or hydro).


RE: No argument here.
By porkpie on 2/28/2007 10:27:51 AM , Rating: 5
the waste from every other industry except nuclear is dangerous forever. heavy metals like lead and mercury, chlorine, etc, never decay, and stay dangerous forever.

see the point?


RE: No argument here.
By Matty P on 2/28/2007 11:37:48 AM , Rating: 2
That'd be why we have laws in the UK about their use and disposal. Its a good point though, just not the one being discussed in this article.


RE: No argument here.
By porkpie on 2/28/2007 12:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
the point is that nuclear waste is easily dealt with. we solved all the problems of dealing with it decades ago, its not even an issue.


RE: No argument here.
By Matty P on 2/28/2007 2:25:41 PM , Rating: 2
Depends what you mean by solved. If you mean dig a big hole and surround the waste with concrete, then, yeah its solved. But surely thats just putting the problem off? And thats before you've even started to decommission the actual power station...

I agree that we need to replace the existing nuclear power station fleet but we need to factor in the cost etc of clean up after they cease to be useful. :)


RE: No argument here.
By porkpie on 2/28/2007 2:32:17 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, it puts the problem off till the waste has decayed, which is all you need to do. theres already ten billion times as much radioactivity in the ground anyway, this doesn't cause any new problems.

oh, and the article link above takes into account the costs of decommissioning too. it only raises the price to 2.5 cents/kw-hour.


RE: No argument here.
By Merry on 2/28/2007 10:35:44 AM , Rating: 2
process half of the rest of the worlds nuclear waste as well as our own!

I believe we process it then use it again.

(ie. fossil fuels or hydro).

or windpower and such

I'm a strong supporter of nuclear power, my family have worked , indeed one of them still is working in the industry. I think that as a source of power its now pretty safe and, when implemented properly, very cheap. Of course there is still a lot of negatives attached to it and the whole 'not in my backyard' thing ( a problem which is more apparent here in the UK). I really do hope that people 'see the light' with regards nuclear power as, from the UKs perspective the north sea oil is all but gone and importing gas from Russia leaves us open to huge price swings which isnt really conducive to having a stable economy.


RE: No argument here.
By Matty P on 2/28/2007 11:32:41 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, some of the waste can get used again but there is always some absoute waste that has to be stored, along with the materials used to clean up the useful waste.

quote:
or windpower and such


I'm all for wind power, the windfarms look cool!
While family was in the fossil fuel side of power production at privatisation, we do have a number of friends who are in the nuclear side :) Creates some fun debates anyway!


RE: No argument here.
By ElJefe69 on 2/28/2007 11:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
wow. perfect explanation.

it is greenish power when it is on. making it, producing the material and then disassembling it all is incredibly harmful for the environment.


RE: No argument here.
By glennpratt on 3/2/2007 11:11:55 AM , Rating: 2
Making PVA's is harmful to the environment. Making windmills is harmful to the environment. Hell, making most sorts of alloys is harmful and uses a truck load of electricity.

Making batteries for hybrid cars is harmful for the environment. Making cars period is harmful.

Most of these things need to be properly recycled or they can cause an environmental disaster.

Do you get my drift?


RE: No argument here.
By therealnickdanger on 2/28/2007 8:45:36 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Need more Nuclear Power Plants (More Electricity)
Need more Oil Refineries (More Gasoline)

Whoa, hold on there buddy, I don't think the masses are ready for that kind of simplicity and logic... We should probably hold a few committees, avoid the facts, invite the press, and talk about our feelings.


RE: No argument here.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/28/2007 10:12:47 AM , Rating: 2
LOL! Made my morning.


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki