[ RadSafe ] Is Nuclear Energy the Solution ?

Sat Apr 17 23:47:30 CDT 2010

George,
 In Canada, Energy Alberta applied for a site licence for a new nuclear power
plant in northwest Alberta. Most of its power would be used for extraction of
oil from local tar sands. 

Source: IAEA Nuclear Technology Review 2008, Page 7.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Reports/ntr2008.pdf

Ahmad

On Sun Apr 18th, 2010 3:41 AM AST George Stanford wrote:

>Dan:
>
>     Thanks for the additional info.  Interesting.
>
>     So the extraction process would not be carbon-neutral,
>but at least the heat needed would be carbon-free.
>Seems to me your reactor proposal had merit, but
>interest in that source of oil had not yet matured (and
>still hasn't).
>
>     --  George
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>At 06:43 PM 4/17/2010, Dan W McCarn wrote:
>[G. Stanford wrote:]
>> Comment:  What nonsense!  Electricity (from wind, solar, or
>> nuclear) can be used to make hydrogen or carbon-neutral synthetic
>> liquids, such as jet fuel, diesel fuel, and gasoline.   Carbon-free
>> nuclear energy could also be used to extract oil from the large oil-bearing
>> shale deposits in the western states.
>
>Dear George:
>
>I spent three years working on Shell Oil's in situ conversion project in NW
>Colorado. In the end, the carbon balance, even if nuclear was used for
>power, was pretty steep... The "Oil-bearing Shale" is not correct.  These
>are kerogen-bearing marlstones (with Ca-, Mg- and Fe-carbonates).  The heat
>required to convert the kerogen to petroleum also breaks-down the marlstone
>releasing very large quantities of CO2.  I had proposed to the Shell
>management the use of process heat from an advanced gas-cooled reactor.
>
>Dan ii
>
>--
>Dan W McCarn, Geologist
>2867 A Fuego Sagrado
>Santa Fe, NM 87505
>+1-505-310-3922 (Mobile - New Mexico)
>HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of George Stanford
>Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 13:59
>To: Peter Bossew
>Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] "Is Nuclear Energy the Solution ?"
>
>Peter:
>
>      This sort of misinformation is all too common.  The "editorial"
>can be found in more-readable form at
><http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2773373/>.
>Here is the second paragraph, with comments interspersed.
>
>>"We should all know that: first, investments in nuclear power are
>>risky as indicated by the fact that Wall Street has chosen to stay clear;"
>      Comment:  The perceived risk is not due to technological
>uncertainty, but to regulatory and political uncertainties.
>
>>"second, nuclear power plants are stated terrorist targets . . ."
>      Comment:  For a terrorist who wants to do damage, there's a
>plethora of targets that are far more attractive than a nuclear plant
>-- the Trade Center being just one prominent example.  Nuclear plants
>add nothing to the terrorist risk, which will exist as long as terrorists
>do.
>
>>". . . and carry serious risks of their own;"
>      Comment: Those risks are perceived, not actual.  The "worst
>Western nuclear-plant accident" (Three Mile Island) killed
>nobody.  An accident last August at a Russian hydro-power plant
>killed more people than the Chernobyl accident did.  The safety
>record of the civilian nuclear power industry is unexcelled.
>
>>"third, nuclear power will not reduce our dependencies on foreign
>>energy as is sometimes claimed;"
>      Comment:  What nonsense!  Electricity (from wind, solar, or
>nuclear) can be used to make hydrogen or carbon-neutral synthetic
>liquids, such as jet fuel, diesel fuel, and gasoline.   Carbon-free
>nuclear energy could also be used to extract oil from the large
>oil-bearing shale deposits in the western states.
>
>>"fourth, nuclear-generated electricity does not compare favorably
>>with electricity derived from either the combustion of fossil fuels
>>or renewable sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, wave, and tide, . . .
>"
>      Comment: Electricity is electricity, regardless of how it is
>generated.
>      But if the intended context is economic or environmental, the
>statement is clearly wrong.  Nuclear power emits no polluting or
>greenhouse gases.  It requires much less mining than coal -- and,
>with fast reactors deployed, no mining at all will be needed for centuries.
>      Around the world, nuclear power is seen as competitive, with 52
>reactors under construction, 143 more on order or planned, and 344
>proposed
>(<http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html>). Functioning
>reactors whose capital costs have already been amortized are such
>cash cows that there are proposals in several places to subject them
>to a "windfall profits" tax.
>      Energy from wind, solar, wave, and tide is turning out to be
>very expensive per kilowatt-hour delivered (20-50 cents or more), and
>would not be used for central power anywhere without
>taxpayer-provided subsidies and regulations requiring utilities to
>use "renewable" energy when it is available.  (Note that the capacity
>always stated for wind and solar installations is nameplate, which is
>three to five times larger than the average available power, and
>costs for backup and long transmission lines are rarely included in
>the cost estimates.)
>      The two reactors to be built at the Vogtle power station in
>Georgia are predicted to have an overnight capital cost of about
>$6800 per kWe (this is undoubtedly considerably higher than future
>plants, since the ones at Vogtle are first-of-a-kind in the U.S.
>nuclear revival, and much of that cost is for licensing and other
>paperwork, rather than for actual construction).  This translates to
>a capital-cost component of about 6 cents per kWh.  If the fuel and
>operating cost is another 2 cents/kWh, the resulting 8 cents is
>higher than for coal or gas, but lower than for wind or solar.
>
>>". . . and finally, there is currently no good means of nuclear
>>waste disposal, hence more environmental pollution."
>      Comment:  As everyone knowledgeable about the industry knows,
>this common perception is just plain wrong.  Unlike the waste from
>fossil-fuel burning -- spent nuclear fuel is not polluting the
>environment anywhere.  And with fast reactors deployed, the spent
>fuel from thermal reactors becomes a very large energy resource,
>since only about 4% of its energy has so far been extracted.
>
>      The body of the editorial is unlikely to be any more
>authoritative than its introduction.
>
>George Stanford
>Reactor physicist, retired from Argonne National Laboratory.
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>At 11:28 AM 4/17/2010, Peter Bossew wrote:
>>Editorial, Water Air Soil Pollution, 208, 1-4, 2010
>>M. Saier and J. Trevors: Is Nuclear Energy the Solution ?
>>
>>www.springerlink.com/content/yr0548j054320377/     (open access)
>>
>>
>>Comments ?
>>
>>In particular I would be interested in (qualified !) comments on the
>>economic arguments.
>>
>>
>>Peter Bossew 
>_______________________________________________
>You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
>Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu