[ RadSafe ] Is Nuclear Energy the Solution ?

[George Stanford]

Ahmad:

      Thank you.  Prompted by your email, I did a Google search and 
found this piece by the WNA:
<http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf49a_Alberta_Tar_Sands.html>. 
Concluding paragraph:
>"Meanwhile CERI [Canadian Energy Research Institute] published a 
>report in February 2009 which says that employing nuclear energy 
>with (so far untested) carbon capture and storage [CCS] in tar sands 
>extraction and processing could make oil from that source cleaner 
>than conventional oil in respect to its greenhouse gas and other 
>emissions. The CERI report looked at both very large (1600 MWe) and 
>multiple very small (10 MWe) nuclear reactors."

      I gather that Albertans are still debating the issue.  If CCS 
turns out to be a flop, there still will be less CO2 with nuclear 
assistance than without it.

      -- George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 11:47 PM 4/17/2010, Ahmad Al-Ani wrote:
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