Re: Public Trust and Other Dreams

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 4/24/02 12:11:48 PM Mountain Daylight Time, rujohnso@nmsu.edu writes:



> I will believe in nuclear power when two things have been done. First,
>
> nuclear reactors are extremely inefficient. Up to 90% of the energy
>
> produced is dumped as radiant heat with only 10-15% utilized for power
>
> conversion. Recycle some of that lost energy to get "more bang from the
>
> buck". Secondly, the waste management issue. Got to find a way to either
>
> produce less long-term rad waste, or figure a way to "recycle" it. Yucca
>
> Mountain just like WIPP in New Mexico is only a temporary fix. It will
>
> fill up and then close. Then what?


It's not a religion, it's a way to generate electricity.  ALL electric generation is thermally inefficient -- that's the Second Law of Thermodynamics -- but nukes aren't nearly as inefficient as you say.  where on earth did you get 90%?  The thermal efficiency of a nuclear generator is about 33% to 35%.  By contrast, for example, a fossil fuel burning plant (including gas) is about 42% to 45%.  Thermal efficiency (which, by the way, is the percent or fraction of heat input that is converted to work output -- to electricity) is improving all the time.  Solar cells, by the way, are about 12% thermally efficient.  Hydro dams are close to 100% efficient because the "input energy" is the solar energy that evaporates the water that then rains down upstream of the river.


However, that doesn't count the use of resources in building a plant or the other environmental damage that is done.  All electric generation is ineffici8ent.  One statement of the Second :Law is "Heat cannot be transformed into work without other impacts on the environment."  In other words, whenever electricity is generated, it makes a mess.  Different kinds of mess, but a mess nonetheless.


No one is asking anyone to "believe in" anything (do you "believe in" solar power?  car engines?  of course not!).  we generate electricity.  It provides a lot of benefits but has detriments.  The argument. briefly stated, is that nuclear power is an acceptable form of energy generation.  Furthermore, most of the argumetns against its use, like your rather gross misstatement of the efficiency, are spurious, if not disingenuous.







Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com