Safe Portable Nuclear – Almost
Posted by jennifer, July 18th, 2009 - under News, Opinion.
Tags: Energy & Nuclear
“The future of nuclear energy could lie in plants that can be factory built, shipped to a site, and operated 30 years without refuelling…
“It has become commonplace to say that we are at the beginning of a global revitalization of the nuclear energy enterprise. The scope and timing of this “nuclear renaissance,” however, remain somewhat uncertain. What is known is that in countries around the globe, including the United States, significant numbers of new nuclear energy projects are under way or in various stages of planning, and this activity represents a departure from that of recent decades…
“The major trend is toward larger plant size. This is easy to understand in light of the high capital costs associated with nuclear energy plants. Given the large capital outlay, and the fact that costs do not scale linearly, there seems to be a relentless pressure toward increasing plant size.
“But is bigger necessarily better? While new conventional nuclear plants trend toward larger size, there has also been continuing and growing interest in small and medium size plants. Nuclear generating stations that can operate at that smaller scale could enable broader use of this source of clean, abundant energy in a rapidly growing world economy. Such plants could be installed in locations that would not be able to accept the large quantity of electricity generated by a gigawatt-scale reactor, and there is some indication that, properly designed, a small plant could be cost competitive with the larger ones currently planned…
“The International Atomic Energy Agency indicates that more than 50 new concepts and designs for advanced small or moderate-size reactors are under development in more than 15 IAEA member states. Proponents of such designs believe they have the potential to meet such needs as providing energy for islands that are not served by a national grid or for regions lacking the infrastructures and grid capacity needed for large plants. Small reactors could also power such energy-intensive industrial activities as water desalinization…
“One frequently cited drawback to widespread use of nuclear power is the risk of fissionable material being diverted to produce weapons. In the 1990s, researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory began looking at reactor system designs intended to minimize the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation. The initial research effort concluded that this goal could be met by a sealed reactor that was transportable and autonomous in operation and that would have a very long reactor core lifetime. Such a reactor would eliminate the need for handling or processing fresh or spent nuclear fuel and otherwise minimize the potential for any possible misuse of the reactor…”
Extracts from Nuclear’s Model T., By Craig F. Smith: http://memagazine.asme.org/Articles/2009/July/Nuclears_Model_T.cfm
i completely disagree with multiple parts of this article.
Finally, a small reactor size offers a substantially reduced footprint for both security and operations, and these factors act to reduce the operational complexity and cost of the plant.
i think that this is simply false. the minimum anti terror security that i expect of a nuclear power plant, is withstanding a 9/11 type attack: 4 independent teams of 4 people, possibly using military weaponry and possibly able to infiltrate the low level workforce of the plant.
a plant also needs to withstand a direct hit by a commercial air plane. (quite a lot of the big ones don t!).
Has the Atoms for Peace vision been fully achieved? Many would say no. Although the initial expansion of nuclear energy was significant, the 436 power reactors that exist globally provide nuclear energy in only 30 of the nearly 200 countries of the world.
i don t think we want nuclear power plants in countries hit by civil war. a lot of the developing countries will benefit much more from alternative energy, than from western nuclear power plants.
The eponymous SOD writes:
“i completely disagree with multiple parts of this article.”
NO! What a surprise.
sod, How can people tilting at windmills accept nuclear???
Green wackos want hydroelectric removed along with other sources. nuclear is far too complicated for a tree hugging mind. If we even keep some of existing capacity, the cost of electricity will not be high enough or wind power can lose do to price bidding.
It was i that posted reference a week or two ago to Nuclear aircraft carriers and subs.
Sod made the statement hat non nuclear had not been built in the US in 30 years.
Sod is a dishonest poster. some of it is caused by being mis informed
If the world will prosper, we can’t rely in emotionalism from Gang Green.
Transdora capital division of Seaboard a huge pork producer has electric power generating staions on barges. These are built elswhere and transported to small countries.
The bottom line is if supersitious people mobbing the streets crying meltdown are involved in energy policies, we are subjected to their greatest phobias and their next psychotic crisis and we will never develop.
When Algore talks and shouts 15 degrees increase and seas rising over night, we have to disregard his drones for their wild notions on energy. These climate drones are mentaly unstable.
Apologies if this has already been posted elsewhere.
The WWF, in conjunction with Allianz, has published its G8 scorecard report. It records a higher emissions number to France than that country actually produces because the writers regard nuclear power as inappropriate policy. It calculates the French output as if it were generated by natural gas.
http://www.allianz.com/en/press/news/studies/downloads/downloads_g8/report_g8_climate09.pdf. Page 14 if you’re interested.
This lack of bias is inspiring and something we should all aspire to.
I notice that Australia doesnt even rate a mention never mind a rating..
So much for Rudd and Wong wanting to rush things though so that they will look good in Copenhagen.
What was it again? == 60,000 out for work by 2050 in order to achieve an unmeasurable goal by 2100 of 0.003C, and so Rudd and Wong can achieve a political outcome here in Australia
And on the way through stuff up a reasonable economy and all those “working families” he harped on about.
Verily I say unto you we are truly run by F^&%&*^—with with big egos and no brains.
Malcolm Hill,
“Verily I say unto you we are truly run by F^&%&*^—with with big egos and no brains.”
Otherwise known as Fabians.
Re: WWF G8 Report: Astounding!
P. 14 (a similar statement also appears on p. 7): “WWF does not consider nuclear power as a viable policy option, due to its costs, radiotoxic emissions, safety and proliferation impacts. In this report focusing on climate policies, a policy approach that favors the use of nuclear power is hence adjusted. The indicators emissions per capita, emissions per GDP and CO2/kWh are adjusted as if the generation of electricity from nuclear power had produced 350 gCO2/kWh (emission factor for natural gas). A country using nuclear energy is therefore rated as a country using gas, the most efficient fossil fuel.”
So, that means if I were to write a report I can say this:
“I do not consider coal or gas power as viable policy options, due to their costs, CO2 emissions, safety and infrastructure impacts. In this report focusing on climate policies, a policy approach that favors the use of nuclear power is hence adjusted. The indicators of emissions per capita, emissions per GDP and CO2/kWh are adjusted as if the generation of electricity from fossil fuels had produced zero gCO2/kWh (emission factor for nuclear power). A country using fossil energy is therefore rated as a country using nuclear, the most efficient fuel. Australia, although not yet having any nuclear power plants, can be considered to be a zero emitter of CO2, and therefore does not need to implement anything like an ETS or CPRS (Emissions Trading Scheme/Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme).”
Little Sod,
“i think that this is simply false. the minimum anti terror security that i expect of a nuclear power plant, is withstanding a 9/11 type attack: 4 independent teams of 4 people, possibly using military weaponry and possibly able to infiltrate the low level workforce of the plant. ”
And no one will notice when they haul in the earth moving equipment to dig up the reactor???
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You really need to read up on the current proposals LITTLE guy.
Should say that I first saw a reference to that report on ClimateResistance.
Despite the fact I was first person on the ground at the Yeelirrie discovery and exploration in 1971, I’m more inclined to look at the abundant electrical energy entering the Earth as a source for our needs. Trouble is you can’t tax it like you can with nuclear or oil and coal that need human effort to discover it, mine it and use it.
“WWF does not consider nuclear power as a viable policy
option, due to its costs, radiotoxic emissions, safety and
proliferation impacts. In this report focusing on climate
policies, a policy approach that favors the use of nuclear
power is hence adjusted. The indicators emissions per
capita, emissions per GDP and CO2/kWh are adjusted as
if the generation of electricity from nuclear power had
produced 350 gCO2/kWh (emission factor for natural gas).
A country using nuclear energy is therefore rated as a
country using gas, the most efficient fossil fuel.”
These clowns are away with the fairies.
Louis
“Trouble is you can’t tax it”
Tesla and JP Morgan comes to mind
Doesn’t the KYOTO protocol also rule out nuclear?
So if we can’t have nuclear then it will finally dawn on all except the demented that alternative energy means poverty and mass deaths. Guess what then it will be coal is the only answer since everything that might work is being ruled out.
Australia uses 294 Tera Watt hours per year. Wind and solar are several orders of magnitude less than that and are also intermittent. If the activists had designed an aircraft carrier they would provide a 50 cc motor scooter engine to drive it!
Good old Seeds Of Doubt there doing his job wonder what financial return he gets?
Well at least Nuclear power stations generate Electricity….. The only thing Solar and Wind generate, is Lunacy ;-)
Thanks for the link Luke, haven’t seen The Spanish Inquisition in many years.
Governments around the world have demonstrated in the last year that, whatever else they may say they’ll do, they will make a big effort to sustain the economy. When it becomes obvious that renewables won’t cut it policy will change. With any luck that realisation will happen in the UK before much damage is done here.
Barry Brook makes a valid point though, when he says we must start the debate on nuclear now. Maybe it’s already started. Labour have said they will never support nuclear power. Maybe that’s a bit like we will never have a GST…
Prediction the whole activist gloom and doom argument will be forgotten like all the others. Why is that?
It is because their aims are not achievable and the world will just move on. Already why it will fail is apparent http://reason.com/news/show/134832.html
This is but one of many statements being made by over a third of the world’s population. They say go away we are interested in improving our lot not what might happen. If we follow activists the those things we are fearful of will happen now not in the future. Another prediction, there will be no firm commitment at Copenhagen.
Marcus,,
Indeed – Tesla and JP Morgan – and the WWF – The Prince Philip is behind that organisation, so it seems.
I’ve been a fan of nuclear ever since I saw Mickey Rooney in “The Atomic Kid” and of course Peter Parker was bitten by a radioactive spider, so I see only good coming from nuclear; the yanks are nuts if they don’t go atomic as this correct mix of energy shows;
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation.ppt#283,28,Slide28
The odd thing about this nuclear power issue is that France, as social democratic as one could be, has over 80% of it’s electrical energy supplied by nuclear reactors. So why is it ok for the French, but not for us?
Consider this:
1. Under the Kyoto protocol Nulcear Energy cannot be considered because the greenoids that controlled the show, would not allow it.
2. Also under the Kyoto Protocol Article 3.3, Australias sequestration of pre 1990 plantations and and native forests, was not allowed.
3. Eucalyptus forests of SE Australia could remove 136 MtCo2 e for the next 100 years, but these are also not allowed.
4. Garnaut p164, shows that Australia has the highest per capita area of forested and wooded area land of any one. It is twenty times larger than the OECD average.This is not allowed to be used to offset the highest per capita co2 production figures for Australia, that the greenoids and IPCC nutters are so fond of using.
5. Kyoto and the IPCC shonks love to quote the per capita figures, but dont even relate this to the area of the nations states. If they did the Europeans look to be the worst by miles.
There is a smell to this, and three things are obvious:
The Europeans, as is evident from this ridiculous Allianz Insurance and WWF document, make up the rules to suit themselves, and to peddle this b/s.
John Howard was quite right in not signing the stupid protocol.
Rudd would not do the right thing by this country if his ambition to score a job in the UN was a risk, and I dont believe he would stand up to the beuraucrats and idiots who allowed us to be put in such a poor position as above despite what Senator Hill achieved.
“Thanks for the link Luke, haven’t seen The Spanish Inquisition in many years.”
Oops, posted this on the wrong thread…
The madness of the greens, from their dogged opposition to anything that actually works, to their disgusting hubris in pretending that we can manage climate, to their pseudo-religious righteousness, will go down in history as one of the demonstrations of the worst people can do.
Cohenite,
“the yanks are nuts if they don’t go atomic as this correct mix of energy shows;”
Ayyup!!
More on the SSTAR here. Sod could have one under his house.
http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2006/10/a-nuclear-reactor-in-every-home/
Just ran across another interesting design for hands off reactors:
http://www.anupchurchchrestomathy.com/2009/07/nuclear-reactor-that-nevers-needs-to-be.html
[...] "Safe portable nuclear – almost" (2009-07-18 by Jennifer Marohasy) – yeah, normally someone who sets my teeth on edge, but this particular post has a point that needs to be considered. [...]