Source of Energy

You're preaching to the choir here, I say open up that mountain and let's get on with it...!

We don't live in a perfect world and never will...it's time to go with what we know, and that my friends is the safest clean energy available...GO nuclear!!

GO - Definition by AcronymFinder

preaching to the choir Yep, I should have included something wondering how to best influence public opinion. From another project years ago, it seems that starting with elementary education would work best, but we don't have that much time. I suspect the Russians are good at it; maybe they would give lessons except that would ruin their plans.

..."The 93 currently active nuclear-power reactors in the United States burn about 2,000 tonnes of uranium fuel each year. However, the type of uranium fuel those reactors use is not going to cut it for the advanced reactors expected to go on line in the coming years, as part of the effort to meet the country’s goal of 100 percent clean electricity by 2035. The specialized fuel these advanced reactors will need is currently made on a commercial scale only in Russia.

Not for long, though. Last week, Centrus Energy in Bethesda, Md., jump-started the first commercial domestic nuclear fuel production in the United States in 70 years by delivering the first load of high-assay, low-enriched uranium (HALEU) fuel made at its Piketon, Ohio, plant to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The company is on track to produce 20 kilograms of HALEU by the end of the year, and then expects to produce 900 kg in 2024, says Jeffrey Cooper, director of engineering at Centrus.

This is a critical step toward large-scale deployment of advanced nuclear plants in the United States. The DOE expects to invest about US $600 million to mature next-generation reactors through its Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, and “nine out of 10 of those reactors use HALEU fuels,” Cooper says."...

" The energy in just 3 tablespoons of HALEU can supply a lifetime’s worth of power for the average U.S. consumer, according to Centrus."

https://spectrum.ieee.org/nuclear-power-plant-2666199640

Bye bye, Combustion. Thanks for everything...

Elon hasn't transitioned yet to nuclear powered car. But cars wouldn't be as bad ass as combustion motor does.

I don't know, combustion isn't dead, buy an EV and you can have your own self combusting crematoria.

CYA - Definition by AcronymFinder

IV - Definition by AcronymFinder

NIMBY | Define NIMBY at AcronymFinder

Says the AP.

I don't think our fossil industry wants the hassle of trying for a nuclear switch. I'll bet they go hydro thermal.

"However, two times a little bit is still not very much!"

I agree with most of what you say, however I'd like to point out that over here in the UK we produce more than a quarter of our electricity with wind, and, 30 to 40 percent with with hydro.

I can see that we have a distinct advantage when it comes to wind (most of it is off shore), but, I wouldn't imagine that our geography makes hydro. more viable than most.

Something I have asked here before without getting any feed back either positive or negative.

Most diagrams of hydro schemes look something like this:-

And most existing schemes are physically approximately like that.

Ignore the fact that it uses a Pelton turbine (just the picture I used): the same would apply to any type.

If the head was increased thus:-

The potential increase in power generation would be proportional to the ratio of "the new head"/"the old head".

I realise that this would involve building some long, high cross sectional area, and, high pressure pipelines. Surely it would be worth it?

In the UK if we had tripled the head of all our schemes we would now be producing all our electricity.

For new schemes it may be worth making some other concessions in choice of location and cost of other construction in order to optimise the head. Of course it doesn't matter how low the turbine is, because it doesn't cost any more to "push" electricity back "up".

One of the problems is that most of the good sites for this increased head are already used.

Yosemite Valley is still wide open. Think of all the sustainable, carbon-free energy we could create from that. And it would help alleviate some drinking water issues as well.

Problem is this… you’d have clusters of transmission lines to get the power where it’s needed.

The problem with them is the EMR effecting the people in close proximity causing a higher risk of cancers. Ever wonder why electrical workers have approximately 2.5 times higher risk of developing leukemia. So far I haven't though I only worked with that stuff for 60years, must be lucky or maybe it is the asbestos, cadmium, chromium, lead, tin, zinc, copper, aluminum, mercury protecting me.

A good point about mercury is you get taller in summer to radiate more heat and shorter in winter to rug up more effectively.

You might want to look just a few miles away from the famous Yosemite valley to the Grand Canyon of the Tuolumne River, also within the boundaries of Yosemite National Park. It was dammed over a century ago, with the Sierra Club losing the first lawsuit it filed.That dam and lake is owned or controlled by the City of San Francisco, and its area is larger than the land covered by the city and county of San Francisco! The water from that dam supplies numerous irrigation districts in the Central Valley (such as MID--Modesto Irrigation District), plus all of San Francisco, most of the peninsula, and much of the East Bay region. The electricity from that dam's generators supplies a lesser area, but is still significant.

--JMM

Remember you need to balance the need to re-store the water in the upper reservoir using "off peak" electricity, where water is limited, against the extra energy provided by the longer drop.

Further, there is still considerable internal friction in the water falling in the wide pipe you mention, which results in loss of useful energy as heat.

It only works if you have high mountain valleys you can flood and drop the water through a reasonable distance. The local lunacy here is to try pumped hydro, oh the losses don't matter because the power is derived from wind and solar. Well the few that had been in operation were mothballed because the cost benefit was too far in the red.

Good old solar, hundreds of hectares of good arable land is swallowed up rendering it non productive for food production while the poorer country where it could be installed is left in the too hard basket..

Then there is wind power where all environmental concerns over wildlife and clearing of more hectares of native vegetation are destroyed senselessly on the alter of renewables. Yet we have to get permits just to clear valueless scrub.

You are also preaching to that other choir. :) In fact, you are preaching to many many many who agree with you. Just not enough I guess.

We need to use our collective influence on the "antis." Unfortunately some, and often very verbal about it, are totally resistant. Sorta like the anti-vaccine folks.

Nuclear power only works when the taxpayer picks up the tab fo waste, including end of plant life infrastructure. . We do that for 1 tenth of 1 cent per Kwh produced. As far as I know there is no other power source where such a cost of doing business is picked up by the taxpayer. This is a HUGE input that STILL cannot make nuclear power cost competitive.

How do you come up with a business plan where costs cannot be fixed? You don't. You get taxpayer subsidies to fix the cost at 1 tenth of 1 cent per Kwh.

Everything from security costs, waste cost, to liability for accidents is passed onto the taxpayer. Using fission energy for electrical generation is an economic boondoggle, always has been, with nothing in the "new" technology that changes that.

I don't think it's as bad as you let on, because I suspect you are considering the thermal reactors that have been mostly used so far. The "fast" (Generation IV) reactors using unmoderated (fast) neutrons are around 100 times better--less waste, waste that is much lower in radioactivity, and waste that has a much smaller half-life. That is because, after reprocessing, the highly radioactive transuranic elements are used to produce energy. In addition to depleted uranium (not enriched,) thorium can be used plus the above-mentioned transuranic elements.

"much lower in radioactivity, and waste that has a much smaller half-life" - is that what is known as an oxymoron? Doesn't decay rate define "radioactivity?"
So are the waste volumes larger or smaller after reprocessing?
You forgot "too cheap to meter."

Oxymoron? No, I don't interpret it that way. I would say radioactivity is the intensity while half-life tells us how long it will remain radioactive. Half-life being a measure of how long it takes half of the nuclides to decay.

The waste from a fast reactor will be considerably less than that from a thermal reactor, because much of the thermal reactor waste, used fuel may be a better term, is used to produce energy for us.

I did not forget "too cheap to meter." I don't think it will be true. Likely less expensive than what we have, but not "too cheap to meter."

Why not offer the same .001 / kwh for the other forms of energy production? Level the economic playing field so to speak.

Nuclear energy only works when the taxpayer picks up the security, waste, and large share of fuel production costs. It is a boondoggle, has been since day one. Level the economic playing field and let capitalism work.

I dob't think any of the other major (~10% or more share of global priduction) power sources would be economically viable if there was a requirement to collect all their waste into a concentrated mass ready for disposal/storage, even offering a convenient low coat fee for the storage of that waste.

Oh so true...

..."Based on a review of publicly available 10-Ks, the American Action Forum (AAF) found $15.7 billion in regulatory liabilities for the industry, or $219 million per plant. These were largely related to long-term costs associated with disposing of waste. Annual ongoing regulatory costs range from $7.4 million to $15.5 million per plant, mostly related to paperwork compliance. Combined with regulatory capital expenditures and fees paid to the federal government, the average nuclear plant must bear a regulatory burden of $60 million annually."...

https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/putting-nuclear-regulatory-costs-context/

China and India have already made this decision. This is the real coal boom. It's just starting. Previous emissions(the industrial revolution) are but a drop for what's coming.

From the last decade of news and business reports I have been reading.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/02/24/pumped-hydro-key-to-meeting-storage-demand/

Storage works, when it can also be used to manage water resources it works even better.

Yeah and they keep comparing apples and oranges, installed intermittent capacity vs 24/7 generation facilities...

Wind generation in the US is only about 30% of installed capacity....that's a big difference....and it occurs at random times, not following the actual load demand...that also males a big difference...

In 2021 reported installed capacity in the US was ~133 GW of wind turbine generators, but they only produced about 384,000 GWh of actual electricity, about 1/3 of stated capacity...so more like 44 GW than 133....Yet you're still paying for 133...that also makes a big difference...

Unreliability is not something you want in electric supply, so to make wind viable the cost of storage must be included...once that happens you are comparing apples to apples...then a true price comparison can be made, and nuclear becomes the true cost effective solution...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/wind-energy-consumption-vs-installed-wind-energy-capacity?tab=table

Nuclear, with about 95 GW of installed capacity produced around 809,000 GWh ,more than twice as much generated power from about 2/3 of the installed capacity of wind...and roughly half of all clean energy production combined...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States

https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020

I wonder what a life-cycle CO₂ production study would say about the various forms of energy generation. Wind has the costs of making the blades with carbon fiber strength, along with the cost of recycling them after their design lifespan. Solar has similar costs. Nuclear has the significant cost of the concrete and the often-hidden costs for handling the irradiated waste with its different levels of radioactivity.

I am of the opinion that we, in all "developed" countries embrace a lifestyle that is unnecessarily dependent on the consumption of energy, no matter how it is made to be useful to us.

SE is correct to point out the much greater ratio of GWh output to GW installed capacity, for nuclear compared to wind or solar. That is easily seen because of the variability of wind or sunlight on a daily or weather basis. That is also why we have a need to either balance consumption with production or integrate production with storage. Both of those are possible but come with needs to change lifestyles or invest in the storage infrastructure. Decades ago when I started studying solar energy one instructor told us to spend at least 1/3 on conservation before spending on active or passive solar. Good advice then and now.

Our present landscape and civic structure costs us with wasted energy, but with a 35-50+ lifespan it will take a lot of work and time to change. Eliminating CO₂ output by 2050 is possible, but extremely challenging and hard to do.

--JMM

..."Eliminating CO₂ output by 2050 is possible, but extremely challenging and hard to do."...

I think you mean carbon neutrality, ...we will never eliminate CO₂ output...and quite frankly it's not probable that neutrality will be achieved any time soon...Global CO₂ emissions are at about 40 Gt annually and climbing, we will be lucky to just stop it from rising...

https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2022

thanks for the correction. --JMM

Looks like the answer is a pandemic

We are making progress...

"

• Preliminary estimates suggest that as of year-end 2021, the electric power sector’s carbon emissions were 36 percent below 2005 levels. In addition, emissions from the electric power sector are no longer the leading source of the nation’s CO2 and have been lower than the emissions from the transportation sector since 2016.
• Since 1990, the industry has cut sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 94 percent and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions by 88 percent.
• As a result of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and other Clean Air Act regulations, from 2010 to 2017, the electric power industry has reduced mercury emissions by 86 percent and total emissions of hazardous air pollutants by 96 percent. National total power sector mercury emissions have been reduced by 95 percent over the period 1990 to 2021 (from 59 to 3 tons per year)."

"

• Total installed generating capacity in the United States was 1,256,427 megawatts (MW) as of December 31, 2021, an increase of 26,567 MW over year-end 2020 capacity totals.
• Investments in wind and solar energy accounted for 28,071 MW or 81 percent of approximately 35,000 MW of electricity capacity additions in the United States in 2021.
• A total of 7,348 MW of coal generating capacity was retired in 2021.
• In 2021, total U.S. electricity generation was 4,115,135 gigawatt- hours (GWh)—an increase of 2.6 percent over total generation in 2020."

https://www.eei.org/en/resources-and-media/industry-data

...but of course this doesn't tell the whole story...

The levelized lifetime costs associated with different forms of electrical production...

...as you can see they don't really vary that much per MWh cost...and I think a lot of the difference in cost is because of an unlevel playing field...still wouldn't you want to go with the most efficient, least obtrusive, smallest footprint, lowest polluting source, and then most sustainable....upgrading existing nuclear power plants is a clear winner here, and I would think that changing over existing coal fired power plants to nuclear, would fall into second place....

https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020

Given a little time I will read the entire 200+ page report. At the moment I found the graph as figure 1 near the beginning of that report. It is the Levelized Cost of Electricity--the dollar cost for each typical unit of electrical energy produced. It has no relationship to my question of the total life cycle production CO₂ per unit of electrical energy produced. In other words I am totaling the CO₂ produced during the building, maintenance, operation, and later removal of the plant, including any subsequent CO₂ produced to handle any non-CO₂ environmental harms from the plant. Then I am dividing this by the total electrical (and used thermal) output of the plant.

It may be that nuclear comes out best, but I would like data to back up that assertion.

JMM

CO₂ emissions est are factored into the price at $30. per ton...but this is only during operation, not the entire life cycle picture...that would have to include footprint, loss of vegetation and other existing carbon sync sources...

Aerosols seem to have a cooling effect... that makes me wonder if there is a form of power generation that also creates a harmless aerosol effect in the atmosphere...

"An aerosol is a suspension of fine solid particles or liquid droplets in air or another gas. Aerosols can be natural or anthropogenic. Examples of natural aerosols are fog or mist, dust, forest exudates, and geyser steam."

Hey that's mist coming from that nuclear cooling tower isn't it...

...there ya' go, clean and reflective...that should be factored in as well...

..."Since the Industrial Revolution, humans have pumped more and more aerosols into the air, and this in turn has actually counteracted global warming to a significant degree. Using climate models, we estimate that aerosols have masked about 50 percent of the warming that would otherwise have been caused by greenhouse gases trapping heat near the surface of the Earth. Without the presence of these aerosols in the air, our models suggest that the planet would be about 1 °C (1.8 °F) hotter."...

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/215/just-5-questions-aerosols/

Cooling towers are typically used to represent nuclear plants, but don't coal-fired plants also need cooling? That would be supplied by cooling towers unless they are on a river.

Unreliability is not something you want in electric supply

Yes, and we certainly found out for 25 hours from yesterday at about 1 PM to today at about 2 PM due to a "wind event." We rely more on a steady electricity supply than we realize!!!

Can anybody answer this question, will it lower the temperature or not? Is there any definitive answer that the temperature will be effected by anything we do...? ...or is it all just theory..?

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/

not with the current party in office.. you’ll get this…

CO2: It is about more than the temperature.

There has been some focus on the rapid decline of insect populations worldwide. Perhaps one stressor is increasing CO2 partial pressure.

Insects, as well as the rest of Animalia, and all of Plantae, exchange O2 and CO2 with the atmosphere through the process of diffusion. Two variables defining the rate at which that process can take place is the distance the gas must diffuse and difference in gas concentration between the air or marine environment around them and the concentration of the gas within the cells. (Fick's laws of diffusion)

For Animalia, which includes insects, it can be inferred the rate of cellular respiration is dependent upon both the ability to upload oxygen AND the ability to offload the waste gas – CO2. If the ability to offload CO2 is reduced by increasing the partial pressure of CO2 in the surrounding air or marine environment it seems reasonable the rate of cellular respiration would be limited by that increase, even if the O2 partial pressure or molar concentration is adequate to support a higher rate of cellular respiration.

The rate of gas diffusion is inversely proportional to the distance the gas must diffuse. The longer the insect tracheae, which are small gas distribution tubes connecting the air openings (spiracles) on an insect’s body to the internal cells, the greater the distance the gas must diffuse. This distance decreases the concentration gradient between the spiracles and internal cells thus limiting the rate at which CO2 can be diffused from the cell to the atmosphere. This concentration gradient limits the rate of gas transfer and therefore the rate of cellular respiration that can be supported. From this it can be inferred Insects; because of the relatively large diffusion distances found in insect tracheae, would be more sensitive than mammals to small changes in the partial pressures of CO2 and O2.

The atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 has increased by more than 50 percent since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The diffusion of the waste gas now requires an equivalent increase within the cell structure to maintain the same rate of gas transfer; and therefore, rate of cellular respiration.

Would such a HUGE increase in CO2 partial pressure affect immune response and/or programmed cell death (apoptosis) in apes like me?

CO2; it's about more than climate.

Sounds like a good subject for a research project--Place a suitable species of insect in an environment, such as a green house that is hospitable for them, then change the partial pressure of CO2 to a desired level and see what happens. This can be done with CO2 levels closer to those of 200 years ago, as well as the current levels and higher levels.

--JMM

Sometimes the posts on energy generation at large scale appear to champion one particular solution over a number of others in some kind of battle.

This is not the case in the real world - all forms of energy are applicable to generation and supply. Selection of what to use at what place at what time is based entirely on demand and availability at that instant and a complex web of economic calculations.

We may have learnt to handle some dangerous substances except for EV batteries which are self combusting, toxic fume generating, devices getting a notoriety for self immolation.

Nuclear, yes, but the rest of the world does not have a troglodyte government living in the stone age thinking wind and solar will save it all for us.

U.S. Taxpayers have suffered huge past financial losses and will incur extreme future financial losses because the United States Department of Energy did not act in good faith and/or exercise due diligence as the agent for United States Taxpayers when entering into contractual agreements with Nuclear Power Plant Operators regarding the disposition of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High Level Waste. This is evidenced by the fact that no responsible agent of the American Taxpayer would have entered into contracts that obligated US Taxpayer to finance and physically secure, in perpetuity, spent nuclear fuel and end of plant life cycle high level waste in exchange for one tenth of one cent per KWH of marketed power produced from commercial nuclear power plants.

The suspension of payments into the Nuclear Waste Fund granted by US Courts constitutes de-facto release of taxpayer obligations under contracts related to those payments.

U.S. Taxpayers have been further injured because these contractual agreements created huge disincentives for the Nuclear Power Industry to further evolve waste handling and disposition technologies; thus wrongly denying the US Taxpayers the expertise within the nuclear power industry in resolving this very significant environmental and financial issue.

Further injury has and is continuing to incur because relieving the Nuclear Power Industry of this very significant cost of doing business puts other forms of energy production at a competitive disadvantage thus inflating consumer energy costs.

Huge financial losses to the Taxpayer through litigated settlement regarding interim waste handling and storage paid from the D.O.J. Judgment Fund already exceeds some number of hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.

A just settlement for the US Taxpayer would include, at a minimum, the following:

1. The US Taxpayer is released from contractual obligations as defined in contracts authorized by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and amendments.

2. The financial and physical responsibility for existing and future related nuclear power waste be returned to those interests that produce it thus returning waste handling as a business cost to the Nuclear Power Industry as it is in other competing forms of energy production.

3. The balance of the Nuclear Waste Fund be returned to The Payers into that fund, less litigation costs incurred in US Taxpayer Plaintiff Interest, for the purpose of capitalizing technology development related to Commercial Nuclear Power Spent Fuel and Waste disposition.

4. The cost of nuclear weapon's waste be funded separately from commercial nuclear power production waste in such a manner that it no longer impacts commercial nuclear power waste handling cost; as is currently the case under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Referenced Information:

As of December 2011 more than 67,000 metric tons of Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) was in temporary storage within the United States. This SNF is stored on site at both operating and decommissioned plants. This is expected to increase at a rate of about 2,000 metric tons per year. (1) The initial Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) was passed in 1982. It was amended in 2008. The 1982 NWPA established the intent and method of funding for the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository which was never opened. (1,2) Under the initial Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 the Nuclear Power Plant Operators pay 1 tenth of one cent into The Nuclear Waste Fund for each kilowatt hour of energy sold.(3) In return the US taxpayer, through their agent, the Department of Energy, takes financial and physical responsibility for the security, transportation, processing, and storage of all SNF and all High Level Waste (HLW) related to commercial and governmental operations.(4) This includes plant infrastructure that meets the definition of High Level Waste at the end of plant life cycle. (5) Although the 1982 law allowed the government to review the adequacy of the one mil per KWH payments into the Nuclear Waste Fund; the “NWPA Amendment Act 2008” forbids raising these fees above one mil per KWH. (6) The “NWPA Amendment Act of 2008” also eliminates consideration of environmental impact of onsite storage when it concerns the issuance, amendment, or renewal of a license to construct or operate a facility. In addition, it exempts the plants from state mandated clean air standards. (7) Under the required contracts provided for by law, the US Tax Payer was to begin taking possession of SNF and HLW materials in 1998. Since the United States of America, as well as all other nations, has failed to develop permanent repositories for these wastes, the United States Tax Payers were forced to breach their contractual agreement to take possession of these materials. Since 1998 the Nuclear Power Plant operators have been suing the United States Taxpayer to recover the costs of storing the SNF and HLW. (4) A single Nuclear Power Plant Operator in Minnesota recently settled for 100 million dollars to cover the cost of storing SNF and HLW generated by two reactors. This settlement covered a 10 year period of storage with further litigation and settlements expected. This 100 million dollar judgment is a small percentage of what has already been paid, or is under appeal, regarding other Nuclear Plant Operations. These judicatory awards are not paid out of the Nuclear Waste Fund; but out of the U.S. Department of Justice Judgment Fund. This Judgment Fund “has no fiscal year limitations, and there is no need for Congress to appropriate money to replenish it.” (9) As of July 31, 2012 the Nuclear Waste Fund balance was $49,474,000,000 which includes interest payments to the fund. (10) Do such conditions create disincentives for the Nuclear Power Industry to evolve new waste handling and disposition technologies? Would returning financial and physical responsibility for industry related waste to the nuclear power plant operators result in a more economically efficient Nuclear Power Industry? Is it unreasonable to require the Nuclear Power Industry to absorb this cost of doing business in a responsible manner without US Tax Payer liability? Does passing the responsibility of SNF and HLW to the tax payer give the Nuclear Power Industry an unfair competitive advantage over other forms of energy production? Was the court ruling requiring that settlement payments be made from the U.S. Treasury Judgment Fund instead of the Nuclear Waste Fund a fair and equitable ruling for the American Tax Payer? Would allowing the Nuclear Power Industry to compete on a level economic playing field be in everyone’s long term interest? References: 1. Congressional Reporting Service Report to Congress – U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage – May 24, 2012. 2. Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 – section 111 (b) (1) 3. Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 – section 302 4. Congressional Budget Office Testimony - Statement of Kim Cawley Chief, Natural and Physical Resources Cost Estimate Unit – The Federal Governments Liabilities Under The Nuclear Waste Policy Act. October 4, 2007 5. Amendment to NWPA 2008 – section 105 – 12 ( C ) 6. NWPA Amendment Act 2008 – section 204 7. Amendment to NWPA 2008 – Section 104 (2) and Section 201 8. Before The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission – Docket Number - E-002/M-11-807 – December 16, 2011 - Section II. 9. Congressional Budget Office Testimony - Statement of Kim Cawley Chief, Natural and Physical Resources Cost Estimate Unit – The Federal Governments Liabilities Under The Nuclear Waste Policy Act. October 4, 2007 – Section – “The Judgment Fund.” 10. U.S. Treasury Monthly Statement of the Public Debt of The United States – July 31, 2012