Comment: Dr. Chu will be in our county today at 10:30 a.m! Some history on Dr. Chu! He is a nuke guy! No to uranium mining and Nuke Power! In addition, Expensive and France is not doing a good job on the Nuke Cycle!
by Donald Hertzmark
July 17, 2009
In quick succession, the Obama administration has dealt a near-death blow to new civilian nuclear reactors in the U.S.
First, the Yucca Mountain Project, a waste storage facility in Nevada, was “zeroed-out” of the 2009 budget. Second, the administration has just ended U.S. participation in a new nuclear fuel recycling project, one that would extract more energy from existing fission energy sources, and reduce sharply the high level nuclear waste from nuclear power.
Presiding over both of these decisions–that effectively terminate the feasibility of new nuclear power plants for the U.S.–is Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy, Nobel Laureate in Physics, and former director of the Lawrence Berkeley Energy Laboratory.
In contrast to the crowing of Senator Harry Reid about “killing” the Yucca Mountain Waste storage project, Dr. Chu described nuclear fuel recycling as an essential element of nuclear power for the U.S., and noted that storage of the type proposed for Yucca Mountain would be necessary for a few more years. In a 2009 interview with MIT’s Technology Review, for example, Dr. Chu specifically touted fast neutron (breeder) reactors and hybrid fission-fusion plants as good routes for future nuclear power technology.
In earlier interviews, Dr. Chu had called nuclear energy a vital component of the U.S. energy mix and restated his desire to see the share of nuclear power rise above its current level of 20% of electricity generation. “Nuclear has to be a necessary part of the portfolio, said Chu prior to his confirmation as Energy Secretary. In line with that view, license applications will be sought by investor-owned utilities for 35 new nuclear power plants over the next several years.
In comparison to a technological sure thing, Chu has noted that “making solar cheap will require ‘transformative technologies’, equivalent to the discovery of the transistor,” something that the billions spent on solar energy have so far failed to create.
Catch 22: No Nuclear Fuel Options, No Nuclear Power Plants
Under current regulations, U.S. utility companies can apply for a license to construct new nuclear power plants. But there is just one problem. They have to have a nuclear waste plan in order to receive an operating license once construction is completed. There lies the Catch-22 of U.S. nuclear policy. Heeding the entreaties of various nuclear energy opponents, the U.S. government has effectively removed both of the feasible spent fuel options from the menu, rendering a license to build a new nuclear plant simply a good way to waste shareholder and ratepayer funds. Dr. Chu understands this and is on the record favoring new nuclear power with appropriate fuel reprocessing, but not in his current capacity as Secretary of Energy.
Will the Government Give US Our Money Back for Yucca Mountain?
Lost in the noise about nuclear policy is one alarming fact: electricity ratepayers consuming nuclear power, not taxpayers in general, have funded existing waste disposal technologies and initiatives. The Yucca Mountain project, paid for by electricity consumers, has thus far spent more than $9 billion of the $25 billion collected from ratepayers. So the administration, by canceling the project, has treated ratepayers with exactly the type of high-handedness that bondholders of GM and Chrysler received.
So much for the rule of law when OPM (other people’s money) is involved. No word yet from the DOE on consumer refunds for the monies wasted in a dead-end project, to say nothing of the $16 billion that has been collected but not spent.
How Hard is This, Really?
Current U.S. nuclear fuel technology policy is akin to telling drivers to take 75% of the fuel out of their gas tanks and store it “someplace.” It is a proposition that simply defies logic. The technology used in U.S. nuclear reactors consumes just 5-7% of the fuel available in the enriched uranium. The rest cannot be used unless the spent fuel is reprocessed, in the words of Secretary Chu, “it has some inherent value.”
Currently, almost all of the spent fuel generated by the country’s 104 civilian reactors is stored on site (at the reactor) in cooling pools. Some of the spent fuel has been vitrified, or locked away in casks that make it unavailable for either benign or malign future use. The rest is in a form that could be readily reprocessed using current technology.
Our obtuse approach to nuclear fuel is not technologically driven. “France, whose 59 reactors generate 80 percent of its electricity, has safely recycled nuclear fuel for decades.” Enough spent fuel has been reprocessed in France to supply 14 years of operation for the country’s nuclear plants. Moreover, the MOX, or mixed oxide fuel produced in France’s Le Havre reprocessing facility, is exported to Japan, among other customers, to use in civilian power technology. Areva, the French company, is assisting in the construction of reprocessing plants in Japan and China.
Where Is the Market in All of This?
Power generators in the U.S. are faced with increasing resistance to new coal plants, the least cost solution for power generation, even with carbon separation and storage bolted onto the back end of the plant. Gas is a good option, and one that will be increasingly used as all other alternatives vanish. However, one would have to be naive to think that the anti-carbon lobby will continue to permit the bountiful shale gas resources in the U.S. to render wind entirely uncompetitive. Already, New York State has held up permits for Marcellus Shale gas production on “environmental” grounds. Wind and solar, as noted by Dr. Chu, are not yet serious contenders for reliable power supply. This leaves nuclear as the sole “carbon-free” reliable generation option.
Many electrons have died disputing the economics of nuclear power. In the U.S., we have learned some bitter lessons about the cost of politicizing the economics of energy. And yet we repeat these same mistakes with a new generation of nuclear power technology. Somehow, the prospect of generating electricity at a reasonable cost without all that “hot” stuff left over is unappealing to the opponents of nuclear power.
Perhaps it is time to listen to the people who vote with their own money. We have willing buyers, the electricity-consuming public, who wish for cost-effective, clean and reliable energy— not periodic outages due to calm weather or nightfall. We see nuclear technologies deployed outside the U.S. that can apparently produce electricity at competitive prices. We have domestic U.S. utilities that wish to build and operate new nuclear power plants, based on an assessment of all of the alternatives in a carbon-constrained world. We have firms willing to invest in new plants and even in fuel reprocessing, on the understanding that nuclear is the best of the carbon-free generation options. Willing buyers, willing sellers, willing investors, what could be better than that?
If we do not listen to those spending their own money, then we will have to listen to those who spend OPM. We will get less reliable, even more expensive electricity, paid for both in the electricity bill and the tax form. Dr. Chu understands energy technology well, we can only hope that Secretary Chu will heed the wisdom of his illustrious alter ego.
http://masterresource.org/?p=3754
by Donald Hertzmark
July 17, 2009
In quick succession, the Obama administration has dealt a near-death blow to new civilian nuclear reactors in the U.S.
First, the Yucca Mountain Project, a waste storage facility in Nevada, was “zeroed-out” of the 2009 budget. Second, the administration has just ended U.S. participation in a new nuclear fuel recycling project, one that would extract more energy from existing fission energy sources, and reduce sharply the high level nuclear waste from nuclear power.
Presiding over both of these decisions–that effectively terminate the feasibility of new nuclear power plants for the U.S.–is Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy, Nobel Laureate in Physics, and former director of the Lawrence Berkeley Energy Laboratory.
In contrast to the crowing of Senator Harry Reid about “killing” the Yucca Mountain Waste storage project, Dr. Chu described nuclear fuel recycling as an essential element of nuclear power for the U.S., and noted that storage of the type proposed for Yucca Mountain would be necessary for a few more years. In a 2009 interview with MIT’s Technology Review, for example, Dr. Chu specifically touted fast neutron (breeder) reactors and hybrid fission-fusion plants as good routes for future nuclear power technology.
In earlier interviews, Dr. Chu had called nuclear energy a vital component of the U.S. energy mix and restated his desire to see the share of nuclear power rise above its current level of 20% of electricity generation. “Nuclear has to be a necessary part of the portfolio, said Chu prior to his confirmation as Energy Secretary. In line with that view, license applications will be sought by investor-owned utilities for 35 new nuclear power plants over the next several years.
In comparison to a technological sure thing, Chu has noted that “making solar cheap will require ‘transformative technologies’, equivalent to the discovery of the transistor,” something that the billions spent on solar energy have so far failed to create.
Catch 22: No Nuclear Fuel Options, No Nuclear Power Plants
Under current regulations, U.S. utility companies can apply for a license to construct new nuclear power plants. But there is just one problem. They have to have a nuclear waste plan in order to receive an operating license once construction is completed. There lies the Catch-22 of U.S. nuclear policy. Heeding the entreaties of various nuclear energy opponents, the U.S. government has effectively removed both of the feasible spent fuel options from the menu, rendering a license to build a new nuclear plant simply a good way to waste shareholder and ratepayer funds. Dr. Chu understands this and is on the record favoring new nuclear power with appropriate fuel reprocessing, but not in his current capacity as Secretary of Energy.
Will the Government Give US Our Money Back for Yucca Mountain?
Lost in the noise about nuclear policy is one alarming fact: electricity ratepayers consuming nuclear power, not taxpayers in general, have funded existing waste disposal technologies and initiatives. The Yucca Mountain project, paid for by electricity consumers, has thus far spent more than $9 billion of the $25 billion collected from ratepayers. So the administration, by canceling the project, has treated ratepayers with exactly the type of high-handedness that bondholders of GM and Chrysler received.
So much for the rule of law when OPM (other people’s money) is involved. No word yet from the DOE on consumer refunds for the monies wasted in a dead-end project, to say nothing of the $16 billion that has been collected but not spent.
How Hard is This, Really?
Current U.S. nuclear fuel technology policy is akin to telling drivers to take 75% of the fuel out of their gas tanks and store it “someplace.” It is a proposition that simply defies logic. The technology used in U.S. nuclear reactors consumes just 5-7% of the fuel available in the enriched uranium. The rest cannot be used unless the spent fuel is reprocessed, in the words of Secretary Chu, “it has some inherent value.”
Currently, almost all of the spent fuel generated by the country’s 104 civilian reactors is stored on site (at the reactor) in cooling pools. Some of the spent fuel has been vitrified, or locked away in casks that make it unavailable for either benign or malign future use. The rest is in a form that could be readily reprocessed using current technology.
Our obtuse approach to nuclear fuel is not technologically driven. “France, whose 59 reactors generate 80 percent of its electricity, has safely recycled nuclear fuel for decades.” Enough spent fuel has been reprocessed in France to supply 14 years of operation for the country’s nuclear plants. Moreover, the MOX, or mixed oxide fuel produced in France’s Le Havre reprocessing facility, is exported to Japan, among other customers, to use in civilian power technology. Areva, the French company, is assisting in the construction of reprocessing plants in Japan and China.
Where Is the Market in All of This?
Power generators in the U.S. are faced with increasing resistance to new coal plants, the least cost solution for power generation, even with carbon separation and storage bolted onto the back end of the plant. Gas is a good option, and one that will be increasingly used as all other alternatives vanish. However, one would have to be naive to think that the anti-carbon lobby will continue to permit the bountiful shale gas resources in the U.S. to render wind entirely uncompetitive. Already, New York State has held up permits for Marcellus Shale gas production on “environmental” grounds. Wind and solar, as noted by Dr. Chu, are not yet serious contenders for reliable power supply. This leaves nuclear as the sole “carbon-free” reliable generation option.
Many electrons have died disputing the economics of nuclear power. In the U.S., we have learned some bitter lessons about the cost of politicizing the economics of energy. And yet we repeat these same mistakes with a new generation of nuclear power technology. Somehow, the prospect of generating electricity at a reasonable cost without all that “hot” stuff left over is unappealing to the opponents of nuclear power.
Perhaps it is time to listen to the people who vote with their own money. We have willing buyers, the electricity-consuming public, who wish for cost-effective, clean and reliable energy— not periodic outages due to calm weather or nightfall. We see nuclear technologies deployed outside the U.S. that can apparently produce electricity at competitive prices. We have domestic U.S. utilities that wish to build and operate new nuclear power plants, based on an assessment of all of the alternatives in a carbon-constrained world. We have firms willing to invest in new plants and even in fuel reprocessing, on the understanding that nuclear is the best of the carbon-free generation options. Willing buyers, willing sellers, willing investors, what could be better than that?
If we do not listen to those spending their own money, then we will have to listen to those who spend OPM. We will get less reliable, even more expensive electricity, paid for both in the electricity bill and the tax form. Dr. Chu understands energy technology well, we can only hope that Secretary Chu will heed the wisdom of his illustrious alter ego.
http://masterresource.org/?p=3754
2 comments:
HOPEFULLY, FINALLY, NUCLEAR POWER WILL BE A THING OF THE PAST IN THIS COUNTRY AND AMERICA CAN LEAD THE WAY FOR GREEN RENEWABLES!!!! LET THE NUKE MORONS CLEAN UP THE HUGE DEADLY MESS THEIR SO-CALLED "CLEAN ENERGY" HAS DUMPED UPON THE EARTH AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES BY USING THEIR OWN DIRTY PROFITS FROM THIS DISGUSTING INDUSTRY. BUY THE TIME THEY GET FINISHED TRYING TO REPAIR THE EARTH AND THE LIVES THEY'VE DESTROYED, NUCLEAR POWER WILL BE D.O.A.
Nuclear energy can already help us against climate change?
Oh really?
Tell that to the French government who are this summer are being forced to import electricity from the UK because its inland nuclear reactors cannot operate properly in the summer heatwave…
Fourteen of France’s 19 nuclear power stations are located inland and use river water rather than seawater for cooling. When water temperatures rise, EDF is forced to shut down the reactors to prevent their casings from exceeding 50C […] One power industry insider said yesterday that about 20GW (gigawatts) of France’s total nuclear generating capacity of 63GW was out of service.
Yes, this amazing, cheap, reliable and safe technology that is going to save us from rising global temperatures can’t work when the temperature rises. Really. The world’s major exponent of nuclear power, the one that is supposedly going to lead us the promised land of a nuclear ‘renaissance’, is having to import electricity because its own reactors aren’t up to the job. Nuclear power is supposed to save us from climate change but can’t work when the climate changes. That’s what they call a Catch-22.
With temperatures only set rise in the coming years, it looks like France has a big problem. And they’re not alone. There are over 400 nuclear power plants across the world. How many are inland and rely on river water for coolant? Not that coastal reactors are any better. Look for example at the CanDU facility in Ontario, Canada which is actively contributing to climate change.
So what’s the solution? In France, desperate times demand desperate measures when a country is so reliant on nuclear power…
EDF must also observe strict rules governing the heat of the water it discharges into waterways so that wildlife is not harmed. The maximum permitted temperature is 24C […] In 2003, the situation grew so severe that the French nuclear safety regulator granted special exemptions to three plants, allowing them temporarily to discharge water into rivers at temperatures as high as 30C.
Can these strict rules governing reactors’ discharges survive in the face of rising global temperatures? One would imagine not. In other words the nuclear industry will be allowed to damage the environment more than it already does.
‘In order to save the planet we must destroy it,’ should be its new slogan.
Post a Comment