Honey, I Shrunk the Renaissance: Nuclear Revival, Climate Change, and Reality

[kristopher]

About the author: "A former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and former chair of the New York and Maine utility regulatory commissions, Peter Bradford is an Adjunct Professor at Vermont Law School teaching Nuclear Power and Public Policy. He has advised governments on nuclear power and is a member of the Keystone Center collaborative on nuclear power and climate change. He is a graduate of Yale University and the Yale Law School and is Vice Chair of the board of The Union of Concerned Scientists."

Honey, I Shrunk the Renaissance: Nuclear Revival, Climate Change, and Reality

For the second time in a generation, the nuclear industry is undergoing a breathtaking transit from overblown hope to crushing disappointment. Once again this cycle is taking place in the context of claims that we must have many more new reactors than we are likely to get to avert an overwhelming existential threat – oil imports in the 1970s, and climate change today.

Many in Washington are determined to ignore or override the latest market verdict against new nuclear reactors. Republicans in particular still insist on the need to build 100 new reactors by 2030. Democrats, while setting no such socialistic quotas, flirt with financing mechanisms that would open taxpayer wallets to virtually unlimited exposure to the risks of new nuclear power – risks that private investors want no part of.<1>

<snip>

...But Congress had inadvertently called the industry’s bluff. Production tax credits were useless in stimulating financing of facilities that had a substantial chance of being cancelled before they produced anything. That risk has to be borne by someone other than sophisticated investors, and so began the search for the proverbial “dumb money,” in this case funding from taxpayers – protected by the Department of Energy – or customers – protected by state utility regulators.

<snip>

...Throughout 2010, the Senate has struggled to reinflate the renaissance. For Republicans, this is faith-based energy policy. They promised 45 reactors by 2030 in the 2008 presidential campaign. Having lost, and with nuclear economics worsening by the week, they doubled down, proposing a goal of 100 new reactors by 2030.<13>

For Democrats, extensive support for new reactors was viewed in part as bait with which to troll for Republican support for climate change legislation. However, Democratic bargaining – if it can be called that – has been so inept that Democrats have become nuclear Sancho Panzas to the Republican Don Quixotes (a metaphor enhanced by the vigor with which lead Republican spokesman Lamar Alexander actually does fulminate against windmills)...

Read or download the full text and graphic of this excellent article at:
http://www.electricitypolicy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=99&Itemid=710

[kristopher]

1. And for a related story...

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2010/1855

Reactor "renaissance" flies off another cliff
October 12, 2010

Maryland's Calvert Cliffs nuke project is on the brink of cancellation. It's potentially one of the most critical atomic failures in decades.

But financial markets love the nuke's demise. The stock of its American partner---Constellation Energy---has soared with the apparent death of a project widely feared as a huge money-loser ... Constellation Energy says it's still "in negotiations" with the Energy Department for $7.6 billion in guarantees. But financial reports indicate the project is all but dead.

Why?

Because atomic power can't meet construction schedules and can't compete in an open energy market with either natural gas or renewables.

Ironically, the nuclear industry set up the failure. A decade ago it fought to deregulate electric markets. In about two dozen states---including Maryland---it forced ratepayers to eat some $100 billion in "stranded" reactor costs in preparation for "free competition...."

Full article by Harvey Wasserman available here: http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2010/1855

[Confusious]

2. A lawyer is the head of the union of concerned scientists?

I guess that's another group I won't listen to when it comes to science.

They couldn't get an actual scientist to fill the spot? They had to get a f**king lawyer?

Or is this a thing like they do in congress " the feeding and care of puppies act of 2010 " when they are actually going to cut food and care from the puppies?

[Dead_Parrot]

3. To be fair, he's only the Vice Chairman

The president is Kevin Knobloch, who has a Masters in.. err... Administration.

Hmm. That doesn't help, does it?

[Confusious]

4. The union of concerned administrators?

I guess you had to name it something else, 'cause that doesn't really carry much weight.

[Nihil]

7. I think we're finding out why the USA is so crap at implementing nuclear power ...

> Peter Bradford is an Adjunct Professor at Vermont Law School
> teaching Nuclear Power and Public Policy.
> He has advised governments on nuclear power

The US seems to have a belief in the infallibility of lawyers
and consistently keeps choosing them to make important decisions
on matters completely out of their field yet unfailingly worships
at their "authority" whenever science (or simply the facts of the
matter) show up the failings of said trained liars.

That's starting to explain things ...
:shrug:

[Kolesar]

8. Duh. It is lawyers who write the legislation on energy policy

And sometimes it is the *same* lawyers who lobbied and wrote the energy legislation.

There is a curious anti-intellectual message here today. Embarassing

Fans of intellectual discourse and deliberation may wish to look away.

[Nihil]

9. That's nothing new ...

> There is a curious anti-intellectual message here today. Embarassing

There have been a lot of anti-intellectual messages just about every day
and yes, they certainly can be embarrassing to those of us who know more
than a little science. Still, variety is the spice of life so I guess
having to put up with the lawyers and the radiophobic emos is the price
we pay for getting all of the useful stuff that is posted on the forum.

:shrug:

[kristopher]

11. Really?

When do you EVER do anything other than engage in character assassination an nit picking? Where are your contributions of "science" to the base of knowledge here?

[Confusious]

14. really? need I remind you of the former greenpeace founder?

glass houses, stones, all that?

[Dead_Parrot]

17. The double standards are breathtaking

Or is it the denial? Hard to tell.

[Kolesar]

21. You've got all day and nothing to do, so go ahead and explain it...eom

[Confusious]

30. No, I have calc, his and computer science to do.

and a woman to call, and a daughter to talk to. You can look it up.

[kristopher]

37. Still waiting...

[Confusious]

13. If you think being upset because having lawyers

make policy about shit they don't understand is anti-intellectual, I don't know what to say.

Lawyers usually get liberal arts degrees so they can keep their GPA high, so they can get into law school. They don't take things like science and math, since that would kill their GPA. ( as told to me BY a lawyer )

these are the people we ask to make policy about science. Having a law degree doesn't make you and expert in everything.

[bananas]

5. Attacks on UCS are part of the right-wing Republican war on science

Here's a partial list of the board - mostly leading scientists.

http://www.ucsusa.org/about/board.html

UCS Board Members

James J. McCarthy (Chair) is Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Dr. McCarthy serves on many panels and commissions relating to oceanography, polar science, and the study of climate and global change. He chaired the committee that oversees the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program, and served as co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group II.

Peter A. Bradford (Vice-Chair) advises and teaches on utility regulation and energy policy in the United States and overseas. A former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and former chair of the New York and Maine utility commissions, he has advised many states on utility restructuring issues. He has taught energy law and policy at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and the Vermont Law School. He served on a panel advising the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development on how best to replace the remaining Chernobyl nuclear plants. He was also part of an expert panel advising the Austrian Institute for Risk Reduction on issues associated with the opening of the Mochovche nuclear power plant in Slovakia. He is the author of Fragile Structures: A Story of Oil Refineries, National Security and the Coast of Maine.

Thomas Eisner is Schurman Professor of Chemical Ecology at Cornell University and director of the Cornell Institute for Research in Chemical Ecology. A leading biologist who received the National Medal of Science in 1994, he is an active conservationist, both nationally and internationally. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society. He recently served as chair of the Endangered Species Coalition and was formerly a member of the National Audubon Society's board and the Nature Conservancy's scientific council. He is the author of For Love of Insects and is a well-known nature photographer.

James A. Fay (Board Member Emeritus) is professor emeritus of mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A UCS board member since 1978, Dr. Fay is former chair of the Massachusetts Port Authority, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Physical Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member of the National Academy of Engineering. His published works on the environmental impact of energy technologies include (with Dan Golomb) Energy and the Environment.

Richard L. Garwin is a National Medal of Science laureate and Fellow Emeritus at IBM. He has done a wide range of research in fundamental and applied physics. He was involved with the development of the first thermonuclear weapons and the first photo-intelligence satellites and is a leading expert on many arms control matters. He has served on the President's Scientific Advisory Committee, the Defense Science Board, and the 1998 Rumsfeld Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States. He also was Philip D. Reed Senior Fellow for Science and Technology at the Council of Foreign Relations. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. His most recent book (with Georges Charpak) is Megawatts and Megatons: The Future of Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons.

Kurt Gottfried (Chair Emeritus) is emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University. A co-founder of UCS and Chair of the Board of Directors during 1999-2009, he has served on the senior staff of the European Center for Nuclear Research in Geneva, is a former chair of the Division of Particles and Fields of the American Physical Society, and is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Council on Foreign Relations. He has published widely on theoretical physics and national security issues, authoring Quantum Mechanics, Concepts of Particle Physics, The Fallacy of Star Wars, and Crisis Stability and Nuclear War.

<snip>

[Dead_Parrot]

6. You mis-spelt "WHO". Or possibly "NOAA".

You're right of course, there's some very distinguished scientists in there. And and an actress, a smattering of lawyers, and a few administrators. I must say the CEO of a company that invests in deforestation and wholesale meat was a bit of a surprise, but maybe he drives a Prius or something.

[kristopher]

10. Everyone witness that the response of the pronuclear peanut gallery is to...

engage in character assassination of a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to try and paint him as being UNQUALIFIED to evaluate the performance of the nuclear industry.

The program on Environmental Law at Vermont Law School is widely recognized as one of the very best in the United States (and probably the world).

The fundamental question that is being addressed by Bradford's paper is what energy system will work best to reduce the use of carbon fuels.

The second order question concerns the viability of nuclear power as one of the options for addressing carbon reduction.

That is not a question that say, a physicist specializing in the performance of a particular reactor design, would be qualified to address. Not unless said physicist ALSO has the legal, public policy and economics training that Bradford has.

In fact, it is abundantly clear that there is an incestuous and potentially corrupt relationship within the physical science community that works in the field of nuclear power.
www.nd.edu/~kshrader/ksf-cv-dec-1-2009.pdf

Also see this paper by one of Bradford's colleagues, Mark Cooper; The Economics of Nuclear Reactors: Renaissance or Relapse?
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse


Of particular interest is Figure ES-1: Overnight Cost of Completed Nuclear Reactors Compared to Projected Costs of Future Reactors

[Kolesar]

12. I worked with attorneys who lobbied and legislated for Great Lakes & Western Forests' protection

I worked with Legal Aid Society attorneys who lobbied for fair utility prices for poor Ohioans. These men accomplished much more in their careers than the sit-in-your-chairs-and-do-nothing anti-intellectual set on this forum ever will.

[Confusious]

15. while they might be good people who did good things

That still doesn't make them qualified to make science policy. As things advance, they'll become even less qualified.

As we rely more and more on science to help us live, do you really want someone to making policy who knows about as much as the average American?

[Kolesar]

20. You don't have a law degree and you have not done activism, so what do you know?

You just sit in your chair and do ... this^

[Confusious]

28. So they are the only people worth listening to?

No wonder this country is going into the dumper.

[Confusious]

16. I think I missed the ending

where he said:

But if a modest demonstration program is what it takes to achieve some movement on meaningful climate change legislation, perhaps some consensus could form around a commitment to support half a dozen new reactors and no more – a coalition between those who think such a demonstration will reignite a self-sustaining nuclear industry and those who are sure that it will not. What has been missing has been a clear commitment to the proposition that if these plants fail to pass meaningful market tests, that’s the end of it. It’s time to try other things – perhaps including other nuclear things – but at least things that move us further along the road to meaningful greenhouse gas emissions than this pointless struggle over a fictitious renaissance. ■

As long as they don't get tied up in court with anti-nukes suing to stop them, and then claiming they are a failure, then I would be more then happy to agree to it. If they fail on their own, then my mouth is shut, and I'll accept 13 cents per kilowatt hour renewables, and covering 1 percent of the earths surface with solar panels. food is overrated anyways.

[bananas]

18. Actually, we already tried that, and they failed.

Technically, they still have two and a half months before they fail, but it's not likely they'll make it. The Republican congress allocated $18B in loan guarantees, which the nuclear industry assured us would be enough to get six reactors online by 2010. The Republican congress also changed the laws to prevent anti-nukes from suing.

The area needed to get all our energy from solar is a fraction of the area used for growing food.
And offshore wind uses no land at all.

[Confusious]

19. you've just shown who is accommodating, and who is not.

If the plants get built, it doesn't cost us one damn nickel. Every other country on the planet can do it, we can't.

A study posted by on of your fellows said 1 to 3 percent of the surface of the earth for solar. 3 percent of land mass is not a small number, an area the size of size of Nevada. (that's being nice, if the surface area of the earth is 500 million km^2. 3 percent would be alaska, 1 percent would be 2 nevadas) also add 66 percent to that for all the power required by the wonderful electric cars which will save the environment you haven't destroyed to putting in solar panels.

oh, but we can put it on the ocean. really? how so? are you going to add to the already high price by floating it on what? wood? styrofoam? Some other material that takes fossil fuels? Cover every beach in the United states?

please. I'm a realist when it comes to RL and the things I'm familiar with and the limits of our current tech is something I'm familiar with.

[kristopher]

24. You are certainly a lot of things, but "informed" is not on the list.

Lets look at how your interpretation of the data matches the original.

You wrote:

A study posted by on of your fellows said 1 to 3 percent of the surface of the earth for solar. 3 percent of land mass is not a small number, an area the size of size of Nevada. (that's being nice, if the surface area of the earth is 500 million km^2. 3 percent would be alaska, 1 percent would be 2 nevadas) also add 66 percent to that for all the power required by the wonderful electric cars which will save the environment you haven't destroyed to putting in solar panels.
...I'm a realist when it comes to RL and the things I'm familiar with and the limits of our current tech is something I'm familiar with.

I'd have to search for quite a while to find a better example of a person being uninformed and unable to actually grasp relevant information.

This is the exact post that has been used to refute dozens of false claims by nuclear "environmentalists" on this forum. It is posted in full and unaltered.

From a presentation by John Holdren.

The renewable option: Is it real?

SUNLIGHT: 100,000 TW reaches Earth’s surface (100,000 TWy/year = 3.15 million EJ/yr), 30% on land.
Thus 1% of the land area receives 300 TWy/yr, so converting this to usable forms at 10% efficiency would yield 30 TWy/yr, about twice civilization’s rate of energy use in 2004.

WIND: Solar energy flowing into the wind is ~2,000 TW.
Wind power estimated to be harvestable from windy sites covering 2% of Earth’s land surface is about twice world electricity generation in 2004.

BIOMASS: Solar energy is stored by photosynthesis on land at a rate of about 60 TW.
Energy crops at twice the average terrestrial photosynthetic yield would give 12 TW from 10% of land area (equal to what’s now used for agriculture).
Converted to liquid biofuels at 50% efficiency, this would be 6 TWy/yr, more than world oil use in 2004.

Renewable energy potential is immense. Questions are what it will cost & how much society wants to pay for environmental & security advantages.

What does he say about nuclear?

The nuclear option: size of the challenges
• If world electricity demand grows 2%/year until 2050 and nuclear share of electricity supply is to rise from 1/6 to 1/3...
–nuclear capacity would have to grow from 350 GWe in 2000 to 1700 GWe in 2050;
– this means 1,700 reactors of 1,000 MWe each.

• If these were light-water reactors on the once-through fuel cycle...
---–enrichment of their fuel will require ~250 million Separative Work Units (SWU);
---–diversion of 0.1% of this enrichment to production of HEU from natural uranium would make ~20 gun-type or ~80 implosion-type bombs.

• If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium...
---–the associated flow of separated, directly weapon - usable plutonium would be 170,000 kg per year;
---–diversion of 0.1% of this quantity would make ~30 implosion-type bombs.

• Spent-fuel production in the once-through case would be...
---–34,000 tonnes/yr, a Yucca Mountain every two years.

Conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, but doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.

Mitigation of Human-Caused Climate Change
John P. Holdren

Conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, *but* doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.

John P. Holdren is advisor to President Barack Obama for Science and Technology,
Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology...

Holdren was previously the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University,
director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and
Director of the Woods Hole Research Center.<2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren

"study"

No, it was a presentation by a qualified scientist, not a study

---------

"1 to 3 percent of the surface of the earth for solar."

No, it was 1% of the land area receives 300 TWy/yr, so converting this to usable forms at 10% efficiency would yield 30 TWy/yr, about twice civilization’s rate of energy use in 2004.

----------------


"3 percent of land mass"

Which is it "surface of the earth" or "land mass"?


-------------------------------

"add 66 percent to that for all the power required by the wonderful electric cars"

That "fact" you just pulled that out of your rectum.

--------------------------------

End of Section - -------


Now that we've established the level to which you are "informed" on basic facts you've seen many, many times, let's look at your ability to apply information:

The numbers by Holdren are given for meeting twice current energy for both wind and solar. The *message* from Holdren is that renewable resources are HUGE and MORE THAN ADEQUATE for any rational projection for energy needs (I add that qualifier because of the 66% claim you made).

The solar area number is based on 10% efficiency. Any informed person would know that the average efficiency of solar is closer to 18%.
What does that do to the estimate?

Holdren's illustration gave an area for meeting TWICE the total energy used currently.
Any informed person would know that solar is only one of a diverse set of renewable energy sources - wind, geothermal, biomass, wave/current/tidal/isothermic are all going to contribute to the mix.
What does that do to the estimate?

So, when you say something like "If the plants get built, it doesn't cost us one damn nickel. Every other country on the planet can do it, we can't" any informed person can't help but question it.

To be valid your claim about no cost and other countries would have to be supported by actual evidence. Unfortunately ALL of the evidence points elsewhere. There are no "merchant" reactors being built without massive government support. That is because all forecasts call for high probability of bankruptcy for any plants that do not have 60 years worth of guaranteed cash flow. Since forecasts in the developed industrial countries also call for declining renewable costs, increased renewable penetration, and decreased demand due to energy efficiency, it is highly probable that by 2030 any nuclear plant built now that depends on selling it's power at market rates will go bankrupt and require lots and lots of the public's "nickles to cover the losses of the investors.

So I'd conclude that your claim in this area has as much validity as ALL of the rest of your pronouncements - none; and that includes your oft stated conclusion that nuclear power is a good choice for meeting our energy needs.

Can you tell us how many "turnkey" nuclear plants have been built?

Can you also tell us why the answer to that question is what it is?

[kristopher]

25. Kick

[Nihil]

27. Spam need kicking ???? (n/t)

:wow:

[Confusious]

26. Really? coming from you?

I noticed you mangled most of my post to try and prove something. Not very honest at all. I could write more of a response, but with you, it'll be ignored, distorted and a waste of time. Your mind is a closed pamphlet.

[kristopher]

31. Nothing is distorted, nothing is mangled; it is completely accurate.

You are simply not well informed and your ability to properly grasp the essentials of an issue has never been demonstrated positively.

[Dead_Parrot]

32. ...

:rofl:

[Confusious]

33. I can perfectly see the distortion

You can't even see your own distortions.

I guess it takes years of experience living in reality. Which academia isn't.

remind me again of which school you work for, so I can warn people about it.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[kristopher]

34. Then point out where the "distortion" is.

It should be simple enough.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=261681&mesg_id=261912

[Confusious]

35. Why bother, you'll deny its there.

And I can seriously say, you probably can't even see what is wrong with the statements you posted:

SUNLIGHT: 100,000 TW reaches Earth’s surface (100,000 TWy/year = 3.15 million EJ/yr), 30% on land.
Thus 1% of the land area receives 300 TWy/yr, so converting this to usable forms at 10% efficiency would yield 30 TWy/yr, about twice civilization’s rate of energy use in 2004.

WIND: Solar energy flowing into the wind is ~2,000 TW.
Wind power estimated to be harvestable from windy sites covering 2% of Earth’s land surface is about twice world electricity generation in 2004.

BIOMASS: Solar energy is stored by photosynthesis on land at a rate of about 60 TW.
Energy crops at twice the average terrestrial photosynthetic yield would give 12 TW from 10% of land area (equal to what’s now used for agriculture).
Converted to liquid biofuels at 50% efficiency, this would be 6 TWy/yr, more than world oil use in 2004.

If you can see one, I'll point out your distortions. I can see 4 or 5.

[Kolesar]

36. snot

[Kolesar]

22. First Energy customers pay more than 13c/kW*hour because of Davis-Besse, Perry, &Beaver Valley nukes

Perry was behind schedule and piled up huge interest charges because they had to stop and redesign the control system for safety reasons. We customers got stuck with a $7,000,000,000 project in our rate base.

High energy prices have cost jobs in Ohio.

[Confusious]

23. So what are you complaining about

you get first dibbs at testing out the new normal in electric prices. Soon we'll all be paying the same all over the United States with renewables. be proud.


of course, there's also: when was it built? how many lawsuits delayed construction? etc.

[Nihil]

29. View it as an incentive ...

... to reduce your wasteful consumption of poorly provided electricity ...

Hey, that must be a win-win ... no?

Don't say that the suggestion that you waste less is more of a problem
than the source of your (wasted) electricity?

:eyes:

[kristopher]

38. And what do you use to set the stage for that "dumb money"?

The 6 standard lies of the nuclear industry:

1. nuclear power is cheap;

2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;

3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;

4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;

5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;

6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.


Nuclear power is not "cheap" by any conceivable measurement.

New designs are not proven; they come with their own set of unique problems; and they do absolutely nothing to solve the most significant problems associated with large-scale deployment of nuclear power.

Waste is a problem and there is no nation that has solved it; including through the use of recycling.

Because of cost and time to build and lack of a suitable sustainable profile, nuclear power is a third rate solution to climate change.

Nuclear is not required because of baseload claims because the relevance of "baseload" as a factor is greatly exaggerated and because there are many alternatives to satisfy the actual requirement that is hidden in the "baseload" hype.

Nuclear weapons proliferation is directly linked to expansion of commercial nuclear power arm of the military-industrial complex.