Re: [Futurework] Staying cool? Thank nuclear power

[D & N]

When the B .S. so heavily outweighs the facts, when a piece wreaks of propaganda as much as in Wente's article, the lead line message is quickly obscured in order to get people to associate cool with nuclear.. Society's needs are hardly only about today's needs. Sure, people are appreciative of AC, but it doesn't mean that because it's available, we should be grateful for not having invested in Renewables. It's just too glib and misleading. With lines like, "nuclear power creates zero greenhouse gas emissions, (almost true, following an average of at least a decade of carbon spewing construction, and providing there are no accidents or catastrophes that have a humongous carbon and radioactive footprint.)  “Nuclear energy is the most powerful weapon in the war on global warming,” (absolutely false--Renewables are the most powerful and the only practical 'weapon' available. What is lacking is political will to install, and continuous government funding --6 X greater--for nuclear.  the peril of nuclear is one of the great myths of our time. (Tell that to the survivors of nuclear disasters, and to our future world). Chernobyl, a disastrously designed reactor, has killed just 56 people so far, according to the United Nations. Three Mile Island and Fukushima have killed none., (not even attempted to be researched by Wente)  “Cheap, clean energy is the world’s most important development goal, (It may be the world's goal, but not that of those who control it--otherwise they'd fund Renewables) In the United States, the anti-nuclear lobby has been so successful that it stopped nuclear expansion cold. So the U.S. built hundreds of carbon-spewing coal plants instead. “The environmental movement has made the world safe for coal,” (huge lie--the financial risks, absence of liability insurance and immediate profits, and poor long-term returns were the reasons) Germany is now massively investing in wind and solar. But the Germans, facing massive price hikes, are revolting, and the resulting energy shortfalls are being made up by … coal. (some stories of corporate relocation are true, costs went up initially, but came down by 2012. Coal derived energy did increase, but is slated for short-term only, at no risk of nuclear meltdown, while the Renewables are developed. The programme is predominately favourable, and had already achieved 21.9% of its supply in Renewables by 2012, wind providing 11.9% of that total, while employing over 370,000 in the Renewables industry and new installations. The north of Germany generates so much wind power the grid cannot handle it, and much is wasted. The movement towards Renewables was regional, and though now assisted by national efforts, continues to be one of local efforts, many who should get hooked up to the grid, but cannot. Unlike N. America, they are acting and therefore achieving results) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany n July 2012, there was a cumulative installed total solar PV power of 29.7 GW.[23] Solar PV provided 18 TW·h (billion kilowatt-hours) in 2011, 3% of the total electricity demand. As solar power installations rise quickly, in first half of 2012, about 5.3% of the total electricity demand was covered by solar power.[24] At 25 May 2012, a Saturday, solar power reached a new record with feeding 22 GW, as much as 20 nuclear power stations, into the German power grid, which made 50% of the nation's midday's electricity demand.[25] Some market analysts expect the solar electricity share could reach 25 percent by 2050.[26] Price of PV systems has decreased more than 50% in 5 years since 2006.[27] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/01/renewable-energy-clean-cheap-uk http://grist.org/climate-energy/germany-takes-the-first-step-toward-a-supergrid/ Anyway, this is all by way of introducing some exciting developments in Germany. As a pioneer in scaling up renewables, Germany is currently facing all the challenges and roadbumps that other countries will face in the near future. One of those is the need for transmission. Right now, the south of Germany — the heavily industrialized part — is struggling a bit. It receives lots of its energy from those big nuclear plants that are in the process of getting shut down. Meanwhile, northern Germany has more wind than it knows what to do with. Wind turbines in the north often stop running because there’s nowhere to send the power: In 2010, German wind farms let some 127 gigawatt-hours of energy, enough to supply more than 30 000 German households for a year, fly on by. There was no grid capacity to deliver that power. At other times, there’s so much northern German wind that the surplus power flows into neighboring countries’ AC grids, which aren’t always prepared to accept it: http://theenergycollective.com/thomas-gerke/242311/100-renewable-energy-and-beyond lie: percentage of nuclear to renewables contribution to Canadian power grid: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/renewable/1297Key Descriptors Canada, with its large landmass and diversified geography, has substantial renewable resources that can be used to produce energy; these resources include moving water, wind, biomass, solar, geothermal, and ocean energy. Canada is a world leader in the production and use of energy from renewable resources. Renewable energy sources currently provide about 16.9% of Canada’s total primary energy supply. Moving water is the most important renewable energy source in Canada, providing 59% of Canada’s electricity generation. In fact, Canada is the third largest producer of hydroelectricity in the world. Wind is the second most important renewable energy source in Canada. It accounts for 1.6% of electricity generation in Canada. Biomass is the third largest source of Canada’s electricity generation. Its share in Canada’s electricity generation is 1.4%. Wind and solar photovoltaic energy are the fastest growing sources of electricity in Canada. All the hydroelectric stations in Canada generated 348 million megawatt hours in 2010. This accounted for 59% of Canada’s total electricity generation. Canada is the third largest producer of hydroelectricity in the world. In fact, hydroelectricity represents 12.3% of Canada’s total net primary energy supply. Canada’s use of solar energy has increased in recent years, although it remains relatively small in terms of market penetration. Installed capacity for solar thermal power has seen average annual growth of 9.5% since 2000, reaching a capacity of 819 megawatts of thermal power in 2011. The 2008-2011 period was marked by the exponential growth of installed capacity for solar photovoltaic power, with the annual growth rate of 147.3%.  In 2011, the installed capacity reached 495 megawatts. Furthermore, in 2010, there were over 95,000 ground-source heat pumps representing about 1,045 megawatts of thermal energy (MWth) of installed capacity and producing an estimated 1,420 gigawatt hours equivalent annually. Being landlocked only along its southern border, much of Canada is surrounded by oceans, meaning it has access to a significant energy potential. Currently, Canada has a tidal power plant in Nova Scotia with a generating capacity of 20 megawatts of electricity. Wave and tidal current technology demonstration projects are under way in British Columbia and Nova Scotia. In British Columbia, the wave energy device has capacity of 100 kilowatts. The 4-megawatt project in Nova Scotia will be the first deployment of commercial-scale tidal turbines in Canada. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/11/wind-power-capacity-grew-2012 Natalia On 25/07/2013 7:58 AM, Arthur Cordell wrote: Interesting.  But the original article noted that renewable (solar and wind) are contributing less than one percent of the energy requirements and while it is important to see how far we can go with these technologies we should keep in mind the role that current energy technologies play in meeting society’s need.  Yes we should change the way we use energy but that is for another discussion.   arthur   From: futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca [mailto:futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca] On Behalf Of D & N Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:20 PM To: futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca Subject: Re: [Futurework] Staying cool? Thank nuclear power   Thanks, Mike. http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/02/16/the-thing-about-thorium-why-the-better-nuclear-fuel-may-not-get-a-chance/ 2/16/2012 @ 6:59PM |34,111 views The Thing About Thorium: Why The Better Nuclear Fuel May Not Get A Chance  Marin Katusa, Contributor   The Fukushima disaster reminded us all of the dangers inherent in uranium-fueled nuclear reactors. Fresh news this month about Tepco’s continued struggle to contain and cool the fuel rods highlights just how energetic uranium fission reactions are and how challenging to control. Of course, that level of energy is exactly why we use nuclear energy – it is incredibly efficient as a source of power, and it creates very few emissions and carries a laudable safety record to boot. This conversation – “nuclear good but uranium dangerous” – regularly leads to a very good question: what about thorium? Thorium sits two spots left of uranium on the periodic table, in the same row or series. Elements in the same series share characteristics. With uranium and thorium, the key similarity is that both can absorb neutrons and transmute into fissile elements. That means thorium could be used to fuel nuclear reactors, just like uranium. And as proponents of the underdog fuel will happily tell you, thorium is more abundant in nature than uranium, is not fissile on its own (which means reactions can be stopped when necessary), produces waste products that are less radioactive, and generates more energy per ton. So why on earth are we using uranium? As you may recall, research into the mechanization of nuclear reactions was initially driven not by the desire to make energy, but by the desire to make bombs. The $2 billion Manhattan Project that produced the atomic bomb sparked a worldwide surge in nuclear research, most of it funded by governments embroiled in the Cold War. And here we come to it: Thorium reactors do not produce plutonium, which is what you need to make a nuke. How ironic. The fact that thorium reactors could not produce fuel for nuclear weapons meant the better reactor fuel got short shrift, yet today we would love to be able to clearly differentiate a country’s nuclear reactors from its weapons program. In the post-Cold War world, is there any hope for thorium? Perhaps, but don’t run to your broker just yet. The Uranium Reactor The typical nuclear-fuel cycle starts with refined uranium ore, which is mostly U238 but contains 3% to 5% U235. Most naturally occurring uranium is U238, but this common isotope does not undergo fission – which is the process whereby the nucleus splits and releases tremendous amounts of energy. By contrast, the less-prevalent U235 is fissile. As such, to make reactor fuel we have to expend considerable energy enriching yellowcake, to boost its proportion of U235. Once in the reactor, U235 starts splitting and releasing high-energy neutrons. The U238 does not just sit idly by, however; it transmutes into other fissile elements. When an atom of U238 absorbs a neutron, it transmutes into short-lived U239, which rapidly decays into neptunium-239 and then into plutonium-239, that lovely, weaponizable byproduct. When the U235 content burns down to 0.3%, the fuel is spent, but it contains some very radioactive isotopes of americium, technetium, and iodine, as well as plutonium. This waste fuel is highly radioactive and the culprits – these high-mass isotopes – have half-lives of many thousands of years. As such, the waste has to be housed for up to 10,000 years, cloistered from the environment and from anyone who might want to get at the plutonium for nefarious reasons. Page 1 2 3 Next Page » On 24/07/2013 4:41 PM, Mike Spencer wrote:     Staying cool? Thank nuclear power       Margaret Wente   http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/staying-cool-thank-nuclear/article13295851/       Margaret Wente is whatchoo'd call "opinionated", ain't she?   I'll believe that nuclear power is a non-insane pursuit when insurance companies  begin to clamor for the privilege of offering 100% liability coverage to the industry.   So far, they've exchewed the least insane option -- thorium -- initially because they *wanted* weapons-grade byproducts and subsequently because it would be expensive to design, test, redesign, test etc., a more or less open-ended project compared to just whacking together another pressurized water uranium reactor.     - Mike     _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework