No. This isn't off topic. If anything, this is very much a real-world application of SI, demonstrating its efficiency and ease of use, while addressing a subject that has been long overshadowed by half-truths, misinformation, and emotionalism to our collective detriment.
I've been reading all sorts of topics from the USMA, and have very much enjoyed them all, while saying very little in return. I think this subject deserves as much attention as anything else I've seen posted here, and it too can be presented in a common system of units that everyone can agree upon and understand. So, why is it that other nuclear-capable nations, especially France (as you pointed out), or Canada, or the UK, seem to get it right? Nuclear power detractors always point to "waste" (spent fuel) and "government subsidy" in their efforts to dissuade others. Yet, the reality is very much different. - 700 MW to 1,000 MW nuclear reactors are refueled once every 24 to 30 months with a volume of uranium fuel rods equal to approximately *eighty (80) cubic meters*. That's all...nothing more. - Each and every nuclear reactor has a capacity factor equal to (or greater than) 98%. In some cases, this capacity factor exceeds 99%. - For comparison, Solar and Wind have 25% (or less) and 35% (or less) capacity factors, respectively. - The U.S. land-based nuclear fleet numbers approximately 104 nuclear reactors, and provide an estimated 20% of the U.S.'s electrical generation. - Most of these reactors were built between 1965 and 1985, but nuclear power plant construction, in the U.S., can be traced back to the late 1950's when it began in earnest. - All of these are classified as "Gen 2" reactors of either a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) or Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) variant, and each one is a "one off" (unique) design lacking modular fabrication and construction - owing largely to their high price tag. So, approximately how much spent nuclear fuel (the so-called waste) has been generated in the last fifty (50) years based on an original compliment of *109 reactors* and a short *refueling cycle of 24 months*? *Answer*: A meager 218,000 cubic meters. That's cube approximately *61 meters on a side*, but has provided emission-free, electrical generation 24 hours a day for 50 years. That volume of fuel could have been REDUCED if the U.S. had embraced fast-breeder technology of the 1970s, instead of using a "once-through / one-pass" fuel cycle. The good news is that we still can reprocess/use this spent fuel by beginning to do just that. Regardless, spent fuel is NOT an issue. Unfortunately, we only have ourselves to blame for not reusing this fuel, and the American taxpayer has been billed to the tune of $13 billion over the last 30 years for the construction of a national repository (Yucca Mountain in NV) - something that other nuclear-capable nations have as well, but we don't. Thanks the village idiots in Washington, Yucca Mountain was shut down last year, killing the repository and taking with it thousands of good-paying jobs. Go tell the good citizens of Nevada just how unwanted nuclear spent fuel is while they suffer needlessly with 17% stage average unemployment, but I digress. As for government subsidy, the U.S. nuclear industry has been in a deep-freeze for the last 30 years. So, any "per kWh" cost that I gave is the actual sunk capital and operational cost - $0.02/kWh. Costs for Solar and Wind are actual, and they've been getting their share at the government trough for decades since the last oil embargo (think NREL). Yet, those subsidized costs are anywhere from 3.5 to 11 times more costly than Nuclear, and you still can't get away from the physics of Solar and Wind. The power densities (kW per square meter) are abysmally low, and will NEVER improve, barring a breakthrough in superconductivity for WIND ONLY. Maximum solar irradiance at Earth's surface is nominally 1 kW per square meter. Today, we can convert 30% of this with commercially-available solar cells. Regardless, you'll never get above 1 kW per square meter. Maybe some should consider moving to Mercury, where irradiance is higher - 9.126 kW per square meter. Solar and Wind will NEVER meet base-load generation needs. No matter how much subsidization any single source of generation receives, Nuclear, Coal, and Natural Gas will always be cheaper and more plentiful than Solar or Wind because of Solar and Wind's pitiful power density, necessitating the build-out of huge quantities of these sources, which is a logistical and economic impossibility. Pick your poison: - Capacity Factor (Availability) - Power Density (kW per square meter) - Cost ($/kWh) Solar and Wind can't cut it. Humanity, anywhere in the world, does NOT need to suffer needlessly because of the whims, hysteria, or misconceptions regarding so-called "free energy" that have been accredited to Solar and Wind. As you say, there is no free lunch. On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Harry Wyeth <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't want to digress from SI discussions, but following up on posts > regarding electricity generation: ALL production methods are subsidized > one way or another. Some of the subsidies are more concealed than others, > or more subtle. But don't be fooled into thinking that solar is subsidized > but nuclear is not. Or oil, or hydro for that matter. I am not fearful of > the dangers of nuclear plants (they are all over France), but nuclear plants > are frightfully expensive and it is entirely possible that the zillions of > kWh they will generate will not cover their true costs. I doubt that the > same can be said against solar, which is comparatively cheap to develop and > long lasting with no danger or disposal problems. > > It would be interesting to see a comprehensive study of the true, total, > start-up to shut-down, top-to-bottom "costs" of generating electricity from > different sources. It would be difficult to do. But as economists say, > "there is no such thing as a free lunch." > > HARRY WYETH >
