Home › Blogs › Jon Henke's blog ›

Will the Secretary of Energy be good on nuclear energy?

Submitted by Jon Henke on Tue, 12/16/2008 - 23:37
in

President-elect Obama will appoint a reputable scientist and Nobel-winning physicist, Steven Chu, as the new Secretary of Energy.  Those of us hoping for more nuclear energy in the US portfolio - it supplies 80% of France's electricity, so at least some on the Left have managed to come to terms with it - may have some reason for optimism.  At least, we might if Obama listens to his scientists.

NEI Nuclear Notes (Nuclear Energy Institute blog) gives a bit of background on Steven Chu. Noting that Obama has said more nuclear energy will require safe, long-term disposal methods (granted, Obama is giving himself the very epitome of a movable goalpost), NEI says Chu has been quite rational on the topic...

So what about nuclear energy and used fuel? Has Chu addressed these topics at length? In fact, he has, for example in this 2005 interview with UC Berkeley's Bonnie Azab Powell:

Should fission-based nuclear power plants be made a bigger part of the energy-producing portfolio?

Absolutely. Right now about 20 percent of our power comes from nuclear; there have been no new nuclear plants built since the early '70s. The real rational fears against nuclear power are about the long-term waste problem and [nuclear] proliferation. [...] 

And all of a sudden the risk-benefit equation looks pretty good for nuclear.

Right now, compared to conventional coal, it looks good - what are the lesser of two evils? But if we can reduce the volume and the lifetime of the waste, that would tip it very much against conventional coal.

NEI Nuclear Notes also pointed out that "Steven Chu is a signatory on the DOE Labs' report "A Sustainable Energy Future: The Essential Role of Nuclear Energy," released this past August."  Daily Kos diarist David Walters has the relevant text of this report, which includes the following...

The Directors of the Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories strongly believe that nuclear energy must play a significant and growing role in our nation’s — and the world’s — energy portfolio.

It will be interesting to see whether President Obama will follow pursue the nuclear energy route that his Energy Secretary has said should be a bigger part of the US energy portfolio.  Or if he will go for the agri-pork heavy path recommended by his Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.

In light of the evolving cost/benefit issues surrounding energy and particularly nuclear energy, it's really been remarkable that the nuclear energy industry has not invested much more heavily in developing grassroots support for the issue.  With the Right desperately in search of energizing issues, there is tremendous opportunity to drive the nuclear issue, even organize around it, particularly online. 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Nuclear issue more than just power plants

Submitted by Xasteius on Tue, 12/16/2008 - 23:54.

Steven Chu was quoted in the NY Times as being against Yucca Mountain.  Since we currently have 60,000 tons of commercial spent fuel (YM is licensed to hold 70,000 tons, and one-tenth is reserved exclusively for the DOE), and the amount grows by ~2000 tons/yr, reprocessing and the next generation of reactors must be on the list too, or the government will continue to pay the utilities for storing waste on-site.  (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/us/politics/05web-chu.html).  Question: Will Obama deep-six nuclear research like Clinton and Carter?

 

 

I hope not! I want my damn fusion reactor already!

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 10:57.

thank the navy for the plans, can we get the DOE to buck the money for a prototype?

A few points:

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 00:06.

1). Supposedly, the waste problem has been met.  The plan is to spin the waste water into glass logs, then store the glass logs.

The Columbia River plant is being built to do this.  Cost over-runs, construction delays, etc.  The product of cost-plus bidding.

Soon though.

 

2). Coal is a lot cleaner now.  This has mostly to do with the acid rain in the late 70's - early 80's.

That's why new coal plants are being built all over Japan (which imports every piece of coal it has) and Europe.

And regardless of what anyone says, cap-and-trade provides the necessary money for investment.

Which leads me to, 

3). No new nuclear plants are being built because they are not feasible on a cost-benefit analysis over the lifetime of the unit.

That's the real reason none are being built.

Even the shutdowns are being scaled back.

 

this is coal country here

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 10:58.

and it isn't at all clean (hello worst air in the country! hello hospital visits because of air pollution). nice to know that we have specs for cleaner plants though.

Excuse me?

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 16:08.

Waste water and heat pollution are huge problems, but nowhere near the main problems.

The main problems are

 

A.  Spent uranium rods, which must be changed in all reactors every 1-3 years as they wear out and become unable to maintain the nuclear fission process.  These spent rods are mostly uranium 238, but also contain plutonium and U235 among other heavy metals.  These will be highly and dangerously radioactive for thousands of years to come.

B.  Depleted Uranium, a by-product of the enrichment process which manufactures the new rods, and which is sizable: the DoE supposedly is storing almost a half-million TONS of this stuff. It is not highly radioactive, but is still radioactive enough to require special storage.

C.  Plutonium and U235:  Makes up 3-4% of waste and is A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE.  These byproducts are extremely radioactive and fissionable, and can be used as material for "dirty" atomic bombs.  They are also highly sellable on the black market, and are a risk for unthinkable disaster in the wrong hands.  They can be pulverized, pelletized, aerosoled, and thus can be introduced into drinking water or sprayed over civilian populations.  Minute amounts ingested can cause painful and horrible radiation sickness and death.

 

We have not yet SOLVED any of these problems, and there is no clear solution in sight AFAIK.

Nevertheless...

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 20:15.

liquid waste comprises the majority of waste from nuclear power plants.

I have yet to see one instance in which heat pollution could be considered as a viable concern. 

One instance

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Thu, 12/18/2008 - 15:52.

Liquid waste is there because nuclear power plants have not yet figured out what the hell to do with their tons of spent rods.  Many plant operators now dump them in salt-water and boric acid solution pools near the reactors until they can figure out a viable long-term solution.  This does not mean the spent rods have gone anywhere, it just means now you have radioactive rods AND radioactive liquid waste.

Thermal pollution as reactors run BILLIONS of gallons of water through their intakes, their superheating coils, their steam-powered turbines that spin generator magnets, then through cooling stacks and back out as hot water to their water source and create electricity each day is a reality.  The thermal signatures of nuclear plants' heated waters released back into rivers, bays, estuaries, and oceans change the ecosystems of the sites they occupy, sometimes profoundly and permanently.  And they release loads of waste BTU's through their cooling stacks into the atmosphere as well.

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-depfight1126.artnov26,0,7059649.sto...

 

 

"...Every day, the Waterford plant draws 2 billion gallons of water from Niantic Bay to cool its two nuclear reactors, then dumps the heated water back into Long Island Sound. The recycling system would cut the amount of water the plant needs — and lower the fish kill by 90 percent. If it can't install such a system, Dominion would have to come up with an equivalent plan. In the meantime, the company has agreed to take immediate measures to cut its water usage.Two environmental groups who helped negotiate the terms of the new permit say it finally will put Millstone on the right track. Terry Backer, head of one of those groups, Soundkeeper, said that the permit will accomplish in three years what could have taken a decade through the courts. "I'm not sure getting into court will in any way expedite getting rid of the giant fish-killing machine," he said..."

European Union now ranks Nucl. power #2

Submitted by Common_Cents on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 11:39.

--Right behind hydro as the most environmentally friendly.

 According to this week's economist, France & Sarkozy are promoting their new generation of nuclear plants as a global solution to reliance on fossil fuels and stressing the safety and reduced disposal issues of the new plants they are marketing.

You failed to address the safety issue; a major mistake, because it is the threat of nuclear catastrophe and disposal of nuclear waste which drives opponents into a frenzy of unstoppable opposition.

Defusing this issue is critical to even opening the door to debate on this modality. I suggest your writer read the Economist's treatment A.S.A.P. ; and also find out who will win an internal debate on the matter-- Chu or Browner or a livid Green? 

The issue with hydro...

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 20:18.

...is the severity of the species depletion upstream from those installations.

Any safety concerns from nukes pales in comparison.

Some feel better by betting a possibility against a certainty, but I'm no fool. 

Take Care With that French Claim!

Submitted by pwy on Fri, 12/19/2008 - 14:31.

There are two slightly misleading statistics that are often quoted in the nuke v renewables arguement. They are that 80% of France's electricity needs are supplied by nukes and that Denmark will soon produce 50% of it's power from wind turbines. They are both "sort of true" but neither of these systems would be sustainable were either self-standing networks. They work because they are part of  wider international supply systems.

Power from atomic stations is essentially produced at a stable level of output and cannot be swiftly adjusted to match peaks and troughs in demand. In essence the French stations supply a minimum power requirement to France and a number of surrounding countries 24 hours a day.  In low demand periods much of the power across Western Europe is coming from the French nukes. In peak demand periods though France imports electricity from countries with more on/off systems of generation (Gas, Hydro, Hydro storage, etc).

Similarly Denmarks reliance on wind is closely tied in with the immense hydro recources of  Scandanavia. When the wind blows in Denmark the water turbines stop turning further north and vice versa.

So nukes in France produce about 80% of the amount of electricity that France consumes... that's not the same as 80% of the electricity that France consumes.

None of which is an arguement against either Nukes or Wind just against hyperbole,

 

As I remember it...

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Fri, 12/19/2008 - 17:15.

...a power source from wind turbines becomes unstable at 40%.

That is, it is a rather good supplement, but not as a primary supply.