What if we discontinued the use of nuclear energy?

With the problems with nuclear energy in Japan, the question arises as to what would happen if we just discontinued nuclear electricity. How big an impact would this have? Everybody's thinking about it. Gail Tverberg, an editor of The Oil Drum, takes a stab at it.


One problem we would face is the time required to replace all existing nuclear generation with renewable capacity. It could take between 12 and 20 years to do it. During this time, according to the BAU folks, demand is going to be expanding and may include elctric cars as well as residential and industrial use.

I'm starting to think that we should be shutting down the nukes and simply living with the consequences. Build what replacements we can and adapt to the gap. Jettisoning such a complex, high-maintenance technology, in preparation for our civilization entering a period of increasing turbulence and uncertainty seems like a wise move to me.

There is no widespread call to shut down all nukes, all I've seen is a demand that the safety issues be examined in detail for existing plants and a halt on new construction.

But good job at playing the "fear of loss" card.

Increase the share of renewables until we can, at least, do without our current 20% reliance on nuclear.

Again, nobody's asking for 100% reliance on solar and wind by next year, just for some freakin' progress.

Not extending operating permits past their current expiry dates, and not approving any new construction. Right now those are calls from the committed anti-nuclear campaigners, but they'll become more mainstream if this problem goes to a 7.

Here's what I think would be a good idea. Do hard-nosed, transparent safety reviews of all reactors world-wide, and shut down the ones most at risk immediately. Let the others run out their operating permits, and replace their capacity with wind/whatever as they expire. Approve no new construction. That should give us a period of 20 years to phase in the renewables. If we can maintain a compound rate of growth in wind capacity installations of just 15% per year for 20 years we can do it, and everything after that is gravy. It sounds like a good incentive plan to me.

ETA: Of course, that still leave all the coal generation intact. We'd need more like 25% compound growth in wind to eliminate that in 20 years too.

in Germany.

I'm not as attached to nuclear as I am utterly opposed to coal. So I see an opportunity in this too. From my perspective coal will kill the planet and nuclear power is too complex,high maintenance and risky to keep around as industrial civilization enters its decline. So here's the deal where we both win:

Peoples' attitudes are primed by Fukushima. Use the fear of radiation to open the discussion, promise to eradicate nuclear power in 20 years, and get them on board. replace the nukes incrementally as they close down when their licenses expire. As you go along, use the success in replacing nuclear power as your bona fides and start people thinking about doing the same thing for coal. Maintain a growth rate of 22% per annum in wind power, and you'll eliminate all nuclear and all coal generation in those same 20 years.

We still need MORE nukes, of the latest design.

Nuclear is still the greenest mass-produced energy source available.

:evilgrin:

technology and research into ways to clean up radiation? All I've been able to find is one school that is working on perfecting an individual basis medication to remove radiation from the body. Why not look into that more than so cavalierly campaigning to shut down the current best alternative to fossil fuels?

Not by a wide margin. Renewables are less expensive, cleaner and safer.

are not reliable to provide the baseload needed to keep a city running, nor are they nearly as efficient. Yes, I would love for us to be able to get to full wind power but the technological requirements, such as power transfer and storage, just aren't there yet.

Now don't you feel foolish for being gullible enough to swallow the lies of an industry worse than Big Pharma for lying?

Let's see if you can show any peer reviewed analysis that examines the issue of "baseload" and renewables that supports your claims. You cannot because the claim is false. Proper analysis using valid scientific methods proves that each and every claim you have made is false.


All of them.

False.


Proven false.

So provide proof or stop making the claim.

http://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy.html

And you knee-jerk bullshit calling does a disservice to our side of the political spectrum, keep a civil tongue and an intellectual argument lest you appear to be nothing but a tea-bagger.

Pointing to one of the nuclear industry's pets who gave you the false claim isn't proof. It is more nuclear industry propaganda.

Show a study that supports your false claim or stop making it.

Calling out anyone who is pro-nuclear as a "pet" of the industry does less than nothing to strengthen your position, it just casts you in the light of a petulant child.

How about you watch the fucking discussion before you post again.

making them

I defer to someone who knows the issue better than I. Apparently you deem yourself better informed than people whose job it is to know this stuff. Some advice, learn humility.

The proof is in the fact that he makes false unsupportable claims and I do not.

Adhere to the facts and I'll be as humble as you like.

and as you've presented nothing to refute his argument, the burden of proof or disproof is on you. So I'll wait until you can refute his stance before I concede this point.

Brand doesn't have the expertise to make the assertion you are using him to validate unless he can point to someone like me who can provide him with it. Neither he nor you can produce such a document because it doesn't exist. There is no dispute except for gossip like you and Brand are parroting which is sourced directly back to the bowels of the ANS and the NEI.

Brand too avoids "substantive discussion" where he would be required to present established research to support his position. It is apparent that he is aware of the lack of support for his claim since the only venue he will engage in is one where he is able to avoid direct exchange in written form, such as a stand up debate or a one way article in the popular press.

Here is what happened when Amory Lovins sought discussion on this point. This is Lovins on what he calls the "Baseload Myth"



Running from the requirement to support your assault on established knowledge is what people do when they do not have support for that assault. If either you or Brand could support your position you would.

If support for your position existed Brand and all the other phonies making the claim would have it in their grubby little paws courtesy of the NEI just so he would be able to shut up the people who actually know the science - like me and (to be a wee bit presumptuous) Lovins.

You can read the entire piece here; try to find a more substantial response than playing the victim of antinuclear bias.

From Amory Lovins
Four Nuclear Myths: A Commentary on Stewart Brand’s Whole Earth Discipline and on Similar Writings

Journal or Magazine Article, 2009

Available for download: http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-09_FourNuclearMyths

Page 6
"However, they are also variable resources because their output depends on local weather, forecastable days in advance with fair accuracy and an hour ahead with impressive precision.27"
"27. Michael Eckhart (former strategic planning head of GE's Pwer Systems sector) makes the intriguing point that a simple-cycle combustion turbine has a ~97% probability of coming online within 30 minutes of coldstart, while Danish utility operators have demonstrated the ability to predict wind force with 98% accuracy within a 30-minute window. So which resource is more reliable and which is more intermittent?"

Clearly the one over which we have any control at all, the combustion turbine. The core point of baseload is that we have a direct control over it, that is implicit in the definition of the term because of its application.

Page 6
"The surviving U.S. nuclear plants have lately averaged ~90% of their full-load full-time potential - a major improvement...31"
"31. The U.S. fleet's lifetime average rose to 78.7% through 2008, vs. 77.1% globally and 76.9% for france..."

Hardly what anyone could call a fair comparison considering he is only talking about plants that are at best 30 years old in design and construction when he is advocating the most modern of renewable energy sources. Would be nice if he used the experimental data for new generator designs instead of the well antiquated ones in operation (which should be replaced). To his criticism of nuclear plant reliability of off-site or backup power, I would suggest that he and you follow up on Bill Gate's latest energy endeavor of the low blend slow burning design.

http://gigaom.com/cleantech/terrapower-how-the-travelling-wave-nuclear-reactor-works/

Ok, I'm not going to be be curt with you any longer. It is clear you are in over your head. There is no reason you should be expected to provide a professional analysis of the evidence since you aren't trained in the fields necessary.

But I am.

Look, what I said about Brand is true. If he wants to defend his position he would need to go to someone like me; someone who studies this stuff for a living. He has access to plenty of people like that, but he doesn't use them to support this stance. Why do you suppose that is; do you think he likes not being able to support his statements? He is vested in his credibility and he has sacrificed enough of it by taking this stance that *IF* he could point to peer reviewed research and show his critics that he is right, don't you think he would?

Anyone can hire a group of people to write stuff that sounds plausible but is actually just crap designed to manipulate people, all it takes is a reason and money. Think of the tobacco industry or the petroleum industry. The nuclear lobby is extremely strong, well funded and they have access to the best minds at MIT to mention only one. Yet there is no paper that says renewables are unable to solve our energy problems. Even when MIT did their famous study in 2003 the authors specified that their study did not consider the other alternatives. It was supposed to be a comprehensive technological and economic analysis yet they omitted any discussion at all of the potential effects of the competing technologies.

The did that because nuclear cannot compete when the arena of discussion is conducted according to strict rules of evidence and it was better to leave the issue out rather than to shoot their funders in the foot.

Lovin's et al are correct. I don't know why it bothers you so much to acknowledge what has been an established fact since the 1992 Rio Earth summit did their comprehensive analysis of global renewable energy resources in order to lay the groundwork for planning a response to climate change, but it clearly does. It is equally clear that you do not support nuclear because you understand *why* it is either better or worse than any thing else, your conclusions are obviously based on other criteria.

Why do you reject the facts in favor of propaganda from a trade group that is no different than the American Petroleum Institute? Would you mind sharing that with me?

Nice job.

A post I made a while back showing that Brand ignorantly parroted the PBMR hype without any more than a shallow understanding of the technology:

Let's see if you can show any peer reviewed analysis that examines the issue of "baseload" and renewables that supports your claims.
===================

I only see such claims in the "peer reviewed" pseudo-science that you reference.

However, anybody with half a brain or a quarter of a brain knows that all the
solar power plants go down at night, and there is never any guarantee from
Mother Nature that she is putting out the wind power at levels we need.

Any renewable gets its power from Mother Nature, and we don't have a "throttle" on
Mother Nature. We can't demand a certain power level as we can with fossil plants,
hydro, and nuclear power.

With solar, wind, and other intermittent renewables, you can't demand a certain power
level, you just have to accept the level that Mother Nature is offering at the time.

When the wind speed halves, the wind turbines put out one-eighth the power.

People want reliable power and not the variable offerings of Mother Nature.

If you can't understand that...

PamW

...on what people with a quarter of a brain believe, but you don't seem qualified to speak for those with an entire half. Perhaps that is Dr Greg, eh?

Use conventional rockets to shuttle back and forth to earth. Park/Build in low lunar orbit.

Once at Mars we use them to terri form the mars atmosphere. If we can change the temperature of this planet we can do the sam on Mars. Apparently its in our nature.

I hesitate to call it Peak Nuclear because it's not the same analogy. However, because of the ongoing catastrophe in Japan, we might well be entering an era in which the public loses the will to support future nuclear power.

Nuclear accounts for 19.6 percent of electricity nationwide in the U.S., 15.3 percent in California, but only 4 percent in Washington.

If someone puts a gun to your head, could you reduce your electric consumption by 4 percent? Probably, yes.

How about 15.3 percent? Much, much tougher, but I'm going with yes over time.

The CAFE standard demanded 18 MPG in 1978 and it rose to 27.5 MPG by 1990. That's a 0.8 MPG increase each year. Had that increase been allowed to continue, today in 2011 the CAFE standard for passenger cars would be 44.3 MPG.

I seem to recall a parable about a testudine and a lagomorpha.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html
http://www.commerce.wa.gov/site/539/default.aspx

We use them to build a bride to a liquid Nitrogen society. Where we use cryogens to store energy.

Efficieny for a heat engine= 1- Cold Temp Kelvin/Hot Temp Kelvin

Leave the nukes for last.

Shut down nuclear power and every large city on earth would be ghost towns.

I'm starting to think that we should be shutting down the nukes and simply living with the consequences. Build what replacements we can and adapt to the gap. Jettisoning such a complex, high-maintenance technology, in preparation for our civilization entering a period of increasing turbulence and uncertainty seems like a wise move to me.
====================

I couldn't disagree more. Look at a map of where the USA has the bulk of its
nuclear generating capacity, and you will find that nuclear power is the engine
that powers the industrial centers of the USA.

All the high paying manufacturing jobs in our energy intensive industrial center would
be gone without the nuclear power plants.

Without those nuclear power plants, lots of well paid middle class workers would be out
of their jobs. I could hear them howl about being out of work because nuclear power
plants are vulnerable to once in a century mega-tsunamis which they don't get in the
Midwest.

If the Democrats were to get rid of the nukes, all those normally loyal Democratic
blue collar workers would be voting for anything but Democrats.

If you want to drive a stake into the heart of the Democratic base, be my guest.
At least the Republicans would appreciate it, even if I don't.

PamW

I don't see industrial civilization making it more than another 3 decades, tops. In that situation, having a bunch of nukes that need constant babysitting as the world loses the capacity to babysit them makes as much sense as giving someone with progressive dementia a running chainsaw. This has nothing to do with party politics, it has to do with the state of our globalized industrial civilization. In the face of that I don't give a rat's ass about party politics. Of course I'm Canadian, so that might play a role in my opinion. However, I'm also a third-generation socialist, so I've got no concern that my views are in line with leftist philosophy. What I'm proposing may not be Democratic party platform, but it's sure as hell progressive.

I have no doubt that a lot of countries will take your view - at least until they get their own version of Fukushima.

Apparently, you've decided, while writing on a computer no less, that we should live without energy, "live with the consequences" you put it.

Before the on set of the industrial age, life expectancy was about 40 years, if one was lucky.

Live with the consequences?

Um, um, um...

How come I never meet a luddite who is calling for zero energy who expends zero energy to do it?

Anyone who is really concerned can live with a pre-industrial life expectancy very, very, very, very, very readily.

You're um fond of charts and graphs: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

In 1850, life expectancy for a white male was 38.5 years, according to the bureau of census.

The whining in connection with this event strikes me as incredible.

But, the truth is that we have learned that, um, buildings are not safe, so your proposal to have everyone move into caves is less disingenous than other proposals.

I wonder how big the tsunamis will be when the sea starts out two feet higher?

We won't know, of course, because telecommunications, with the rest of technological society will have disappeared, a la Ted Kosinski's wet dream.

Lemme think about that.

that a person making such extension is, um, hallucinatory, wasted and burned out in someway.

Now, I do recognize, that anti-nukes are having pyschic orgasms hoping for say, 500,000 deaths in Japan from the earthquakes nuclear events.

Obvioulsy they have nothing to say whatsoever about any other kind of deaths, because apparently they couldn't care less, about say, deaths in refineries or collapsed dams.

Nonetheless, even if our anti-nukes best fantasies are realized - they won't be but let's just engage in happy talk - there is no way that they would match the deaths from air pollution in the last four months.

The fact that anti-nukes have a hard time thinking is that they are, irrational, and seem anxious to randomly attach buzz words, like "Reagan" and "freeper" to a subject that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.

But you argue that anti-nukes enjoy the hardship, and that the only alternative to carbon emissions is nuclear, all proving the moral superiority of your position.

Meanwhile, I recognize the industry is in quite a pickle. Perhaps ya all should have dropped the pom-poms and the self-congratulatories that your designs are more advanced than Chernobyl's, and got on the case of these awful designs.

Ya got MOX 100 feet in the air in an empty pool.

"a person making such extension is, um, hallucinatory, wasted and burned out in someway."

Wilm demonstrated that your claim is itself "a product of a person who is hallucinatory, wasted and burned out in someway".

And radioactive materials used to x-ray structures in the field for metal fatigue, etc.
Nuclear power isn't just about turning blades in a turbine.


More directly against your point, the air in Japan was, a week ago, far cleaner with nuclear power. Air quality for Japan has been a major issue with their voracious energy appetite. Poor air quality shortens lives.
http://www.thegoodairlady.com/japan_air_pollution_000226.html

Granted, the Fukushima One plant has added a new dimension to 'poor air quality' this week.
However, fossil fuels trash the air when operating as intended. Nuclear power, does not, when operating as intended.

The risk/reward call was made. Now we have this...

And yes. "Now we have this..."

Poor phrasing I suspect. If a reactor is purposed for isotope production is it an example of nuclear "power" or an example of the production of industrial hard goods?


Not saying what comes next just to be gross, but it is about nasal hygiene, so if anyone sensitive to such a discussion stop reading now.


I really chimed in to relay my experience with air quality in Tokyo in the late 70s.

It was, as you say, horrific. It hard to describe my reaction the first time I woke up with my nostrils feeling unusually dry. I grabbed a tissue and after cleaning I thought I was ill. The tissue was entirely black where it had been used.
I went over to the window and looked out and noticed the air looked smokey, which prompted me to step outside where I happened to have a view of a nearby highway. It was crowded with diesel trucks spewing thick black clouds of noxious exhaust.

I was there a little over 3 years that time and by the time I left there was unmistakable decrease in lung function. And of course, my morning ritual had a new element added.

If you read this just remember the few minutes it took is time you'll never get back.

Thank you for giving it to me.

A woman i knew accompanied her husband on a job posting to Beijing a couple of years ago. She was fitness nut and a serious runner (marathons), but had to stop when she was there because the air quality was too bad. When she came back to Canada after a year, she visited a doctor about a lung infection. HThedoc examined her, then asked her how may years she'd been smoking, and had she ever tried to quit...

CO2, particulate pollution, NOx, SOx and the decimation of land, air, water and life consequent to their use can all be laid at the feet of fossil fuels.

When I returned in 86 the air was pretty darned good, and just before I left in 95 they banned all diesel povs and started levying a tax on large commercial diesels entering the city.

I can't express how much grief this dialog is provoking...

Your life experience should put you squarely in the pro-nuclear power camp. Your health has suffered due to coal power plants and fossil fuel use. Why would you be against the only zero-green house gas energy source that has a chance of ending the dominance of coal?

The American Lung Association lists the deaths, heart attacks, hospitalizations and asthma attacks caused by coal power plants.

STUDY SAYS COAL PLANT POLLUTION KILLS 30,000 A YEAR
-- http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/cleanair.htm

2. Out of the entire US electric industry, coal-fired power plants contribute
96% of sulfur dioxide emissions (SO2), 93% of nitrogen oxide emissions
(NOx), 88% of carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) and 99% of mercury
emissions.
(Clean the Air, “Power Plant Air Pollution Problem,” Fact sheet).
3. Coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of mercury pollution
in the US (U.S. EPA, Office of Water, “Air Pollution and Water Quality: Atmospheric
Deposition Initiative: Where is the Air Pollution Coming From?”) Available online at
http://www.epa.gov/owowwtr1/oceans/airdep/air5html., responsible for
33% of the total mercury emissions from all known manmade sources
nationwide.
(U.S. EPA, Mercury Report to Congress, 1997, Vol. 1).
--http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=11&sqi=2&ved=0CGgQFjAK&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greenpeace.org%2Fraw%2Fcontent%2Fseasia%2Fen%2Fpress%2Freports%2Fcoal-plants-a-greenpeace-brie.pdf&rct=j&q=deaths%20due%20to%20coal%20power%20plants&ei=0CCCTZPnEIKI0QHjprTFCA&usg=AFQjCNGIukP_HgDLuVKsmToojOZ2U2PSoA&cad=rja

Coal:
"Each year, an average of 24,000 Americans die as a result of pollution from coal-fired power plants, including 2,800 from lung cancer. This is more than are killed by drunk drivers. These plants dump thousands of pounds of mercury and other toxic compounds into the air and water, and are the largest source of global warming pollution in the country. Children are particularly susceptible to these types of pollution, in addition to being the ones who face the true threats of climate change. So how is it that coal is such a large part of our national energy mix?"
--http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/The-Problem/

Same info here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/ns/us_news-environment/

Has Fukushima learned you nothing, young'un?



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/17/wind-cheaper-nuclear-eu-climate


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.


RENEWABLE ENERGY WORKS NOW

The nuclear industry would have you believe that we NEED nuclear power as a response to climate change. That is false. We have less expensive alternatives that can be built faster for FAR less money. This is a good overview of their claims:
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-01_NuclearIllusion

In a comparative analysis by another well respected researcher nuclear, coal with carbon capture and ethanol are not recommended as solutions to climate change. The researcher has looked at the qualities of the various options in great detail and the results disprove virtually all claims that the nuclear industry promote in order to gain public support for nuclear industry.

Nuclear supporters invariably claim that research like this is produced because the researchers are "biased against nuclear power". That is false. They have a preference,however that preference is not irrational; indeed it is a product of careful analysis of the needs of society and the costs of the various technologies for meeting those needs. In other words the researchers are "biased" against nuclear power because reality is biased against nuclear power. We hear this same kind of claim to being a victim of "liberal bias" from conservatives everyday and it is no different when the nuclear proponents employ it - it is designed to let them avoid cognitive dissonance associated with holding positions that are proven to be false.

The nuclear power supporters will tell you this study has been "debunked any number of times" but they will not be able to produce a detailed rebuttal that withstands even casual scrutiny for that claim too is false. The study is peer reviewed and well respected in the scientific community; it breaks no new ground and the references underpinning the work are not subject to any criticism that has material effect on the outcome of the comparison.

They will tell you that the sun doesn't always shine and that the wind doesn't always blow. Actually they do. The sun is always shining somewhere and the wind is always blowing somewhere. However researcher have shown that a complete grid based on renewable energy sources is UNQUESTIONABLY SOMETHING WE CAN DO. Here is what happens when you start linking various sites together:

Original paper here at National Academy of Sciences website: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/03/29/0909075107.abstract

When the local conditions warrant the other parts of a renewable grid kick in - geothermal power, biomass, biofuels, and wave/current/tidal sources are all resources that fill in the gaps - just like now when 5 large scale power plants go down unexpectedly. We do not need nuclear not least because spending money on nuclear is counterproductive to the goal of getting off of fossil fuels as we get less electricity for each dollar spend on infrastructure and it takes a lot longer to bring nuclear online.

In the study below Mark Jacobson of Stanford has used the quantity of energy that it would take to power an electric vehicle fleet as a benchmark by which to judge the technologies.

As originally published:
Abstract

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge. Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended. Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended. The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs. The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73 000–144 000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300 000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15 000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020. In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2009/EE/b809990c

Mods this is the one paragraph abstract shown above reformatted by me for ease of reading.




Then we have the economic analysis from Cooper:
The Economics of Nuclear Reactors: Renaissance or Relapse
This graph summarizes his findings where "Consumer" concerns direct financial costs and "Societal" refers to external costs not captured in financial analysis.

Cooper A Multi-dimensional View of Alternatives

Full report can be read here: http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse


Another independent economic analysis is the Severance study:
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf


The price of nuclear subsidies is also worth looking at. Nuclear proponents will tell you the subsidies per unit of electricity for nuclear are no worse than for renewables. That statement omits the fact than nuclear power has received the lions share of non fossil energy subsidies for more than 50 years with no apparent payoff; for all the money we've spent we see a steadily escalating cost curve for nuclear. When we compare that to renewables we find that a small fraction of the total amount spent on nuclear has resulted in rapidly declining costs that for wind are already competitive with coal and rapidly declining costs for solar that are competitive with natural gas and will soon be less expensive than coal.
http://www.1366tech.com/cost-curve/


In other words: subsidies work to help the renewable technologies stand on their own but with nuclear they do nothing but prop up an industry that cannot be economically viable.
Full report: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf



What plans are out there? Here is one where achieving 100% renewable energy is described:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030


Here is a PDF link for another such plan by:
The Civil Society "Beyond Business as Usual"
http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/pdfs/Beyond%20BAU%205-11-10.pdf

Their website has lots of information:
http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/


Also see these other papers by Amory Lovins
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly


http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E77-01_EnergyStrategyRoadNotTaken

So a 50 year old nuclear design in a reactor that was built in 1971 isn't the correct path forward to the future? DUH! (Duuuuuuuuuuuh !!!!!)

Do you hear any person on DU saying that we should build more of those 50 year old designs? No.

Do you hear any group or person connected to the nuclear power plant industry saying we should build more 50 year old designs? No.

Let's not lower ourselves to using a terrible human tragedy such as is happening in Japan to score a few "points" on a discussion board. The truth is that everyone knows those reactors are far more dangerous than what we would build today.

The difference between you and I is that I want to go all out building the most cost effective --and safest-- non-proliferating reactors we have been able to devise to date. That we need to replace all of the old reactors first and foremost while also building new generating capacity. That we need to make use of IFRs or fast breeders or other recycling technologies to get rid of the long-lived waste that is just sitting around now and burn it up to make electrical power for the world.

Your post does nothing to solve the problems that exist and does much to further entrench the status quo where coal power is the only game in town because "nukyoolar iz BAD" and we should never think about it. The only problem with that approach is that coal is killing us all --slowly. We will eventually pay the price for using so much coal and oil. Or should I say that our grandchildren will.

Denying that wind and solar need energy storage is a clear admission that you know the costs of that would easily top the cost of nuclear power plants. There is no other way around it: we need to build far more solar and wind than the "peak" power requirements and build energy storage so that solar and wind can cover all of the energy requirements for the times when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't directly overhead.

Your post states that we must build natural gas power plants to fill in the gaps in solar and wind farm output. You are forgetting that those plants are The Most Expensive Forms Of Electricity Generation We Have. They sit idle for much of the time and then they have to be started fast and cold --neither of which is efficient-- so they burn far more fuel per usable kilowatt hour than they should. In order for the wind and solar to truly be "base load" generators the facts are clear: they need energy storage either at the same location or a centrally located position where many solar and wind farms can feed into it. Either way it doesn't matter. Solar and wind will continue to be bit players until they have massive energy storage built-in. Period.

People can believe that or they can believe a smarmy swarm of anonymous identities on an eforum, and who knows what the hell is at the other end of *that* nuclear industry swarm.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4775085

That's hard to believe.

I often imagine that your posts are just cut and paste gone wild. I imagined that you have a series of macros programmed into your computer (doable if you know how) so you just push F10 to paste Jacobson, F11 to paste that pretty but meaningless chart, and maybe even F12 to paste some other anti-zero carbon tech nonsense. Then all you have to do is write a sentence here or there to tie all the cutting and pasting together into a half-fast ;-) semblance of coherence.

To those who know the truth it is coal and oil that is the enemy and nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, tides and waves that will provide the power we need to rid ourselves of these scourges of humanity. And those who understand the insidious nature of fossil fuels and how they have wormed their way over the past 100 years into each and every part of our lives knows that we need all of the zero carbon energy sources if we are going to be successful in ending the reign of those deadly fossil fuels before the Earth is rendered unlivable for millennia.

EPA is a regulatory agency that "says" nothing in your context and GreenPeace rejects nukes and endorses Jacobson's conclusions.

You really need to give the industry spin a rest right now, I don't think you have any idea just how angry the arrogance of you and your swarm is making everyone. You are being viewed in much the same light of disgust as Walker and his over-reaching corporate backers - X1000.



http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Environmental regulators proposed rules on Wednesday that would force aging coal-fired power plants to choose between installing costly anti-pollution technology or shutting, which could ensure reliance nuclear power and natural gas.

The Environmental Protection Agency said the proposed rules, once fully implemented, will prevent 91 percent of mercury in coal from being released into the air. Power plants would have four years to meet the standards.

The EPA will take public comment for 60 days on the rules, which would require many coal-fired power plants to install scrubbers and other technologies to reduce emissions of arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases in addition to mercury, which can damage nervous systems in babies.

"Generally anything that makes coal plants more expensive is a benefit to alternative forms of generation whether they be natural gas, nuclear, or hydropower," said Paul Patterson, an analyst at Glenrock and Associates LLC in New York."
--http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110316/us_nm/us_usa_epa_power

Greenpeace, in my opinion, will re-examine its position on nuclear power within the next decade due to environmental degradation and species loss caused by global climate change. Already, one of the founders of Greenpeace has endorsed nuclear energy. It's just a matter of time till the reality of just how dangerous climate change is and will be hits them.

will depend on what happens to the global economy in that time. If we are as close to the breaking point as I think we are, the FF problem will begin to resolve itself within ten years without the help of nuclear power. At the same time the problems of overpopulation, and all forms of ecological destruction we are wreaking on the planet will begin to abate.

Don't worry, be happy! :evilgrin:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/IETsupplement/iet2out.pdf

I found that info from: http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/iet/

In a nutshell: the world is almost back to where it was prior to the crash in 2009 and is climbing. It looks to me as if the current dip in GHG emissions is temporary and will continue to rise soon enough. The price of a barrel of oil is a good indicator: just keeps going up and up.

And when the same thing happens in the "recovery" after that? They're not pumping more and more oil any more. What we're seeing is not a recovery, it's more like a punch-drunk boxer struggling back up to his knees in round 12. Your faith is touching, but wholly misplaced.
IMNSHO :evilgrin:

We had the bursting bubble of worthless paper (Real Estate Backed Securities), the disappearance of available cash to get credit, the crash of the housing bubble, and the foreclosure avalanche --all happening at the same time as sky high gasoline prices. It was more like a coordinated, multi-pronged attack on the economy than a simple 1+1=2 equation involving the price of gas at the pump.

To be fair, Esquire says it was caused solely by the income inequality in this country:
"This isn't a heinous capitalist conspiracy — or a socialist conspiracy either, for that matter. It's the structure of the system, he says, a design flaw thrown up by the conflict between the rules of capitalism and the limits of democracy."
-- http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/2008-recession-causes-060810#ixzz1GyY77YB2

I'm not sure that my first paragraph and the Esquire article aren't necessarily at odds if one accepts the theory that unregulated Capitalism is toxic to Democracy. I find that statement to be closest to my core beliefs.

I suppose the reactors used to produce medical isotopes are usually not the same ones producing any power for any reason.

Now that I think on it more, research reactors, for universities and the NRC for testing materials and procedures might as well be considered power generation, because that is the field they are researching, even if they are not connected to production turbines.

The argument hits a nerve, does it? I never said "zero energy", "back to caves" or anything remotely close to that. I suggested that perhaps we could adapt to living without the 6% or so of global primary energy that we get from nuclear power. Far from advocating a return to the stone age, I'm suggesting that we go all the way back to, oh, 2003 or so. Some hardship, eh? The reasons I think we should do that may be unpalatable to you, but I assure you the end result would't reduce your modern life expectancy at all.

Kaczynski my ass.

Who exactly do you want to go back to 2003?

The citizens of say, China? Nigeria?

Not, you, not I of course. The fact that you and I can consume 12,000 average continuous watts of power while a Nigerian has less than ten can all be covered over with a glib pronouncement, that "nuclear energy is not risk free, and therefore all other greater risks are invited to dominate humanity."

Excuse me if I find that a little Kaczynkiesque, and I do.

About 30 billion tons of dangerous fossil fuels were dumped into earth's atomsphere that glorious year, 2003, killing outright about 1.5 million people as a result of normal operations of dangerous fossil fuels. It produced not a whimper.

Crude oil, now distributed widely in the Gulf of Mexico, is a known potent carcinogen. But let's not call for phasing oil out.

Give. Me. A. Break.

The loss of life from a dumb assed attempt to hysterically phase out nuclear does not count the cost of droughts and um, even Tsuamis.

The fact that a few people have died in 2011 from a nuclear event, doesn't bring any of that 1.5 million in whom you had no interest in 2003, and apparently no interest in now.

The status quo in 2003 was not acceptable.

But yes, you've struck a nerve.

Selective attention, which I confuse - rightfully or wrongly with ignorance, does in fact render me a little testy.

Nuclear energy - even in failure mode - does not have to be risk free or perfect to superior to the stuff that the selective attention set couldn't care about.

As I understand your calculus, 1.5 million deaths per year are not worth as much as the deaths from the reactor, because the latter on TV, TV's ironically powered by burning dangerous fossil fuels.

I will be interested to see the luddite interpretation of Tsuanmis when the ocean is a good meter or so higher, as stated previously.

If you want to conserve energy, you may wish to turn off the television.

That goes for you and anyone else on this board too. The situation is out of our hands:

• In 2009 our CO2 output fell by 422 million tonnes, the second greatest drop in the last 45 years. The only other times it fell in that period were in 1973, 1974, 1980, 1981 and 1982. You probably remember what was going on then. In all cases, nuclear power had nothing to do with the reductions, which were due entirely to a drop in oil and coal use due to recessions.
  
• We are now in a recession that is reducing our FF use, and we have hit peak oil which will reduce our use even further as prices escalate. The combination is likely to reduce our CO2 emissions beyond anything nuclear power advocates have dreamed of.
  
• Nuclear power is a complex technology that provides just 6% of the planet's primary energy, needs constant babysitting, and turns quite hazardous if it's left unattended.
  
• Our civilization is quite arguably on the brink of decline, which makes it more likely that FF use will continue to go down, and less likely that we'll be able to babysit nuclear reactors adequately over the long haul.
  
• World public opinion has turned solidly against nuclear power.

No selective attention here, just a close attention to the facts of our situation.

Our main difference, as it is between me and others on this board, is in worldview. If you want to get a closer look at mine you can check this post. I'm fairly sure you will disagree with at least some of it, but there's precious little you can do about it. I'm not sure why the fact that I have a different point of view matters so much to you - we are all, every last 6.9xx billion of us, different. Getting exercised over differences in human nature and beliefs seems like a bit of a mug's game, but I understand why you feel that way. You're a much of a product of your brain structure and experience as any of us.