A question about climate change/global warming.

Nuclear waste disposal for light-water reactors is more a matter of politics than geology. There are plenty of deep salt domes on the Gulf coast that are intrinsically a lot more resistant to ground water seepage than Yucca mountain, and the places in the world we could just drill under some igneous province overlaying sediment and drop or pump pretty much any amount down with no chance of any returning to the biosphere in 10s of thousands of years

But in terms of clean nuclear, I think one of the most interesting ideas are the molten fuel Thorium reactors, in which thorium is mixed in sodium and bred into U-233. This is nice because there's a LOT more thorium than U-235 in the world, and the waste products of the thorium-U233 cycle aren't nuclear proliferation risks. The U.S. had a molten salt reactor experiment for several decades demonstrating the concept, and evidently a Japanese consortium led by Fuji is engineering a modular production version.

Will any of the "clean nuclear" be ready for large-scale deployment in the next 20 years, when the big energy crunch is likely to occur in the next half decade? And will anything change in the next decade or two that will make nuclear remotely cost-effective without massive subsidies?

Nuclear IS cost effective without massive subsidies. See the experience in France. The problem the first time around in the U.S. was that there were not pre-approved standardized designs, so every build was a bit unique, every regulatory change required a substantial reengineering and delay. In France, they adapted a Westinghouse and built dozens of reactors to the same design. The U.S. decided to adopt that policy only after Three Mile Island and the subsequent issues with public opinion. So we're all breathing in dozens of times more radioactivity from coal plants than we would have had we went the nuclear route decades ago.

had we gone obv...

To be honest, derelict, a good chunk of my stance on the high cost of new nuclear power comes from Joe Romm at ClimateProgress, and pieces such as this article, which among other things notes that:

New nuclear power plants are currently far and away the most expensive form of carbon free power you can (try to) buy...

The most detailed independent cost estimate of nuclear power published this year — here on Climate Progress by a leading expert in power plant costs, Craig A. Severance — puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at from 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour — triple current U.S. electricity rates!

... Time magazine noted that nuclear plants’ capital costs are “out of control,” concluding:

"Most efficiency improvements have been priced at 1¢ to 3¢ per kilowatt-hour, while new nuclear energy is on track to cost 15¢ to 20¢ per kilowatt-hour. And no nuclear plant has ever been completed on budget."

This aligns with a lot of cost estimates that I read on nuclear, but I'd be more than happy to read through anything that convincingly argues that new nuclear power isn't expensive.

(On clean energy) Btw, that esquire article did say that all the nuclear waste could be taken care of pretty well z_s

Yes, cost is the problem initially

Z S, there's a problem comparing intermittant renewable energy without integral storage and base-load generation plants that would be competive with nuclear. I suspect concentrating solar thermal with enough heat storage for off-peak generation is very close to competitive with new build nuclear for base-load, but we'll have to see how the Spanish pilots work out.

This OECD/IEA joint report found the levelized costs at a 5% finance cost in $USD/MWh:

nuclear energy: 21-31
natural gas: 37-60
coal: 25-50

At the same finance cost, and correcting for availability/capacity factor:

wind: 35-95 (but most below 60)
hydroelectricity: 40-80
solar: 150-175 in US southwest, 300+ in much of Europe

As renewables go, there's no question wind is the way to go. And if we had a large enough network of say the 765 kv DC transmission lines so that wind power generated in blustery North Dakota could be used in Chicago, then wind would probably be competitive with nuclear.

Btw, what is "clean nuclear" as opposed to just "nuclear"? There's a clean version that doesn't involve storing nuclear waste?

― Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Sunday, December 20, 2009 9:35 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

There isn't one that I know of, yet. Which is why we would need the Manhattan Project-like endeavor in the first place...

Finding a use for the waste, or using radioactive material which breaks down into non-radioactive or non-dangerous material would be the way around this problem, and as you see people are working on it.

Nuclear IS cost effective without massive subsidies. See the experience in France

you had me until you said France. EDF and Areva have received massive subsides and protections from competition.

That IEA nuclear LCOE figure just does not ring true with me, and plenty of other studies would put it much higher. No nuclear plant has ever been built on time and on budget. The Finish experience is bearing this out. I am not opposed to more nuclear, I am just sceptical as to how much and how quickly it can make a contribution.

Those Gulfcoast salt domes seem to be the solution to everything; Gas storage CAES, CCS.

http://www.energy.gov/news/1500.htm

The principal findings of the Chicago study demonstrate that future nuclear power plants in the United States can be competitive with either natural gas or coal. Whereas the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for coal is $33 to $41 per MWh and $35 to $45 per MWh for gas-fired production, new nuclear plants would have costs of $31 to $46 per MWh once early plant costs are absorbed.

That doesn't mean what you think it does. They're using the same calculation as for the coal and gas plants, and as the OECD/IEA report did for renewables, amortizing the so-called 'overnight construction costs' over the the expected life of the plant. With a low enough finance cost (OECD used 5% per annum), up front costs can seem pretty reasonable.

The only reason it works, of course, is that uranium is dirt cheap with repect to the energy that can be extracted compared to coal and gas. All the costs are up-front, with fuel amounting to around 6-10% of the levelized cost. For coal and natural gas, fuel amounts to 70+% of the cost.

On the other hand, there's a good chance uranium prices have been depressed for the past 10+ years as 45% of U.S. demand has been met by decommissioned Soviet weapons (and 5% from U.S. weapons). That cosy agreement ends in 2013, so uranium prices could go substantially higher to bring marginal supply in.

I understand the LCOE methodology very well, and I don't see how you can get to those figures for Nuclear. I've combed through that IEA report and can't find too much as fault although I find that pricing non-fuel O&M in power rather than energy to be somewhat odd. Figures I have seen put non-fuel O&M at around $14/MWh. OK so these are figures for 1996 from a 1999 study but I can't see that having fallen much.

$1500/kW over 40 years at 5% Discount rate 85% capacity factor is around $12/MWh. Fuel from the above study is $6/MWh. That's already $32/MWh in 1999 dollars. This doesn't factor in waste handling and storage or decommissioning.

really interesting account of why copenhagen failed by someone who was in the room as the deal was (un)done:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas

that's not really interesting, sorry

Saying that Copenhagen was even an effort to succeed at something is a lot more interesting, but only in the diagnosis of mental illness.

oh well, you're clearly the expert. but i thought it was interesting a) to read an inside account of how global summits play out, particularly seeing how china uses its growing power, and b) that china blocked western countries from making their own 80 per cent target in emissions reduction, even though it wouldn't affect developing nations.

I apologize.

You have to admit, though, this whole "Copenhagen" hoo-ha is a bit of a paper tiger in the larger debate.

hey joe, i thought that was pretty interesting, thanks for posting it, not really sure whats up kenans butt

I read that too, it was a bit depressing. What the heck happens next?

not really sure whats up kenans butt

I admit my tone was ill-advised, politically. I should have paid more attention to my status in the eyes of ILX, and not negotiated with max for said political status.

That article is not about the climate, the control of emissions, or anything like it.

After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

Oh go fucking drain your pussy, it's hugely swollen.

did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or what

Yes I did.

Look... Copenhagen is a joke, no matter what country you're in. For that matter, Kyoto was a joke. We're not talking about treaties and agreements, we're talking about developing countries utilizing the tech they have vs. falling behind. Meanwhile, it's also about the US investing in the tech we have, making it standard, and phasing out dirty energy. This isn't about making agreements. It never was, and it never is.

i dont see what that has to do with being mean about joes article

I apologized earlier, because you're right.

cool sounds like were all covered here

Who wants cookies? :)

now that sounds like an agreement to me

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/uploads/2007/10/va_treaty.jpg

ha! Bit tentative, that.

I meant you no personal offense, joe, and I apologize again. I just tend to get heated up about what I feel is people (not you) missing the point entirely.

By staging publicity stunts like Copenhagen, for instance.

jeez louise

It looks to me like a polite enquiry from someone concerned about climate change. Delingpole, however, saw it as a "nauseating email" which must have come from a "disgusting eco-fascist organisation", though he didn't know which organisation this might be. His post was headlined "Conservative candidates stalked by eco bullies". Much worse, he published the man's name and home address.

Delingpole's bootboys took the hint and immediately swung into action. Within a few minutes of the comments opening, they had published the man's telephone number and email address, a photo of his house ("Note all the recycling going on in his front garden"), his age and occupation. Then they sought to tell him just what a low opinion they had of "stalking" and "bullying".

Here is the "nauseating email", btw:

"Dear Edwin Northover

I was concerned to note the results of a survey of 140 Conservative candidates for parliament that suggested that climate change came right at the bottom of their priorities for government action.

I hope you can reassure me that you recognise the importance and success of climate change action by the UK government at home and internationally.

Can you clarify that:

You accept that climate change is caused by human activity?

Do you support the target to achieve 15% renewable energy by 2020?

Do you support the EU imposing tougher regulation to combat climate change?

Kind Regards, *** ***".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5nNbPWYHOA

"We also need to have an appreciation for King Coal."

- Tim Pawlenty, describing his "energy plan" on Meet the Press about 20 seconds ago.

http://i50.tinypic.com/10py6vs.jpg

On a serious work-related note, I'm trying to compile a listing of climate skeptic blogs. I've tried using Technorati and Google Blogs and they're both a bit rubbish at providing results.

Who am I missing?

Climate Audit - http://www.climateaudit.org Watts Up With That? - http://wattsupwiththat.com

Climate Skeptic - http://www.climate-skeptic.com

The Air Vent - http://noconsensus.wordpress.com

Anybody?

Bishop Hill - http://bishophill.squarespace.com

The Blackboard: Where Climate Talk Gets Hot! - http://rankexploits.com/musings

Errors in IPCC climate science - http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog

The Clamour Of The Times – http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times.html

JoNova - http://joannenova.com.au

Dudes who wrote 'superfreakonomics' are pretty sceptical about humans being the cause given the time span and quality of data.

Good suggestion, but they have to be bloggers who focus solely on climate change.

Like this lot above or these guys - http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/

The most widely read "climate skeptic" blog is probably http://wattsupwiththat.com

Uuuugggh

Any good tools for finding which blogs are the most linked / trafficked? This is stuff I used to know but frankly I'm a bit out of touch with it all now.

This guy:

http://itsfaircomment-climategate.blogspot.com/

there's a list of skeptical blogs here: http://climatedebatedaily.com/

Philip Stott:
http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times.html

Oh you had that one already.

Cheers guys

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/

by a schoolkid or something

http://i45.tinypic.com/a42b1g.jpg

http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-debate-works.html

sigh

http://i47.tinypic.com/qzhbnr.jpg
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/BOYKOFF-AAAS-22-February-2010-slides.pdf