Nuclear energy news

Post Reply
User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 9085
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: BirdWing Home FNQ
Contact:

Nuclear energy news

Post by macdoc » Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:52 pm

We had a rollicking thread over at Dawkins that was a spin off from a climate science thread.
OP was adamant that nukes were a horror..
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 17&t=94863
To his credit after quite a long exchange of information and dialogue, with some who were actually in the nuclear energy field he changed his mind and understood why many climate scientists strongly favour nuclear energy....

There are good resources over here
http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fas ... ear-power/

and Dr. Brook is well positioned both from a climate standpoint as well as nuclear energy analysis. Check his CV
Hansen and others are also strongly pro nuke.

Saw this today
February 23, 2010
A Reactor That Burns Depleted Fuel Emerges as a Potential 'Game Changer'
By PETER BEHR of ClimateWire

Politicians and scientists speak of them hopefully as "home runs" and "game changers," the long-shot technology breakthroughs that could produce a major advance toward the nation's future climate policy goals.

After years in a status closer to science fiction than reality, the traveling wave nuclear reactor is emerging as a potential "game changer," according to a U.S. Department of Energy official. It helps that the reactor is the product of a team of top scientists backed by the deep pockets of Microsoft founder Bill Gates.

This reactor (pdf) works something like a cigarette. A chain reaction is launched in one end of a closed cylinder of spent uranium fuel, creating a slow-moving "deflagration," a wave of nuclear fission reactions that keeps breeding neutrons as it makes way through the container, keeping the self-sustaining reaction going.

And it goes and goes, perhaps for 100 years, said former Bechtel Corp. physicist John Gilleland. He heads TerraPower LLC, a private research team based outside Seattle that is pursuing the traveling wave reactor design.

"We believe we've developed a new type of nuclear reactor that can represent a nearly infinite supply of low-cost energy, carbon-free energy for the world," Gilleland said in a presentation. If it can be built, a commercial version of the reactor is 15 years away or more, Gilleland acknowledged. But that could keep its development in step with the long-range policy and business investment decisions that lie ahead for the future of nuclear power fuel cycles and reactor designs.

The venture has caught the Energy Department's eye.

"We've just been introduced to the idea," said Warren "Pete" Miller, DOE's assistant secretary for nuclear energy, who mentioned the project in his comments to last week's 2010 National Electricity Forum in Washington, D.C. "That's one innovation that could make a tremendous difference" for nuclear power.

"These are game changers if they can be deployed," said Miller, a former official at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Technology Review magazine chose the traveling wave reactor last year as one of 10 emerging technologies with the highest potential impact.

Defusing a potential proliferation risk

The traveling wave reactor got another push earlier this month from Gates, at a speech about futuristic technologies that he supports through the Intellectual Ventures initiative -- a Bellevue, Wash., think tank. It is seeking "miracle" solutions on energy and health fronts. TerraPower is one of Intellectual Ventures' projects.

The reactor design could power the United States for centuries and, if smaller, modular versions can be perfected, it could also provide affordable power for poorer nations that lack large-scale nuclear power infrastructure and power grids. "With the right materials approach, this looks like it could work," Gates said.

"It's got lots of challenges ahead, but it is an example of the many hundreds and hundreds of ideas we need to move forward," he said.

The design promises singular technical and political benefits. Albert Machiels, senior technical executive at the Electric Power Research Institute in Palo Alto, Calif., said the enclosure of the traveling wave reaction defuses the threat of potential proliferation of weapons-grade nuclear materials -- a critical issue for breeder reactors.

Breeder reactors produce plutonium as part of the fuel cycle, and once chemically separated, it can be removed and used to fuel other nuclear reactors. But it may also be a target for theft by terrorists or states seeking nuclear weapons.

In the traveling wave reactor, the fuel, initially, is likely to be the vast U.S. stores of depleted uranium, which don't themselves pose a proliferation risk. Plutonium is formed in the reaction process but undergoes transmutation into other elements and is essentially consumed. Depleted uranium is a heavy, lead-like residue from making or enriching uranium fuel. Lacking the volatile isotope U-235 that is used in conventional nuclear power plant fuel and nuclear weapons, depleted uranium is currently used for conventional anti-tank ammunition and in the keels of sailboats.

Patent applications by Gilleland and his team describe two connected waves traveling through the fuel cylinder at a little less than a half-inch per month, one creating enough fast-moving neutrons to keep the chain reaction alive, and the second burning up the fuel. "Anything that minimizes the separation and isolation of plutonium is helpful," Machiels said.

An old theory being re-explored by supercomputers

Scientists began looking at the concept in the late 1950s, Machiels said. Recent developments in supercomputing have enabled the TerraPower scientists to simulate the traveling wave concept and establish its feasibility, they say.

Machiels agrees. "The modeling capability that John Gilleland's team has achieved has allowed a lot of progress. They have fantastic computing capabilities," he said. The team's supercomputer cluster has more than 1,000 times the computational strength of a desktop computer, TerraPower says.

The team draws on support from MIT, DOE's Argonne National Laboratory and other scientific centers, and future testing will require more DOE support. But at this point, the project is a private research venture.

It recalls the famous Tuxedo Park laboratory established by the millionaire investor and amateur scientist Alfred Lee Loomis at his mansion outside New York City in 1926. Its scientists went on to provide critical research in the development of radar and the atomic bomb in World War II.

"This is a type of work that requires a deep, deep pocket," said Machiels. "The fact that this is being funded now by a private firm is good, but very unusual." TerraPower is backed by Nathan Myhrvold, Microsoft's former chief technology officer, who now is CEO of Intellectual Ventures.

Creating pilot demonstrations to verify the theory and computer simulations of the fuel cycle is one of the technology's remaining challenges. Another is finding alloys for the reactor cylinders that can withstand the heavy damage caused by neutron impacts.

Duncan Williams, writing last fall on the Nuclear Street blog site, noted that no one has made a deflagration wave work yet -- it has only been demonstrated with simulation software. "So it seems that this technology has many years to go before it becomes a physical reality," he said.

"We cannot expect it is going to be delivered soon," Machiels agreed.
Copyright 2010 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

For more news on energy and the environment, visit http://www.climatewire.net
.
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/02/23 ... nted=print
Resident in Cairns Australia • Current ride> 2014 Honda CB500F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 9085
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: BirdWing Home FNQ
Contact:

Re: Nuclear energy news

Post by macdoc » Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:24 am

Dr. Barry Brook is my ideal scientist, knowledgeable, writes well and an activist in dealing with climate change in a sensible and effective manner...

His site is a goldmine for practical solutions to the problem we face and to answer many questions like this one....
Would 10,000 nuclear power stations cook the planet?
Posted on 26 February 2010 by Barry Brook

The following question (or variants thereof) have come up so many times in the comments on this blog that I think the answer deserves a post in its own right:

If we had thousands of nuclear power stations, the heat they produced would cause significant global warming — as such, nuclear power is not a solution to anthropogenic climate change.

Okay, let’s look at a couple of ways to address this problem.

———————————————-

Prof. David Mackay of the University of Cambridge (and contributor to SCGI), had the following to say in his great book, Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air:

If we got lots and lots of power from nuclear fission or fusion, wouldn’t this contribute to global warming, because of all the extra energy being released into the environment?

That’s a fun question. And because we’ve carefully expressed everything in this book in a single set of units, it’s quite easy to answer.

First, let’s recap the key numbers about global energy balance from p20: the average solar power absorbed by atmosphere, land, and oceans is 238 watts per square metre (W/m2); doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration would effectively increase the net heating by 4 W/m2.

This 1.7% increase in heating is believed to be bad news for climate. Variations in solar power during the 11-year solar cycle have a range of 0.25 W/m2. So now let’s assume that in 100 years or so, the world population is 10 billion, and everyone is living at a European standard of living, using 125 kWh per day derived from fossil sources, from nuclear power, or from mined geothermal power.

The area of the earth per person would be 51 000 m2. Dividing the power per person by the area per person, we find that the extra power contributed by human energy use would be 0.1 W/m2. That’s one fortieth (1/40) of the 4 W/m2 that we’re currently fretting about, and a little smaller than the 0.25 W/m2 effect of solar variations. So yes, under these assumptions, human power production would just show up as a contributor to global climate change.

———————————————-

Dr. George Stanford, also of SCGI, took a different tack:

Consider a global population of 7 billion people (7E9). Average solar power hitting the earth’s surface at ground level is about 1 kW/m2 x pi x (6400 km)2 = 1.3E14 kW. That’s 18.4 MW (18,400 kW) per person from the sun.

In 2007, the U.S. used 101 quads of energy = 101 x 2.93E11 kWh = 3.0E13 kWh, for an average power usage of 3.4E9 kW. The population of the U.S. is about 300 million (300E8). Thus average power consumption per person = 3.4E9/3.0E8 = 11 kW [Ed: check I -- this is 265 kWh/day in Mackay's terms, which is about right -- the US has about twice the energy use of Europeans].

Thus if the whole world used energy at the per capita rate of the U.S., that would be adding 11 / 18,400 = 0.06% to the total energy input to the Earth system. (By the way, that’s about 6 times the rate at which geothermal energy reaches the surface.)

———————————————-

Here’s another, simple way to look at it. Have a look at this page on Wikipedia on solar energy, in particular, this table:
Yearly Solar fluxes & Human Energy Consumption
Solar 3,850,000 EJ
Wind 2,250 EJ
Biomass 3,000 EJ
Primary energy use (2005) 487 EJ
Electricity (2005) 56.7 EJ

Primary (thermal) annual energy use by humans in 2005 was ~500 exajoules (EJ; see here for explanation of this and other energy terms), compared to 3.85 million EJ received from the sun. What if we quadrupled this thermal energy production by the year 2100, to 2,000 EJ/year? We would then be producing the equivalent of 0.05 % of the solar energy input.

In its 11 year solar cycle, the sun currently fluctuates between ~1,365 to 1,367 W/m2. In percent terms this is a min-max variation at the top of the atmosphere of ~0.15 %. Compare to the above figure of 0.05 %, if humanity was producing 2,000 EJ of thermal energy per year — 1/3 of the sun’s total variability. Given that the thermal [heat] energy from power stations would be released at the Earth’s surface, and would thus tend to be trapped by tropospheric greenhouse gases, it would be more influential than top-of-the-atmosphere climate forcing, but still small compared to aerosols and GHGs.

———————————————-

So would the waste fission heat from 10,000 nuclear power stations, expelled into the environment via their cooling systems, cause significant global warming? Short answer: No [Long answer: Well, not really].

Based on the mid-point estimate of climate sensitivity, fast forcing yields 0.75°C of global temperature rise per W/m2 of forcing. As such, Mackay’s estimate of 0.1 W/m2 would predict an equilibrium warming of 0.075°C for the worst-case scenario. Although this is definitely detectable, to put it in context, it is less warming than we’ve experienced in just the last decade due to increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Currently, the direct heat (not CO2) from our coal/nuclear power stations and oil/gas combustion might have contributed ~0.01°C to global warming, versus the observed warming over the last century of 0.8°C. Historically, thermal pollution could explain 1 – 2% of anthropogenic global warming.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/02/26/n ... #more-2392

His website is a must bookmark reference for all those in interested in the science and the solutions...

http://bravenewclimate.com/
Resident in Cairns Australia • Current ride> 2014 Honda CB500F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74191
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Nuclear energy news

Post by JimC » Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:58 am

Excellent post, Macdoc!

Some of my students have asked similar questions, and luckily, the speculative answer (and I said it was speculative...) was similar to the conclusions above...

But it's always nice to see real figures!
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 9085
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: BirdWing Home FNQ
Contact:

Re: Nuclear energy news

Post by macdoc » Sun Feb 28, 2010 6:20 am

I actually also asked that question of a couple of atmospheric scientists a few years back before I understood more of the scale of energies we are playing with when we change the optical/energy absorptive properties of the atmosphere.

An article came up about the net mass loss of 200 cuKM of glacial mass in Greenland and I wanted to know the scale of that - how much extra thermal energy is required to affect that melt.

I was shocked at the answer - and it has been verified a couple of times.....it even surprised Gavin Schmidt at NASA - the scale of the energies involved.

I asked a couple of math wonks to analyse the energy needed to melt 200cuKM in year in terms of Hiroshima level thermal output....since people generally have a sense of the scale of that event.

The answer was way beyond my expectations....we are effectively carpet bombing Greenland with 4000 Hiroshima scale weapons......A DAY. 1 million a year....

and that melt scale is duplicated now in the Antarctic and in mid latitude glaciers as well.

The energy scale is truly astonishing and scary.
Without that crysophere buffer picking up latent heat the changes would be much more rapid.

When put in those terms the need to cease burning coal and switch to nuclear energy becomes that much more urgent.

If we WERE actually dropping thermal weapons on Greenland on that scale every day the outrage would be enormous world wide.
Yet every day the first world is doing just that by pulling out of their driveway in a fossil fueled vehicle....especially given how inefficient those vehicles are.
but where is the outrage?

One engineer said we will have to build one sizeable nuclear plant a DAY for the next 20 years just to keep up with growing demand for electricity... :cry: - this is NOT going to be easy.

With 50% more population coming, 2 billion moving up the life style ladder, peak cheap oil perhaps already here and accelerating climate change the next 3 decades are going to be ...ahem....interesting... :leave: :eeek:

pity the kids...our generation really does need to clean up after itself....and soon. :coffee:

User avatar
Horwood Beer-Master
"...a complete Kentish hog"
Posts: 7061
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:34 pm
Location: Wandering somewhere around the Darenth Valley - Kent
Contact:

Re: Nuclear energy news

Post by Horwood Beer-Master » Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:47 am

Image
Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests