• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Archives

Atomic Insights

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

Atomic Show #189 – Energy Subsidies

August 27, 2012 By Rod Adams 12 Comments

Dr. Jim Conca recently published an article titled What’s Better? A Carbon Tax or Energy Subsidies? for his column on Forbes.com. I invited him, along with Cal Abel, a nuclear engineering PhD candidate at Georgia Tech with a strong interest in energy economics, for a chat on the Atomic Show.

We got a little off topic at times, but I think you will find the discussion thought provoking and worth a listen.

Related Posts

  • UK solar subsidies
  • Smoking Gun - Jerry Taylor, a Fellow at the Cato Institute, founded by a Koch, Focuses Libertarian Rhetoric Against Nuclear, but Ignores Natural Gas Subsidies
  • T. Boone Pickens Wants Natural Gas Vehicle Mandates And Subsidies
  • Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog chats about energy subsidies
  • Renewable energy industry lobby signs letter demanding continuation of "vital" subsidies
http://s3.amazonaws.com/AtomicShowFiles/atomic_20120826_189.mp3

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:09:03 — 31.6MB)

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | RSS

Filed Under: Atomic politics, Fossil fuel competition, Nuclear Cost Data, Podcast

About Rod Adams

Rod Adams is an atomic energy expert with small nuclear plant operating and design experience, now serving as a Managing Partner at Nucleation Capital, an emerging climate-focused fund. Rod, a former submarine Engineer Officer and founder of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc., one of the earliest advanced nuclear ventures, has engaged in technical, strategic, political, historic and financial discussion and analysis of the nuclear industry, its technology and policies for several decades. He is the founder of Atomic Insights and host and producer of The Atomic Show Podcast.

Please click here to subscribe to the Atomic Show RSS feed.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Steve says

    August 27, 2012 at 8:48 AM

    Rod – any chance we could see a picture of your fuel pellets that you mention in the show? … and what are their dimensions and weight?

    Just interested

    All the best

    Reply
    • John Englert says

      August 27, 2012 at 9:07 PM

      You can buy a simulated fuel pellet from ANS http://www.new.ans.org/store/i_750027

      Reply
      • Steve says

        August 28, 2012 at 1:51 AM

        Oh that’s great thank you.

        I’m was trying to get numbers for mass density. Do these sound about right

        uranium metal 19g/cm3
        uranium oxide fuel pellet 10g/cm3
        uranium fuel rod 10g/cm3 (about the same, cladding doesn’t contribute much)
        yellow cake 10g/cm3
        uranium ore – varies massively perhaps 5g/cm3 (denser than most rock which is usually 2-3g/cm3)

        Reply
        • Steve says

          August 28, 2012 at 7:50 AM

          I think yellow cake is actually 2g/cm3

          Reply
        • John Englert says

          August 28, 2012 at 2:30 PM

          The Wolfram Alpha site will allow you to enter in chemical formulas. I typed in “density of U3O8” and here’s what I got:

          http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=density+of+U3O8

          Reply
        • Steve says

          August 28, 2012 at 4:28 PM

          Much appreciated. I did try that, but there are conflicting numbers over the internet. So I thought I’d ask. Maybe yellowcake, as it is transported, is a long way from being pure U3O8. I don’t know. If there’s anyone from Kazakhstan who could help me out…

          As for the density of a uranium fuel pellet, sorry if I’m a little late to catch on to this, but if uranium dioxide is 10g/cm3

          and a fuel rod is 4m long and cross section of 1cm3

          then a fuel rod weighs about 4kg

          of which about 3% is U235

          which is 120g of U235

          which contains (6 x 10^23) x (120/235) atoms of U235

          which equals 3×10^23 atoms of U235

          which when fissioned gives off (3×10^23) x (200 Mev) x (1.6×10^-19 J) / 3.6×10^6 kwh

          which, with a thermal efficiency of about a third, gives about 1 million kwh of electricity.

          (not all U235 is fissioned in a fuel rod, but that which isn’t is made up for by Pu239)

          ————————————————————————————————-

          in the USA you use about 12-13,000 Kwh of electricity per capita per year.

          or 1 million kwh per lifetime.
          ————————————————————————————————-

          which means if USA was 100% nuclear, when you shuffle off this planet, after a lifetime of electricity consumption, all you would leave behind you is one sole uranium fuel rod.

          Personally, I find that not only amazing but quite beautiful. I would quite like my name engraved in “my” fuel rod before it is put in a reactor, be allowed to go and visit it when it is in spent fuel pool, and finally be present to give thanks and pay my respects when it goes into dry cask storage. It has, after all, done far more work than I ever did.

          …it certainly sounds much better than leaving behind 1000 tonnes of supercritical CO2 in some CCS salt dome. Fission is the new fire as someone likes to say.

          Reply
  2. gmax137 says

    August 28, 2012 at 7:38 AM

    10 gm/cm3 is about right for the fuel pellet

    Reply
  3. Don Cox says

    August 30, 2012 at 6:24 AM

    “which means if USA was 100% nuclear, when you shuffle off this planet, after a lifetime of electricity consumption, all you would leave behind you is one sole uranium fuel rod.”

    So if the US went 100% nuclear fission, there would be 300 million fuel rods to deal with. This does require a certain amount of organisation.

    From the point of view of the power companies, the end products from burning gas just blow away, and need no storage or handling. The companies are not bothered about climate change. Not their problem. If temperatures do go up, it increases the sales of power for air conditioning.

    One can see the attraction of gas.

    Reply
    • Steve says

      August 30, 2012 at 12:16 PM

      hmm it seems to have had the opposite effect on you.

      I thought 1 fuel rod per person per lifetime to be quite impressive. My bones would take up more room.

      Not to think of all the non biodegradable waste each of us leave behind at the end of our lives.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

      Reply
  4. Brian Mays says

    August 30, 2012 at 8:24 AM

    So if the US went 100% nuclear fission, there would be 300 million fuel rods to deal with. This does require a certain amount of organisation.

    Any modern society composed of 300 million people is going to require a certain amount of organization. Keep in mind that’s over the span of 78 years (the average life span in the US). Mankind has known about the neutron for only 80 years.

    A fuel rod might seem like a lot of material, because of its length, but that’s misleading. The volume of one rod is about the same as the volume of a standard soft-drink can or less, depending on the design. A single 8.5″×8.5″×13.3′ Westinghouse fuel assembly holds 264 of these rods.

    To give you some perspective, in just 2011 alone, Americans purchased over 9 billion cases (not cans) of carbonated soft drinks.

    Reply
  5. Daniel says

    August 30, 2012 at 11:53 AM

    T Boone Pickens wants to convert all vehicles engine to natural gas … He also admitted yesterday that he ‘lost his shirt with wind and that it will never work’.

    Reply
  6. Steve Jones says

    August 30, 2012 at 11:57 AM

    I agree. Since USA started making nuclear electricity commercially it has produced approx. 25 trillion kwh of electricity.

    With my new-found calculation tool. I can quite easily say that it has produced in the region of 25 million spent fuel rods. If you were to store those end on then it would fill 50metres x 50metres (and 4metres high). Half the size of a football pitch and just above the height of the goal posts.

    If you were to put them in dry cask storage. I think the area required would go up by a factor of 20. And so 10 football pitches covered with these.

    and those 10 football pitches would take up less room on this map than one of those dots.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You have to agree to the comment policy.



Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Join Rod’s pronuclear network

Join Rod's pronuclear network by completing this form. Let us know what your specific interests are.

Recent Comments

  • David on Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked
  • Rod Adams on Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked
  • David on Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked
  • Rod Adams on Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked
  • paul wick on Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked

Follow Atomic Insights

The Atomic Show

Atomic Insights

Recent Posts

Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked

Nuclear energy growth prospects and secure uranium supplies

Nucleation Capital’s Earth Day in Atherton

Atomic Show #296 – Julia Pyke, Director of Finance Sizewell C

Solar’s dirty secrets: How solar power hurts people and the planet

  • Home
  • About Atomic Insights
  • Atomic Show
  • Contact
  • Links

Search Atomic Insights

Archives

Copyright © 2022 · Atomic Insights

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy