Fantasy Crossfire debate: Ed Lyman versus Rod Adams on fast breeder reactors
CNN has done a masterful job of seizing the opportunity provided by Robert Stone’s thought-provoking Pandora’s Promise to generate a passionate discussion about the use of nuclear energy — a vitally important topic — at a critical time in American history. The decision makers at that somewhat fading network should be congratulated.
Of course, generating passionate discussion about controversial subjects on which large numbers of people hold strong opinions is one of the best ways for an entertainment network like CNN to entice viewers to pay attention to their shows and articles. Getting viewers to tune in and pay attention is exactly what CNN’s real customers demand. As any well-informed citizen should know, the real customers of large media companies are not the viewers; the real customers, the people responsible for most of the media’s revenues, are the advertisers.
Pandora’s Promise has offered the network the opportunity to generate some heated debate already, with episodes like the Piers Morgan Show discussion between Robert Stone and Robert Kennedy and the Crossfire episode with Michael Shellenberger and Ralph Nader. I hope that the network programmers milk those great properties by repeated showings and perhaps some well promoted YouTube releases.
Here’s another show suggestion for CNN: I volunteer to go head to head on Crossfire with Dr. Ed Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Here’s the twist that should make the show interesting — I think my position qualifies as being “on the left” while Lyman, who works for an “environmental” organization, is promoting ideas that seem to qualify him as the guy “on the right.”
Just in case there is anyone at CNN paying attention to the Internet to see how people are reacting to its effort to restart the nuclear energy conversation, I’ll provide a sample of what they might hear by creating an imaginary dialog using quoted excerpts from Lyman’s slanted rant about Pandora’s Promise portrayal of the potential embodied in the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR).
Lyman: Like the story of Pandora itself, the tale of the integral fast reactor (IFR) — or at least the version presented in the movie — is more myth than reality. In the final assessment, the concept’s drawbacks greatly outweighed its advantages. The government had sound reasons to stanch the flow of taxpayer dollars to a costly, flawed project that also was undermining U.S. efforts to reduce the risks of nuclear terrorism and proliferation around the world.
Adams: The IFR project was only budgeted for $100 million per year. Not only were the scientists and engineers doing the kind of fundamental research that only the federal government can perform, but the reactor operated as part of that project was a complete power plant that provided about 50% of the electricity used on the 860 square mile Idaho National Lab without producing any air pollution or CO2.
Till and his team were within a couple of years of proving that it was possible to turn uranium 238, which represents 99.3% of natural uranium and 95% of used nuclear fuel, into vast quantities of emission-free heat and electricity. It could have been an undeniable demonstration that the real myth is that using nuclear energy produces an unsolvable waste problem.
Lyman: In the film, scientists who worked on the IFR program unsurprisingly sing its praises. For example, Charles Till, a former program manager, claimed that the reactor “can’t melt down” and would therefore be immune to the type of catastrophes that occurred at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Fukushima in 2011.
“Pandora’s Promise” referenced two successful safety tests conducted in 1986 at a small demonstration fast reactor in Idaho called the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II). But EBR-II operators scripted these tests to ensure the desired outcome, a luxury not available in the real world. Meanwhile, the EBR-II’s predecessor, the EBR-I, had a partial fuel meltdown in 1955, and a similar reactor, Fermi 1 near Detroit, had a partial fuel meltdown in 1966.
Adams: What do you mean, scripted? One of those tests simulated a complete loss of electrical power while the reactor was being operated at its design capacity. That is exactly the initiating event that eventually resulted in the Fukushima core meltdowns.
The experiences at predecessor reactors is irrelevant; the IFR design included features like a large pool of sodium and metal alloy fuel that were specifically incorporated as refinements derived from the lessons learned during the events at the more primitive reactors that you mentioned. For example, unlike Fermi 1, the EBR-II did not have an “internal core catcher” that could get dislodged and clog cooling channels.
Lyman: In the IFR concept, which was never actually realized in practice, reactor-spent fuel would be reprocessed using a technology called pyroprocessing, and the extracted plutonium would be fabricated into new fuel. IFR advocates have long asserted that pyroprocessing is not a proliferation risk because the plutonium it separates is not completely purified.
But a 2008 U.S. Department of Energy review — which confirmed many previous studies — concluded that pyroprocessing and similar technologies would “greatly reduce barriers to theft, misuse or further processing, even without separation of pure plutonium.”
Adams: Talk about scripting to obtain the desired result! I recently visited the Fuel Conditioning Facility in Idaho and talked to the scientists who have been slowly and stealthily working to complete the development that Till and Chang would have completed a long time ago. The material produced by the process works great as a reactor fuel that releases heat predictably and steadily; it is complete crap as a weapons material. It’s a complex mixture of elements and isotopes that are virtually impossible to separate.
Besides, if you have ever been through the security process at a nuclear facility in the United States or Europe, you would realize that the probability of any theft is so darned close to zero that it is not worth worrying about, especially since the countries where the recycling would occur already have nuclear weapons and existing inventories of isotopically pure, weapons-grade material.
Lyman: Other Department of Energy studies showed that pyroprocessing, by generating large quantities of low-level nuclear waste and contaminated uranium, greatly increases the volume of nuclear waste requiring disposal, contradicting “Pandora’s Promise’s” claim it would reduce the amount of waste.
Adams: I think you are confusing pyroprocessing with traditional aqueous processing. Pyroprocessing does not generate large quantities of low-level waste and contaminated materials. The waste streams are vastly reduced in both long term radiotoxicity and volume. Till and Chang were true believers in the “reduce, recycle and reuse” mantra that guides the thoughts and actions of true environmentalists.
Lyman: Moreover, fast reactors have inherent instabilities that make them far more dangerous than light-water reactors under certain accident conditions, conditions that were studiously avoided in the 1986 dog-and-pony show at EBR-II.
Adams: The entire design of the EBR-II was premised on studiously avoiding the “inherent instabilities” that you are referring to. That is the nature of technology development; we conduct small scale experiments like EBR-I, and learn from those experiments. Then we take what we learned and used it to improve the next generation of technology. The EBR-II operated reliably for 30 years; any honest analyst who studies the reports issued during that period will agree that the lessons from early fast reactor experiments were well applied.
Lyman: Perhaps the biggest myth in the film is the notion that all U.S. research on fast reactors was terminated. The Department of Energy has continued to fund research and development on fast reactor technology to the tune of tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
Adams: The funding restoration happened later, after the 1994 midterm election. Clinton and his congressional allies followed through with the state of the union promise to stop funding all advanced nuclear energy research. The National Science Foundation has a report titled Federal R&D Funding by budget function 1994-1996 that shows the annual budget for nuclear materials support, which is the line that was used to pay for research on the IFR, falling from 33 million in 1994 to 24 million in 1995 and to 0 in 1996. That -100% change shows up like a sore thumb in the summary table on page 19.
Lyman: The IFR Fuel Reprocessing Facility in Idaho shown in the film — in reality, a plant called the Fuel Conditioning Facility — has been operating for decades, essentially as a jobs program, to reprocess spent fuel from the now-defunct EBR-II, despite the system’s serious problems. In 2000, the Department of Energy promised that all the fuel would be processed by around 2007. Three years later, it delayed the projected completion date to 2030.
Adams: I’d phrase it differently. Skilled, hard-nosed, career civil servants that recognize the scientific and economic value of the work being done by people in that “jobs program” have managed to overcome the efforts of the fossil fuel and unreliable energy lobbyists that keep trying to kill the program and disperse the talent. They have keep the lights on and the work moving forward, slowly. They have banked the fire and carefully retained enough heat so that the work could move forward expeditiously with adequate funding. A nucleus of skilled, experienced people are still together in Idaho.
We should not let any more time pass before giving them the tools and resources that they need to complete the task of providing us with an inexhaustible source of clean, reliable energy.
The only people who have any reason to fear the proliferation of fast reactor technology and used fuel recycling are the people who sell a few trillion dollars worth of fossil fuel and related products at prices that have been inflated by forced scarcity.
Don’t get me wrong; I like the good things that come to people who have access to vast quantities of energy that they can use as fast as they want. Energy consumed per unit time is the very definition of power; people deserve as much power as scientists and engineers can possibly provide.
Ed, you and I are both old enough to remember the chant that inspired our older siblings — Power to the People! Let’s fight together to deliver the hope that resided at the bottom of Pandora’s box.
The anti nukes, Miss Dyrl And Mr Nader looked like réal amateurs yesterday.
Especially miss Dyrl. No depth. Conservation works great in India with Wood And dung burning.
Anderson Cooper looks like a pro. A pro nuclear.
Ed is going to lose. He won’t show.
Rod,
The discussions were great. I watched evrything. Only one regret: No talk or mention of ethanol.
Ethanol the biggest rip off of them all.
Regarding the Price Anderson Act. So far the gambits to counter it were weak by the pro nuclear.
But Schellenberger did it. He said that the world governments were also applying a similar paradigm to the commercial jetliner industry. Nice, very nice.
The human mind can counter complex arguments with simple associtations on easy to grasp relative scales.
That’s the way to counter RFK Jr’s repetitive mentionning of the Anderson act.
@Daniel – may I have your permission to correct your last sentence? I think you meant to write “the biggest rip of of them all”, but it came out “the biggest rip off of the mall.” Same letters, different spacing and different meaning altogether.
Schellenberger made an interesting point at the beginning of the week in his many debates. He said that true greens want to leave a minimal footprint on the environment.
He missed the ball on 2 fronts. Rod would have picked up on those,
1) Unfortunately, at no time did any pro nuclear mention the achille’s heal of the renewables: Massive land requirement and poor watts per square mile.
2) No mention that nuclear industry cleans after itself. How about the only energy that has a poop and scoop approach?
This is where we did the poorest. But we did great. Nader is an old timer and Schellenberger just was too polite no to knock him out.
Ok
I referred to a Miss Dyrl in my earlier posts as an anti nuclear activist.
She is in fact Dale Bryk – NRDC’s Director, Senior Attorney, Energy & Transportation Program
Now this is strategy here. If you have an anti and pro nuclear debate, have her on the anti side. Slam dunk. Plus you will have a good time. NRDC, like the NRC and DOE, has no ‘no bozo allowed’ rule.
She is so incompetent that it is hilarious. Schellenberger, Hansen and Stone just got her to a point were she could no longer counter argument effectively. No depth.
Yes renewables will solve the emerging nations energy problems. And she is convinced.
CNN has an Op-Ed that is rather critical of the film.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/opinion/pandora-nuclear-energy-opinion-cavanagh-cochran/
Might I suggest adding Ralph Cavanagh and Tom Cochran to your list of debate participants. Where there aren’t easy answers, there is the always the chance for a great debate. Even the likes of Michael Moore showed that all things are possible.
There is increasing interest in Molten Salt Fast Breeders, a concept which my father investigated in the 1950’s. You can breed uranium to produce plutonium, or thorium to produce U-233. Or you can do both at the same time. The reactor can be hotter than an IFR, safer, smaller, probably less expensive, and it can be taught to speak French! (The French are considering the project.)
My non-bated-breath never expected an even ride with CNN casting Pandora’s Promise. They just did that PR move to cluck that “Hey we did something pro-nuke! (for once)” before slamming the door behind the film with that Op-Ed. Just a NYT on the air, that’s all (like Grandpa Munster chiding bad Igor the bat “You’re just a rat with wings!”) The nuclear community and nuke pro orgs have to learn that the only parties that are going to be halfway decent and respectful of its message and tech is itself and start producing its own nuke features or web broadcasting stations to get the word out if it’s not already too late. I hope Rod’s toe-to-toe debate proposal was emailed out to CNN just hear what their excuse not to do it is.
James Greenidge
Queens NY
CNN crossfire poll:
Are you afraid to live next to a nuclear plant:
No: 53%
Yes: 47%
Still not a comfortable margin. Way too many nays.
Thank you for categorically responding to Lyman’s errors.
I am amazed he really doesn’t even seem to have a working grasp of real pollution issues and basically avoids them at every opportunity. Meanwhile in the background one of the worst if not the worst typhoons ever is devastating the Philippines. The 24th such serious storm from them this year.
Mitch,
The nays re good here. Read the question !
Daniel,
Schellenberg did not miss the ball. Probably he didn’t mention them because he knows that renewable is far better on these 2 fronts!
Power density:
You posted earlier that nuclear has a power densitiy of 1KW/m2.
Offshore wind doesn’t use any land!
Onshore wind; 8MW wind turbine has a footprint of ~100m2. That delivers a power density of 80KW/m2. Add some for access etc. then still a density of >20KW/m2!
Note that the land between the turbines stays to be farmland, woods, etc.
Solar-panels on the roof do not use any land!
If ~50% of all roofs are covered than more than enough electricity!
clean afterwards
Nuclear industry leaves waste that stays dangerous for up to a million years. So it parasites on the thousands of generations after us that are forced to take care.
Renewable is properly decommissioned in civilized states (if the owner doesn’t, government will do it and send the bill to the owner).
I agree, I doubt he will make a public appearance. FYI I invited he and Rod to our Yucca Symposium.
If Mr. Lyman wants to document his opinion we invite him and Rod Adams to join our Yucca Educational Symposium SUN-JUN-24th, Reno, Nevada, link to our program:
http://usnuclearenergy.org/yes/about.html
It’s one thing to challenge the DOE and NRC but when you start slamming our National Laboratories which are continually screwed by bureaucrats then you’re in my face Mr. Lyman and many other American’s who support our science laboratories in spite of politics!
Bas, you are so pathetically desperate to disavow nuclear energy! Fanatic is too PC to describe it.
You have nothing to back your rants and fears of megadeaths and poisoned masses but the hope that it will happen to prove your point — a pretty sick standpoint I think! I put my stake in dozens of years of rock solid record and reality and tried and true engineering. Who’s proof is more credible and established; An industry with a solid record of less than a dozen deaths worldwide for fifty years or someone blurting that a million people MIGHT die based on totally groundless off-the-the-top-of -your head unverified cherry-picked death-wish speculations that major institutions don’t give time of day to? Sorry guy, I’ll pick reality over fear every time.
Offshore turbines are known to age and corrode and tear apart far quicker in that hostile environment. You’re STILL tearing up sea bottoms and scaring little fishies to anchor the things and feeder cables to shore and beyond. Let’s not forget boaters and artists and beachcombers losing out on unblighted natural seascapes and shorelines with horizon to horizon whirligigs. Can one spell how fast the glamor will wear off?
Do you really expect people outside the zealot fringe to sacrifice the beauty of their homes with perishable solar panels in place of aesthetically natural shingles and tiles, just because you don’t like something that makes it so they won’t even have to? Are we going to pave over society with solar glass just to appease your fears? Don’t think so!
A point mentioned this site before was so what if totally depleted nuclear waste is radioactive for thousands of years. So what! Who’s going to stumble across it two thousand feet down in solid granite or salt? To hear antinuclears, the stuff will be trucked your nearest city dump — which are already far more peril to water tables and sites for disease than nuclear waste has ever been!
Bas, you’re not going to convert the enlightened and educated. You’re spinning your tires here, making a tired self-righteous bore of yourself on your Times Square soapbox. You should move your spiel to more susceptible haunts, like a kindergarten or Jane Fonda film festival.
“Preliminary satellite estimates of the central pressure at the eye of the storm have been reported at around 860 mbar, which if confirmed would make Haiyan the strongest storm ever recorded.
The World Food Programme estimates that some 2.5 million people will require emergency food assistance in the aftermath of Typhoon. ” ( http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/08/typhoon-haiyan-hits-philippines-live-updates )
Mitch,
Opinions and decisions should be based on a good balance with at least arguments that are correct.
Hope we all agree about that.
And those two of Daniel clearly are not.
I helped him, so he can solidify his pro-nuclear arguments.
Further:
Designers will learn to built offshore wind turbines that last a century. Just as the old Dutch wind mills last centuries. It are relative simple pieces of equipment.
“ sacrifice the beauty of their homes with perishable solar panels
In south of Germany many do, as anybody can see who travels there. And renewable energy enthusiasts find them beauties just as wind turbines.
Many people even consider cars beauties… Taste differ depending on preferences…
“so what if totally depleted nuclear waste … Who’s going to stumble across it two thousand feet down in solid granite or salt?”
Read German experience. They buried part of the stuff two thousand feet (600m) down in stable solid salt. Within 25 years the stable formation became less stable (heat due to radio-activity?), so now it has to be removed before radio-active ground water appears uncontrolled at the surface… All to be paid by the taxpayer (~$100billion).
Btw
I like to see Jane Fonda in movies, but as said; preferences differ among people.
If Schellenberg were a classical pianist, we could say he has ‘parlando’. He also showed good technique.
On crossfire, he started the debate by complimenting Nader, his opponent. Later he showed no mercy for his elderly and rightly so.
He did well but failed on 2 fronts:
1) What about the evacuation of New York city if Indian point were to fail?
He dodged the question. The answer is civil nuclear plant accident take a long long time to develop and reach criticality, if ever. People will have plenty of time to leave in an orderly fashion. If you live next to a gas or coal or hydro plant, it’s already too late.
2) What about the land (thousands of square miles according to Nader) that needs to be evacuated permanently when a plant goes amoc ?
I would then have suggested that Ralph makes a virtual visit to Nagasaki and-or Hiroshima while there are still human beings left alive.
And then, as a bonus, I would have gone for the kill. For the cause. I would have I sware. I would have taken the Plutonium-cafeine challenge right in front of national TV. I would have said to him: You dodge Cohen in the 70’s but you are not dodging me here today. Enough of your fear mongering.
Bas remains persistently genial (and obtuse), displays impressive bilingual skills, and probably gets paid by the word.
Please don’t deprive our neighborhood troll of his livelihood.
Good points.
On number one, Schellenberg should have given RN a tutorial on the contents of the recent SOARCA study – no such evacuation will ever be REQUIRED, although once an emergency is declared the local authorities can do what they want. SELF-evacuation, caused by media sensationalism and fear-mongering, is unpredictable and can only be cured by a massive and pervasive education campaign.
On number two, I would have also rubbed his face in the Chernobyl nature park evidence, as partly shown in the film, and sent people to view the Chernobyl Wolves documentary on YouTube.
The Plutonium munching challenge would have been dramatic, but in the unlikely event he accepted, where were you going to get it?
If Cohen brought it up, he must have had a way to get plutonium.
Another continuing tragedy in Asia probably also related to pollution:
Smoggy Beijing sees lung cancer cases soar ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24880737 )
This is a type of cancer specifically related to the pollution exposure reported.
The UCS site is an insult to reason. Particularly this entry:
Disproving the Skeptics: 10x More Windpower and Solar is No Problem! ( http://feeds.feedburner.com/TheEquationEnergy )
“That’s the finding of a study previewed today by the grid operator PJM and a consulting team led by General Electric.” yea – I bet.
Thats proven wrong by the epic disaster Germany has become in emissions reductions. Not to mention the huge infrastructure revamp costs they are enjoying.
@ Atomikrabbit,
A very famous rabbit, the energizer rabbit, once said ‘don’t bring a solar knife to a nuclear gun fight’.
So, I would have brought the Plutonium and Caffeine on the spot so as not to leave Nader any choice.
On the Plutonium procurement cycle.
I remember a while ago that Rod presented us with a superb mind who had a ton of Uranium held on his behalf by the NRC. He was a persistent artist.
He also made Plutonium from Americium found in fire alarm detectors. He was a determined human being.
He intended to make sculturs out of Americium but was prevented from doing so by the NRC. So he made Plutonium instead.
John T Tucker
November 9, 2013 at 2:18 PM
The UCS site is an insult to reason. Particularly this entry:
Disproving the Skeptics: 10x More Windpower and Solar is No Problem! (
At what environmental and aesthetic nature/ architectural sacrifice?
Ah yes, Energizer, on my cousin Bugs’ side.
Daniel, you are obviously referring to the interesting blog at: https://atomicinsights.com/making-art-with-radioactive-materials-in-memory-of-jame-acord/
I’m afraid the picogram quantities of caffeine, equivalent to the amount of Pu239 James might have produced by extended neutron exposure of natural U3O8 with a tiny AmBe source, wouldn’t even give Nader a buzz, let alone kill him.
Not that I would endorse that.
Not to mention actual functionality! But you are not allowed to bring up real costs when discussing renew ah-new-ah-new-ables. It makes the magic stop working.
Big Rock Candy Mountain ( http://youtu.be/tYGCpGzFWh0 )
Add – “In the big rock candy mountains wind and solar works fine.”
Really I suppose it is no problem at all if you supplement it with fossil fuels and/or pay people not to turn it on, or even dont hook it up at all. Then even a 100x more is wonderful.
Oops, bad bunny – for the ceramic glazes, I should have said UO3.
The U3O8 is yellowcake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_trioxide#Uranium_oxides_in_ceramics
I thought the Anderson Cooper segment went pretty well, better than most. The point (made by Hansen and Stone) about how nuclear, not renewables, is the threat to the fossil (esp. oil and gas) industry was pure gold. I admire their courage in making the point. Also, how they pointed out that nuclear is faster, not slower, than renewables, as well as not being limited (giving the example of France, and pointing out that there is no simlar renewables achievement).
One thing that could have been better is not calling out Dyrl’s extremely disingenuous statement that what NRDC really wants is a policy that taxes or limits CO2 (and other pollutants) and then lets the market decide how to respond, with emissions reduction options competing on a fair, objective playing field. The truth is almost the opposite. That is the policy that WE (nuclear advocates) have been calling for, and that “environmental” groups like NRDC have been fighting tooth and nail against. What they’ve really been promoting is huge subsidies and outright mandates for renewables only, and nuclear not even being given a chance to compete.
California is a perfect poster child for the policies that they really advocate. CA law *forbids* construction of any new nuclear plants and *requires* that large amounts of renewables be built. Is that really their idea of free and fair competition? If she really means what she says, can we count on NRDC’s support for eliminating all state laws forbidding nuclear plant construction? Can we count on their support for eliminating all state or regional Renewable Portfolio Standards (or, at least, including nuclear in those standards)? In other words, ANY policies that actually allow utilities to freely choose between nuclear and renewables as a method of emissions reduction?
Here’s the real state of the playing field between energy sources. Renewables are given enormous subsidies and (more importantly) outright govt. mandates for their use, regardless of cost or practicality (or even if any new generation capacity is even needed). Fossil fuels are not only allowed to routinely dump massive amounts of pollution into the environment, but they get to do so for free. Meanwhile, there is zero tolerance for any nuclear pollution (even a tiny chance of nuclear pollution) and the industry is required to spend astronomical sums to eliminate even a tiny chance of release. Despite the enormous effort required (of it) to eliminate any pollution or environmental impact, nuclear is then NOT treated like a clean energy source, with respect to govt. policy. No large subsidies, no mandates.
Renewables get massive subsidies, fossil fuels get to massively pollute the environment for free, and nuclear gets neither (i.e., nothing). Despite this, these people have the gall to suggest that it’s the technologies fault, and label nuclear as economically uncompetitive.
Jim,
As I pointed out below, her name is Dale Bryk. I made a mistake by referring to her as Dyrl.
She must be invited to every nuclear debate on the anti side.
Slam dunk. She has no clue.
@ Atomikrabbit,
In the original Plutonium challenge, Cohen is to take the Plutonium and Nader, the caffeine.
So today, Nader still gets caffeine. Schellenberg gets whatever Plutonium was can fabricate.
Nader looks like he has been on a ’70s buzz for a long long time.
Thanks for linking to that. Before my time here and had not noticed it. I didnt know he had died.
BTW : Uranium made delicious rich glazes. As in Fiestaware. We used to fantasize about all the wonderful bright colorants people could use in the past. I didnt know it fired green to black in reduction.
Now you making up arguments since nukes are dying? Its like fantasy football for you sad sacks. Nice honor code once again.
435 reactors operating in 31 countries plus Taiwan. Over 60 power reactors are currently being constructed. 160 reactors are planned and over 320 more are proposed. – WNA
Obvioulsy the lack of complete, coherent sentences is not the only major issue with your post.
Schellenberger really missed the ball by not mentioning the inherent energy inefficiency of the main renewables: wind & solar.
1) Induced cycling inefficiency in the shadowing fossil fuel power plants
2) Necessity of long distance power transmission to get rid of surpluses and import shortages due to the vagaries of wind & solar, waste energy in transmission & the energy of construction & maintenance of the transmission lines
3) Economics of heavily subsidized fluctuating renewables favors low capital cost, low efficiency generation to backup and shadow the Wind & Solar. That is mostly diesel generation, OCGT and archaic low efficiency coal burners. Utilities are now being forced to pay expensive capacity payments to keep these inefficient generators operational.
4) The inevitable overbuild that comes with wind & solar generation. Even renewables advocates admit that. In order to supply peak energy, winter in the north, summer in the south you need to greatly overbuild the renewables. That inevitably means throwing energy away in the fall & spring. Compounded by the fact that hydro is max in the spring, when energy demand is minimum. That is the epitome of energy inefficiency.
5) Need to heat & power wind turbines when they are not generating electricity, especially in the north.
6) The inherent energy inefficiency of energy storage, very much needed by wind & solar. Typically batteries with about a 70% round trip energy efficiency. Pumped hydro about 80-90%. CAES about 65%. Hydrogen about 40%. Add to that the embodied energy in all that additional infrastructure.
Notice how Bas has never denied the allegations that he is a paid shill?
@Fred
That is a good list. Do you mind if I use your comment as the basis for a front page post? If you could provide a short author blurb, it would help. It seems to me from the content that you are more than just an observer; your list includes items that are mainly understood by professionals working in the field of reliable energy supply.
@Atimikrabbit
Thank you 🙂 !
Any idea how I can improve (=make more convincing) my posts?
@Bas
Stop trying to scare people about negative effects that are so tiny that they cannot be detected by anyone except some very focused researchers looking very hard at an immense amount of complex data and determining that they see some kind of pattern.
Here is a thought exercise for you – which do you think is worse, a negative influence that increases everyone’s risk of getting a fatal cancer by 1% or a negative influence that increases pregnant women’s chances of a miscarriage by 50% if it is received during the first 6 months of pregnancy.
Fred,
Interesting!
You assume adaptations that facilitate solar+wind. That is a transitional stage only. Try to think about the situation that the solar+wind+decentralization paradigm change will create (solar+wind cheaper than fossil).
1. Which cycling inefficiency?
The share of big fossil fuel plants will become near zero. The few left will mainly burn waste & biomass (hence the desperate cry of the incumbent utility CEO’s towards Brussels in October).
Here de-central gas burning Combined Heat and Power plants (CHP) will stay a long time. E.g. the CHP’s market gardeners use to feed their crops (flowers, tomatoes, etc) in their large green houses with CO2 and light, and heat the greenhouse. In NL those produce now ~20% of all electricity fed into our grid. Many are managed by an utility (remote management center).
Smaller CHP’s for buildings get a share too.
The first gas burning CHP (central-heating boiler) for homes is introduced. It contains a Stirling engine that produces 1KW electricity. It does that especially in cold winter evenings (then you need lot of heating), when there is no solar and little wind. Yield 140%, normal high yield central-heating boilers have 50GW power-to-gas/fuel by 2020 (I think it may take 5-10 years longer). Other studies assume small installations at home (e.g. converting the over-capacity of your solar panels into car fuel).
5. True, especially with coming low temperature super-conducting wired magnets, but a non issue. It is nothing compared to the volumes those wind turbines produce.
6. Low efficiency of storage is not the issue (storage losses generate little CO2 as the lost electricity is not produced exhausting CO2).
The important issue is cost-price.
Not clear how much storage will affect the cost price of electricity. As said, studies show that grid expansion may be cheaper (allowing for less storage). The German signals that existing pumped storage facilities have a hard time, also indicate little cost price rise because of storage.
Please read my post from the last paragraph of point 1 onwards as below:
The first gas burning CHP (central-heating boiler) for homes is introduced. It contains a Stirling engine that produces 1KW electricity. It does that especially in cold winter evenings (then you need lot of heating), when there is no solar and little wind. Yield 140%, normal high yield central-heating boilers have less than 110%.
2. Agree, the grid must be restructured, especially long distance high capacity power lines so wind production can be transported to places where wind fails at night (cheaper than enhancing storage, according to German study).
But especially Solar (& wind) are most produced at/near consumers site, which imply less transmission. NPP production has to be distributed over an wide area. Worse, it also needs long distance high capacity power lines for the case the NPP’s at one or two sites all fail.
Not clear which structure is cheaper in the end. But it is clear that the renewable structure is far less vulnerable for attackers. Also clear that all will benefit greatly from smart grid with smart metering and demand-side management developments (cheaper).
3. Doubt whether diesel generators, flexible gas turbine generators, etc. get a substantial share. As you state those are not very economic. Nowadays even existing pumped storage finds it difficult to compete. And alternatives are coming up (point 1). With the coming over-capacity of installed wind + solar (5-10 fold), only small gaps are left. Those become even smaller with long distance grid expansion. E.g. when the wind doesn’t blow at the north-Sea, it blows in Spain/Portugal and vice versa.
4. Big over-capacities allow for electricity-to-fuel/gas conversions, lowering CO2!
As whole-sale prices often will be below €20/MWh. Some German scenario studies propose to stimulate installation of more than 50GW power-to-gas/fuel by 2020 (I think it may take 5-10 years longer). Other studies assume small installations at home (e.g. converting the over-capacity of your solar panels into car fuel).
5. True, especially with coming low temperature super-conducting wired magnets, but a non issue. It is nothing compared to the volumes those wind turbines produce.
6. Low efficiency of storage is not the issue (storage losses generate little CO2 as the lost electricity is not produced exhausting CO2).
The important issue is cost-price.
Not clear how much storage will affect the cost price of electricity. As said, studies show that grid expansion may be cheaper (allowing for less storage). The German signals that existing pumped storage facilities have a hard time, also indicate little cost price rise because of storage.
Apparently the (upload) system got a hick when it encountered a smaller than sign (handled a bigger than sign also not well).
howaboutit
November 9, 2013 at 8:39 PM
Now you making up arguments since nukes are dying? Its like fantasy football for you sad sacks. Nice honor code once again.
“Nukes are dying”. I guess stark blind fear would be happy wishing that. Fear wins, civilization loses. Amazing how your side cheers for massive job loss, ravaging of environment and pristine landscapes, and global warming.
That’s because the comments here support HTML, and “<” is the beginning of an HTML tag. If you really need to use it, type ‘<’, which is the HTML entity for the less than sign.
@Rod,
“negative influence that increases pregnant women’s chances of a miscarriage by 50% if it is received during the first 6 months of pregnancy.”
Miscarriage or abortion due to radiation is not studied by the Bavarian study.
Do not know of any study that did it, as that harms far less.
Brian,
Thanks!
Having enough energy to responsibly liberally waste makes life worth living. Ballparks (especially for lighted night games) and bowling alleys and Broadway theaters and live concerts and NASCAR are energy gulping activities not critical for life, as any Sing Sing inmate can tell you, but such are critical for a life worth having. There was a commercial long ago that featured a frumpy looking “Russian” model in a dumpy dress waddling up a showroom runway, on her one trip she’d be twirling a beach ball and the emcee shouted “Swimwear!” then on her next trip she’d be unchanged except twirling an umbrella and the emcee shouts “Rainwear!”… etc. I always think of that commercial whenever I hear people talking about “conservation.”
James Greenidge
Queens NY
LOL I think I remember that!
The immense universe is exploding with energy. It seems piddly to cower in fear and embrace low energy / low technology and unnecessary puritanical conservation. To me it does.
Several times now. Bas has opened my eyes however. I did not really understand how anyone could still embrace the German model.
Jim,
As people risk real harm (not compensated by the NPP), the issue is whether people are prepared to accept that risk for that specific (non-renewable) method of electricity generation.
Apparently even in some US states people do not want that risk. Possible because they think the advantage compared to renewable is not worth the risk.
Liabilities: All old unsafe NPP’s get massive liability subsidies.
While they can deliver an accident that cost citizens & government ~$2trillion (in 12K reactor years, 4 reactors delivered massive amounts of radio-activity to their environment up 1K mile away). They will compensate few % of that damage only.
Similar regarding the limited waste liability the law grants.
These imply roughly a subsidy of ~1billion/a per reactor.
New more safe NPP’s, AP1000, get additional other (investment) subsidies. Which imply they are even more subsidized.
Daniel,
This suggests that you are afraid of a debate between equal informed and verbal persons. Which suggests that reality is not near the nuclear side.
@Sean
I thought it to be a nonsense question.
And when I have to react to all those, I have a full time job doing it.
But to state it clear: Of course I’m not paid at all.
I like the truth and dislike the big risk our old vulnerable NPP in Borssele brings.
Now trying to find an optimal path for the electricity/energy issues in this world.
Think how many lovely and classic homes and buildings aren’t exactly energy sippers. But I’d rather live in an aesthetically pleasing and creative home than be eco-PC living and working in an over-sized thermos bottle.
“Energy – use as much as you need! I planted beaucoup there 10 billion years ago in the nuclei of heavy atoms, awaiting your arrival. You are welcome! (you can make mistakes, just try not to do anything too stupid)” – signed, The Universe
Sure, go ahead. I’m a tech who has worked in the power generation industry, hydro & diesel. Eugene Preston or Willem Post would be good choices to write on these issues.
One additional point on electricity transmission. The substations, transformers, switchgear and transmission lines must be sized to carry peak load, while only carrying an avg ~15% of peak for solar & ~30% of peak for wind. The actual transmission conductors are made of aluminum. A high energy input material. Normally the conductor size & number of conductors is determined by economics, the marginal cost of increasing conductor size or number of parallel conductors to reduce line loss should equal the revenue gained by the increase in available power sold.
With solar & wind you are only transmitting a highly peaked power for an avg of a few hours per day, so it is not economical to reduce line loss to a minimum by adding a lot of aluminum, thus line losses are going to be considerable for long distance transmission. An absurd fantasy to send solar from the SW to match wind from the plains. A ridiculous waste of energy.
On your point #1, the inefficiencies will be maximum if solar & wind replace all fossil fuel generation. You may eliminate cycling inefficiencies in shadowing fossil fuel generation but overbuild, long distance transmission and storage inefficiency will be far greater than that.
Cogeneration is popular in some EU nations, Finland, Denmark, Sweden. Not common in the UK, Norway or Holland. David Mackay, the UK energy expert, argues that large, efficient centralized power generation combined with heat pumps is more efficient and practical than CHP.
CHP has its own inefficiencies, either excess power generation in cold weather or too little heat. Show us a cost on your Stirling engine CHP generator. I looked into CHP for my home, the latest North American supplier gave me this quote:
“.. The cost of the ____ system is $35,000 to $45,000 (us dollars) per unit installed. The component and installation costs vary because of the facility size and other variables associated with the existing plumbing and electrical codes. Also, depending on what region of the country one lives in, labor costs will vary. A certified technician is required to install the system..”
Ridiculous.
Your point #5, brilliant, add a cryogenic cooling system on top of nacelle heating & blade defrosting. Waste even more energy. It may be only a few% of total output but usually energy efficiency is all about shaving a few% wherever you can.
On point #6, low efficiency of storage means more very expensive solar & wind generation will be necessary to supply the same demand. The opportunity cost of adding excessive, expensive wind & solar generation, combined with expensive, inefficient storage means much more cost effective methods of CO2 mitigation will be replaced. You can always more effectively spend those wasted$ on vehicle electrification, nuclear generation, biomass -> liquid fuels, rail transport etc.
A couple links explaining some of the inefficiency that comes with large grid penetration of wind & solar. And the new popularity of diesel generation:
http://stopthesethings.com/2013/08/19/wang-wang-and-funi-to-the-rescue/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2362762/The-dirty-secret-Britains-power-madness-Polluting-diesel-generators-built-secret-foreign-companies-kick-theres-wind-turbines–insane-true-eco-scandals.html
Why do you reject the environmental arguments then?
there are only 2 sides? I didn’t get that memo.
Rod, I might able able to get you a 2 on 2 debate on nationally broadcast radio for several hours. you game?
@howaboutit
Sure. Send details using contact link at the bottom of the page.
@Bas – two questions:
“I like the truth and dislike the big risk our old vulnerable NPP in Borssele brings.”
How would you feel about replacing it with a couple of next-generation plants with inherent (i.e. passive) safety features, especially if they were capable of consuming their own waste?
“But to state it clear: Of course I’m not paid at all.”
Would you mind sharing with us what you do for a living, and what your technical background is?
@Atomikrabbit
1. That would be great!
Alas those do not exist. But sincerely hope fusion development may deliver that.
Regarding fission little chance.
Even improved safety models (EPR, etc) do not satisfy generation 4 safety standards and do not consume their own waste, while ~2x more expensive than renewable. Even LFTR will not consume all its long-lasting radio-active waste.
2. (International) project & bid management and consultancy in the ICT.
Technical university Delft (Electro-technology, Information theory) + University Utrecht (clinical psychology).
_______
@John T Tucker
“Why do you reject the environmental arguments then?”
I do not quite understand your question.
I prefer renewable developments such as in Germany. I admire them for making an implementation plan covering half a century and sticking to it! Never seen such planning covering such a long period.
Especially since that plan will bring a far safer and cheaper solution than nuclear can.
I think I could make a more convincing argument that the materials science and engineering dollar is better spent designing safer modern reactors that can sustain neutron bombardment at high-temperature safely for 40+ years than they would be to build a floating wind turbine in a marine environment for a century.
At least the former has been done before with the PWRs and Magnox. Making ANYTHING float offshore for a long period of time is a significant design challenge and any product of such research will require significant maintenance to keep it from going down like the Andrea Doria.
I also find it disingenuous that you bring up simple Dutch windmills. These things are going to have more in common with semi-submersible oil drilling rigs than anything and will have significant maintenance and safety issues.
We would have to continually service 8MW nameplate-only wind generators with speed boats and helicopters in some of the worst climates imaginable or they sink. Is that honestly worth it?!?
I, for one, would rather burn old tires to keep warm (screw the environment) than have to service one of those things in WMO sea state 5.
@Randy
With offshore wind turbines I mean those on pylons in shallow water (less than 50 meters deep). Not floating ones.
Corrosive resistance improves all the time (‘plastic’ boats now..).
New wind turbines have no gearbox, so less friction and moving parts.
This ends with turbines that have over-designed bearings, etc. So they need only maintenance one in e.g. 5years…
Your reactors create very expensive disasters as Fukushima, etc. show. And the tax-payer / citizen has to pay for the damage they create (e.g. all property within a zone of 50km losing all value). Insurance companies explicitly exclude such damage as they estimate the risk being to much. And the law limit nuclear’s liability to a ridiculous low amount.