Monday Jun 24, 2013
- Tuesday Jun 25, 2013 -
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - USA
Data Informed´s Marketing Analytics and Customer Engagement provides marketing, sales, and customer support managers with the information they need to create an effective data-driven customer strategy. more...
Monday May 20, 2013
- Saturday May 25, 2013
- 8:30 AM Eastern -
Stowe, Vermont - USA
Legal Essentials for Utility Executives: May 19 to 25, 2013 and October 6 to 12, 2013 This rigorous, two-week course will provide electric utility executives with the legal foundation to more fully understand the utility regulatory framework, the role of more...
We know you have something to say!
There is an immediate need for articles on
the hot topics in the Power Industry!
EnergyPulse, like no other publication,
also provides a means for our readers to
immediately interact with experts like you.
This note is a preview of the keynote address I want to present at the 2011 international conference of the International Association of Energy Economists (IAEE), which takes place in sunny Stockholm this coming June. This assumes that I will be invited to present a keynote address, or allowed to give any sort of address, or for that matter will be permitted to just wander through the corridors of the magnificent building in which those noble proceedings will take place.
Should exclusion be my fate however, I doubt whether I will complain, because some of this preview has already been published in Concordiam, which is a journal sponsored by the George C. Marshall European Center of Security Studies, that in some ways might be described as an organization dedicated to keeping the spirit of the Cold War alive. Therefore, if any pique emerges because I elect to make my thoughts available to a wider audience, and I return to the United States in the near future, it might be arranged for me to give a charismatic lecture to a distinguished seminar at the Guantanamo Detainment Center.
I fear that even with permission from the conference bosses to take part in the Stockholm gig, it is not certain that I will receive the exposure and ovation I desire and almost certainly deserve. For example, I intend to insist that in the medium to long run, nuclear is the optimal source of base-load electric power because it is the most reliable and, surprisingly, the most flexible. I will also make a few choice remarks about the curse known as the deregulation of electricity, because the gentleman who is masterminding this conference and at least one of the sponsors are in various ways responsible for the ruinous electric prices now being experienced in Sweden.
The Basic Argument
In talks that I presented at the University of Siena (Italy) and the University of Paris, I took the liberty of explaining why a peaking of the world oil supply was certain, and conceivably sooner rather than later. In the course of those expositions I also made clear that when the price of oil could touch one hundred and forty-seven dollars a barrel (= $147/b) in 2008, and experts claim that a price in excess of $100/b is possible in the near future, it seems appropriate to keep in mind that even if a peak never takes place, a flattening of the global oil output curve will have an unpleasant psychological as well as economical significance, and the resulting macroeconomic stresses in all except a few very lucky countries could mean output and employment dislocations at least as great as those following the oil price upsurge of 2008.
The question now becomes what does this have to do with nuclear energy, and the short answer is everything. In both a real and abstract sense oil is a benchmark for the world energy economy, and so rational world immediate and perhaps dramatic steps would be taken to reduce the vulnerability of industrial countries to periodic sustained increases in the price of oil. The claim here is that additional nuclear is the most economical source of the extra energy needed to provide a supplement to the non-nuclear energy diversity on which the future prosperity of industrial countries must be built,
Diversity is a controversial concept, because it can mean radically different things to different individuals. In a brilliant and easily read article, Richard Rhodes and Denis Beller (2000) say the following: "Because diversity and redundancy are important for safety and security, renewable energy sources ought to retain a place in the energy economy of the century to come". By itself, this statement is enough to warm the heart of every environmentalist between Stockholm and the Capetown Navy Yard.
But they continue by insisting that ".nuclear power should be central. Nuclear power is environmentally safe, practical and affordable. It is not the problem -- it is one of the solutions."
One of the solutions! I wonder what Mr Axelsson, the director of the Swedish Naturvårdverket (which in the lingo of George Orwell resembles an indoor welfare scheme) will have to say about that assertion if he pays a visit to the lecture room in which I am giving my keynote song and dance. (Note: Naturvårdverket = Environmental Protection Agency.)
Axelsson once published an article in a Stockholm morning paper which included some mathematics that would have been graded unsatisfactory in a first-year remedial class at Boston Public. He was attempting to show the economic advantages of liquidating the Swedish nuclear sector and replacing it with wind turbines, although he must know that the cost of electricity, which in Sweden is determined by nuclear and hydro, has been among the lowest in the world, while the cost (and price) of power in Denmark -- perhaps the promised land of wind energy -- is among the highest. What he might or might not know is that while Swedish managers and engineers are sometimes capable of singing the praises of wind and solar in public, in private they have roughly the same opinion of them as I do: a certain amount of these items may be justified, but only as appendages to a more reliable source of power.
The attempt to introduce wind and solar on a large scale in many countries or regions of countries hardly deserves to be called insane. As things are fortunately turning out, the anti-nuclear booster club is unexpectedly loosing its authority in one of its most important strongholds, by which I mean Holland. That one-time standard bearer of libertarianism and political correctness now has a government which ridicules the subsidies required to keep windmills turning, and proposes to address the nuclear option.
Moreover, since the capacity factor for wind in Sweden is at most 25 percent, an expensive backup for wind will have to be made available. Fortunately, none is available, planned for, discussed formally in learned seminars or informally in discourse that can be sweetened by Abba-like music, and so I feel comfortable in stating that any calculation in Sweden showing wind as having any sort of a cost advantage over nuclear will eventually be characterized as preposterous.
A Final Comment
In a long and complicated article in the Energy Journal (2006), 5 important energy researchers present an argument for nuclear power as a hedge against uncertain fossil fuel and carbon prices. That article also contains some helpful information about the cost of nuclear power during the years 2005-2006, or perhaps slightly before. Some unexpected increases may have taken place since that time, where I am thinking in particular of ex-ante and large ex-post costs associated with the European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) that is being constructed in Finland, and which in terms of capacity (= 1600 megawatts) is the largest reactor in the world.
The trouble in Finland is really quite simple. It is a 'one-of-a-kind' -- or 'custom built' -- reactor. In a decade or so reactors of that size, and larger, will almost certainly be standardized, largely put together (i.e. assembled) in factories, and should cost much less. The final cost of the present reactor might come to 8 billion dollars (mostly resulting from the construction/installation time being 8 years), and as I was informed recently, the firm in charge of delivery/installation -- Areva, of France -- will have to "eat" 3 billion of that amount. There might also be some cultural problems due to the project's multinational 'general staff'.
Madame Lauvergeon, the director of Areva, is clearly not pleased with these developments, but although she has not commented in detail on any contretemps that may have surfaced during the Finnish venture, she has expressed some apprehension about the reported ability of Chinese firms to put a 1000 megawatt reactor in operation from 'ground break' to 'grid power' in less than 5 years (and its 'life' would be 60 years -- or in my opinion more). According to estimates in my new energy economics textbook (2011), the 'overnight cost' of these reactors could be as low as 1500 dollars per kilowatt. If true this means that the 'workshop of the world' has found still another niche which can help the Chinese government to realize its goal of directing the most competitive economy in the world.
Something of particular interest to me in the Energy Journal article mentioned above was the following statement. "The Finnish experience shows that if well-informed electricity-intensive end users with long time horizons are willing to sign long-term contracts, then nuclear new build can be a realistic option in liberalized markets". This is almost -- but not quite completely -- correct, and as a result I have exchanged opinions with one of the authors of that article, politely explaining to him in scholarly language that "liberalized" (i.e. restructured) electric markets are 'offbeat' or 'goofy' or 'wacko' or 'off-the-wall' and without a foundation in conventional (or non-voodoo) economic logic.
What I did not make clear to that gentleman was that his ride on the electric deregulation gravy train is essentially over as a result of skyrocketing electric prices virtually everywhere. Moreover, as energy economics researchers might eventually find out, when electric generating facilities of 1600 MW capacities, or larger, become a rule rather than an exception, the kind of electricity prices that a Swedish blogger in the important forum Seeking Alpha called ruinous will finally be removed by economic logic from the clutches of people whose mentality is similar to those ladies and gentlemen that former governor of California Gray Davis called "out of the state criminals".
References
(2011). Banks, Ferdinand E. Energy and Economic Theory. London and Singapore: World Scientific.
(2009). 'Some Energy Myths for the 21th Century'. (Conference paper). Roques, Fabien and William J Nuttall, David Newbery, Richard de Neufville, Stephen Connors
(2006). 'Nuclear power: a hedge against uncertain gas and carbon prices. The Energy Journal (No. 4).
For information on purchasing reprints of this article, contact sales. Copyright 2013 CyberTech, Inc.
Gotta say it, today's a great opportunity to invest in uranium producers. You'll double your money in a couple of years.
Malcolm Rawlingson 4.18.11
Len, Well of course I agree with you completely. While observing those investors that have been running for the exits and dumping their shares at giveaway prices I have taken the opportunity to obtain said shares. The bottom line is that there is about to be a very large demand supply gap due to the cessation of the arms agreement that currently makes up about 25% of U3O8 supply right now. That agreement ends just 2 years from now in 2013. It is unlikely that mine production can be ramped up that fast so there is going to be a mismatch. That shortfall is without the 60 or so reactors currently under construction which have a much higher initial demand for Uranium than operating reactors.
Cameco is trading for about $27 and it is sitting on the worlds highest grade (read lowest cost to extract) uranium ore deposits. It was trading for $42 before Fukushima. Demand for Uranium has not radically changed and almost all of the worlds rectors are operating the same as they were before Fukushima. Did demand change - (Answer is no)_ Did supply change (Answer is no). The price of Uranium is therefore unucually low and that is a buying opportunity if ever I saw one. Malcolm
Malcolm Rawlingson 4.18.11
Regarding Fred's summing up of the nuclear option - the arguments are irrefutable. While it is a nice dream to believe the world can be powered entirely by windmills the simple fact is that to replace any but a small percentage of large base load power plants will require windmills in the millions to be built. The arithmetic is simple. Average size of a wind generator is 2MW @ 25% Capacity Factor. Average size of a nuclear plant is 1000MW at 85% Capacity Factor. For every 1000MW nuclear plant you need 500 windmills but not when the capacity factor is considered. It is the Megawatt-Hours that are important - not the Megawatts. So comparing Megawatt hours for wind generators with Megawatt hours for nuclear plants we get
1000 x 0.85 x 365 x 24/2 x .25 x 365 x 24 = 850/.5 =1700
So for a 30,000 MW grid system you will need 30 x 1700 = 51000 wind mills.
Of course when there is little wind don't expect the lights to be on and you will need a bank loan to pay your bill each month.
There is also the slight problem of shortage of Neodymium. Almost all of it comes from China and they want it for themselves and have recently curtailed supplies of it to other countries. To make lightweight generation sets required to sit atop a 150 foot tower Neodymium is essential. Without it the generators need much more substantial structures to support them. Each 2MW unit has magnets that weigh about a ton (admittedly they are not pure Nd but still there is a lot of Nd in them).
So where exactly are we going to get 51000 tons of Nd? The only place is China at the moment and they don't want to give it up.
Sad to say the whole idea of large scale wind generators makes no sense. It seems as though the good people of Holland - who ought to know a bit about windmills - are starting to see the light.
Whether you like it or not the future of large scale electricity production is nuclear because nothing else is practical. Natural gas comes a close second but since most of Europe's gas supplies come from Russia I don't see that as a very good platform to build an economy on.
The French have it right. Nuclear + hydroelectric. No windmills all over the French countryside.
And for one last bit of irony I just could not resist. We hear that Angela Merkel has shut down all of Germany's old nuclear plants. What she did not tell the world is that the shortfall is not being made up by windmills or solar or hydroelectric but nuclear - from those power plants the astute Frenchmen and women installed just across the border from Germany. The French of course are making the Germans pay through the nose for their nuclear power. But Germany is still running on nuclear power - just made in France that's all. Gotta love those French folks. Brilliant stroke of genius. EdF is laughing all the way to the bank.
Malcolm
Ferdinand E. Banks 4.19.11
Malcolm
This business you mentioned in your last paragraph above is EXACTLY what I said about ten years ago in a publication of the International Association for Energy Economics. EXACTLY. But make no mistake, Ms Merkel is no dummy when it comes to science. She knows - as you and I know - that the energy future is nuclear, but she wants to keep her job, and that means pretending that wind can replace uranium.
I'm going through my new energy economics book now, but instead of adding to the chapter on nuclear, I am subtracting. What's the point in trying to get the calculus right when people can't add and subtract?.
Pete Ulvog 4.19.11
If you want some real power, you have to build a real power plant!
Malcolm Rawlingson 4.19.11
Yes Angela Merkel is a very smart lady Fred. She has made it appear that she is pro-wind and concerned about nuclear plant safety (she is neither) and all the while running the German economy on neutrons from France. I have some admiration for her even though she is a politician.
I agree people seem unable to do even the simplest arithmetic when it comes to producing electricity. But what can you expect when most people think the stuff comes out of the wall and have never been inside a power plant to see how it is actually made. Even so-called intellectual members of our society have difficulty understanding the concept that when the wind does not blow there is no electricity being produced and if you shutdown coal, nuclear and gas plants the lights actually will go out... for a long time. The much loved video box we call a TV will be a flat panel box of blackness.
And Pete I really DO like that statement - it sums it all up very nicely.
Malcolm
Warren Reynolds 4.19.11
As per usual Malcom and Ferdinand have their heads in the sand !
Read my up coming 2- part "white paper" in this energypulse.net series entitled: "Nuclear Power is Dead Pts I and II." Due to the horrible Fukushima nuclear accidents, worldwide nuclear power will never recover. Denmark gets 35% of its electric needs from wind mills. In order to "smooth out" the variability in wind mill power output, the Danes are building huge electrolysis-to-hydrogen-to fuel-cell system called "hydrogen valley".
In the U.S., nuclear power sells for $0.15/kwhr while wind power sells for $0.05/kwhr.
Go read my 2 part article with 18 references coming up shortly.
Dr. Warren Reynolds, CEO Eco-Engineers Corporation
daniel cretu 4.19.11
Thank you for your article Proffesor Banks.
As I live in California I suffer all the time that nuclear generation is not considered in the U.S. It is a shame that California has a Moratorium that does not allow to build any nuclear generation until a national nuclear waste management site is in place. It is also a shame that a new 1000 MW nuclear generating facility had been forced to close (by environmentalists???) before the start-up (Rancho Seco - I live four miles from the plant). It is also a shame that nobody around me (including my wife) want to listen and to hear the advantages of nuclear that you described so well in this article. I lost hope until I read your article. I am afraid that even if all the other nations embrace nuclear generation like Chinese people did, it might be too late to save the Earth.
Again, thank you for the article.
Peter Boisen 4.19.11
I have over several years followed the Energy Pulse discussion, a few times even added some comments. Now I am fed up.by the cavalier approach from Ferdinand and other nuclear power supporters. Harrisburg, Chernobyl and Fukushima means nothing to you. Well, think what you like, but I do not want to leave a bill to be paid by future generations of mankind. Your joking dismissal of wind power and solar power does not make me smile. Should wind power not be an option due to concentration of Neodymium resources in China? What about the global distribution of Uranium resources?
Wind power already provides more than 20% of the total electric energy supply in many countries (in Spain 21% to be compared with 19% nuclear power). But, wind power is new in comparison to nuclear power. There is no reason to believe that Spain will not be able to double or threble the wind power output. Spain is also a sunny country with plenty of opportunities for solar power expansion. Arguments about daily variations of wind and solar power are weak. It is e.g. no big deal to use temporary surplus production to pump water, and then, on demand, produce hydroelectric power.
And your arguments about electricity costs? Frankly, I do not care. In the choice between sensible energy options, decision makers will, of course, prefer the options which are more cost efficient, but some options (like nuclear fission power) should not even be considered.
Electric power needs can be met via fully sustainable resources, the real challenge is to provide sustainable fuels for aircraft, ships, and road vehicles used for longer distance transportation, also to supply sustainable organic feedstock for the chemical industry. The best option right now is to focus on the use of methane - today all kinds of natural gas production, but in the longer term with an increasing share of renewable biomethane produced from all kinds of organic waste, from grass or crops grown on set-aside-land, or from organic matter harvested from oceans, lakes and rivers.
Aircrafts may need jet-fuel produced (with an efficiency penalty) from methane, but ships and road vehicles can use methane either in the form of compressed or liquefied methane gas.
To give you an idea about the biomethane potentials - please look at http://www.serigasinternational.com/pilot-plant-video.html
Renewable is a key word when it comes to energy supply. I disagree with the present practise of using renewable biomass resources for the generation of heat and power. The resources should instead be used to provide an alternative to fossil fuels.
bill payne 4.19.11
Bright and dark side of CSP, Photovoltaic, and wind generated electricity.
There are many lessons to learn from Fukushima. First, it is a terrible accident, but is has its positive sides too. What did the seismic event teach us? Well the most important passive safety structure, the containment building, survivied the level 9.0 earthquake. The most important active safety system , the emergency diesel generators also survived the earthquake, for about one hour, until their fuel supply was knocked out by the tsunami. How many of us would have thought that any safety equipment could have survived a level 9.0 earthquake? Yet some people are now running around worried about seismic events at nuclear plants, just after the most severe seismic test led to positive results. As to tsunami's, they don't happen in Nebraska. How many U.S. nuclear plants are vulnerable to tsunamis? What about other events that could lead to a total station blackout, such as what occurred at Fukushima? Well following the 9/11 terrorist attack on the United states the NRC required additional precautions taken at every nuclear plant and one of the most important improvements was the additonal capability to cope with station blackout circumstances. What about possible health effects from exposure to radiation? Among the general public zero early fatalities or early injuries due to radiation are expected. These potential health effects are very short ranged, less than two miles, and the public was evacuated far beyond two miles.
What about long term health effects fro exposure to radiation? Based on multigenrational studies of genetic effects of the children and grandchildren of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors, there are no discernable genetic health effects. What about latent cancer fatalities? Periodic studies by the WHO and Unsclear have not detected any increase in leukemia, the first type of cancer that would show up following excessive exposure to radiation, among people exposed to the effects of the Chernobyl accident. Health physics models predict that eventually there might be several thousand extra latent cancer fatalities due to Chernobyl, far less than the number predicted shortly after the accident. Compared to normal, non-Chernobyl, causes of cancer fatalities this health physics model projection, even if true, would be too small to detect statistically.
What about loss of offsite property due to long term contamination due to Cesium-137? It appears that the Fukushima accident was released about a third as much cesium as Chernobyl and much of that has been blown out to sea. The expected contaminated area would be far less than Chernobyl's.
What about Germany releasing more GHG by shutting down some of its nuclear capability and replacing it with coal? Here is one way to look at acions like that: manhattan, NY is mostly at sea level.
Don Hirschberg 4.19.11
When I saw that Warren Reynolds posted a comment I recalled reading him before and my defenses were alerted. (He is now touting using electricity from Danish wind mills to make hydrogen by electrolysis. The energy problem is therefore solved.)
He wrote that 35% of Danish electricity comes from wind turbines (bad smell) so I decided to look around the internet for some facts. While I don’t have current figures it seems that about 19% of the electricity generated IN Denmark is by wind.
But the Danes buy much electricity from their neighbors as they use much more than they generate. So the amount of wind energy they use is perhaps less than 10% of the total, a far cry from Reynolds’s 35% claim.
And from 2004(?) to 2009 not a single new turbine was installed according to an article telling about the cessation of government subsidies. He further states.” In the U.S., nuclear power sells for $0.15/kwhr while wind power sells for $0.05/kwhr.” Others might want to comment on this statement.
Len Gould 4.20.11
"Periodic studies by the WHO and Unsclear have not detected any increase in leukemia, the first type of cancer that would show up following excessive exposure to radiation, among people exposed to the effects of the Chernobyl accident. " -- So once again, where are the anit-nuclear activists who can read?
I personally support using solar over nuclear (or more especially over fossil fueled generation) any time that solar makes sense, and also support subsidizing its development until perhaps 2 to 8 GW are operational. As far as wind goes, IMHO that's not very far. It's peak output is typically at times when no-one wants power, and all presently feasible storage schemes are simply costly lipstick on a pig.
Len Gould 4.20.11
” In the U.S., nuclear power sells for $0.15/kwhr while wind power sells for $0.05/kwhr.” -- Unfortunately liars can type too.
Ferdinand E. Banks 4.20.11
Well, we seem to be getting some action here. Let me say a thing or two, beginning with my assurance to all parties that nuclear's future is a bright today as it ever was, and it will be brighter next year if the oil price keeps rising.
The nuclear business at Fukushima was nothing compared to what happened in Japan during the war, and yet when the surrender was announced there were plenty of Japanese who thought that Japan still had a chance. The same was true for Germany, and when I think of those situations I think of the biggest lie associated with nulcear, which is that doing away with it will not affect lives negatively, and that definitely means health - though perhaps that is too sophisticated for people like Mr Reynolds.
I don't know much about solar, nor do I try to find out anything, but I do know a few things about wind. The dumbest man in Denmark, who is probably Mr Fogh Rasmussen, the chairman of NATO, probably understands that if wind was what various people think that it is, it would provide more than 20 percent of Denmark's power. Why stop with 20%? As it is Denmark probably has the highest electricity price in west Europe, and it would be much higher if they could not hook into the networks of surrounding countries.
And Peter Boisen, I dont see how you can lump Harrisburg with Chernobyl and Fukushima. The reactor at Chernobyl would hardly have been allowed outside of Russia, and the real tragedy of Fukushima is that after the tsunami in Thailand, they did not move it away from the ocean. Instead the Japanese government waste's money on........
Peter Platell 4.20.11
I never stop to get amazed about how many people that is believing in large centralised energy system that is relying on finite resources that is not easy available. Rather than harness FREE Energy , FREE as in FREE market forces people feel confident with TOO BIG TO FAIL busines. I am know that Ferdinand advocate plan economic WIthout plan economic no single kWh electricty had been commercially generated in a nuclear power plant. Nuclear power can never trive in free market environment. Sooner or later carbon capture where the CO2 is used as a feed stock for producing liqued fuel where renewable ( Mainly solar power) will run the process will win. Then those countries that listen to accounters as Ferdninand will sit with a lot of TOO BIG TO FAIL business that has to be supported with tax money AGAIN
Joseph Somsel 4.20.11
My first professional impressions of Fukushima, subject to further research, is that the weakness was placing the emergency diesel fuel oil tanks on the ocean side of the plant. The reactors were doing better than design from the shaking and the loss of offsite power but the troubles began when the rising water cutoff the fuel supply to the diesels.
The batteries worked as designed but only over their 8 hours of charge. Once they were out of juice, the degradation of the cores began.
In the US, the first political reprecussion was that immediate nuclear loan guarantees became unthinkable. Hence, the nuclear project I've been working on for five years has been written off financially by its principal owner. One can of course ask whether the Obama Administration ever had intentions of issuing another loan guarantee but after Fukushima, their hand was strengthened.
I do think that the natural gas industry in the US has been very effective in promoting the notion that gas will be plentiful and cheap within the US for many years to come. Personally, I think this is overstating their long term case as fracking tight formations is rather expensive and the well life is short.
We have a full plate of improvements for operating plants to be considered based on the lessons of Fukushima. One problem with working as a nuclear engineer is there are so few major failures to learn from.
Warren Reynolds 4.20.11
Peter, Right On ! I agree !
Joseph, get out of nuclear power while you can. Re-train in solar energy. As an ex-nuclear research engineer for GE for 10 years at their Vallecitos Nuclear Research Center in know nuclear's "dirty secrets"
See my upcoming energypulse article "Nuclear Power is Dead Pts. I & II" in 2-3 weeks.
Dr. Warren Reynolds, CEO Eco-Engineers Corp.
Don Hirschberg 4.20.11
Warren Reynolds, perhaps you can help me. When I search for Eco-Engineers Corp. I get lots of hits but none seems to fit. My primary hit is to “Linkin” which tells me to “Join Linkin to view Dr. Warren’s full profile … it’s free” and presents me with a form. Odd, I hadn’t mentioned your name in the search. A sidebar at the site wants me to “establish my professional profile with Linkin.” Seems my professional fame extends to Linkin even without having logging in as I had been instructed to do.
If memory serves you recently told all who would listen that all we had to do was develop the non-conventional oil in the western states to solve the energy problem. Oops, only months later we learn it is it is hydrogen from the electrolysis of water from electricity produced from wind mills that will solve the energy problem. Great, we have a surplus of solutions. And how is your campaign to be mayor of Los Angeles working out?
Ferdinand E. Banks 4.22.11
Thanks Joseph for your observation. It goes without saying though that the anti-nuclear booster club is not interested in improvements. They showed that when they managed to make it illegal to work on nulcear in Sweden, and in one sense or another managed to keep nuclear scientists and engineers from talking about it - at least until the cognac had gone around the table a couple of times..
Needless to say, in the long run Fukushima will have about as much influence on nuclear development as the landing of Cortez and his crew in Mexico had on the present street scene in Acapulco. There are many things that are going to be crucial in the energy future, but as far as I can tell nuclear come first.
Of course I could be wrong on this, but it will take more than the efforts of our anti nuclear booster-club colleagues on this site to convince me. All the economics evidence is on the side of nuclear progress, and nuclear success in the long run, but the same was true of the US in WW2, according to the people I talked to in Japan and Germany. but it didn't mean beans where shortening the war was concerned.
Peter Platell 4.24.11
Ferdinand , you say anti nuclear club is not interesting in improvments. We have had this discussion before when I claim that there is a huge potential to improve renewable energy technology. When it comes to renewable your are not particular keen to admitt that there are potential for improvemnents. When I tried to discuss Exergy and other thermodynamic stuff, you are not interesting in listening. It is amazing that you can consider this commonplaced economic analysis is a strong tool to predict future technology. There will be crazy inventors and bold entrepreneurs that again push new disruptive technology into the market and then there will be a new generation economics compiling figures and claiming that a certain technology is the best choice.
Don Hirschberg 4.24.11
Peter wrote: “There will be crazy inventors and bold entrepreneurs that again push new disruptive technology into the market and then there will be a new generation economics compiling figures and claiming that a certain technology is the best choice.”
As I see it “crazy inventors and bold entrepreneurs” have not produced any economic energy. In fact all the scientists and inventors over the course of history have produced, as I see it, only two sources of energy, fission and solar voltaic, and only one of these is economic so far. All the alternative energy we get today is swamped merely by the annual increase in population. Every year since we started on this renewable energy business we have found ourselves in a deeper hole. We were in much better shape at the time of the Kyoto Protocol than today.
I do not understand the mindset that because we got to enjoy a one-shot deal with fossil fuels for a few hundred years during which we grew the population like a rampant cancer to unsustainable level that there must be another in the offing – seems we just haven’t looked hard enough? We haven’t found any unicorns either.
Well, if Peter and Fred Linn are Swedes, which is possible, then they can come to the conference on electric deregulation at Södertorn University (Högskol) in June, where I am going to give anybody who disagrees with me a lesson that they will never forget. You can however bring nuclear into the picture, and I will deal with that too.
Everywhere I look these days I see and hear crazy things, but I am not worried about nuclear. As long as voters prefer more money to less there will be a place for nuclear energy.
George Fleming 4.26.11
I see that you nuclear fanatics are still at it. Here are some words from Hyman Rickover. I presume you know who he is. I quote from the article by Karl Grossman at
http://www.counterpunch.org/grossman04252011.html
...With the ongoing disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plants in Japan, some people ask: can nuclear power be made safe? The answer is no. Nuclear power can never be made safe.
This was clearly explained by Admiral Hyman Rickover, the “father” of the U.S. nuclear navy and in charge of construction of the first nuclear power plant in the nation, Shippingport in Pennsylvania. Before a committee of Congress, as he retired from the navy in 1982, Rickover warned of the inherent lethality of nuclear power—and urged that “we outlaw nuclear reactors.”
The basic problem: radioactivity.
“I’ll be philosophical,” testified Rickover. “Until about two billion years ago, it was impossible to have any life on Earth; that is, there was so much radiation on earth you couldn’t have any life—fish or anything.” This was from naturally-occurring cosmic radiation when the Earth was in the process of formation. “Gradually,” said Rickover, “about two billion years ago, the amount of radiation on this planet…reduced and made it possible for some form of life to begin.”
“Now, when we go back to using nuclear power, we are creating something which nature tried to destroy to make life possible,” he said. “Every time you produce radiation” a “horrible force” is unleashed. By splitting the atom, people are recreating the poisons that precluded life from existing. “And I think there the human race is going to wreck itself,” Rickover stated.
This was Rickover, a key figure in nuclear power history, not Greenpeace...
Ferdinand E. Banks 4.26.11
No, George, I am not a nuclear fanatic. I am a fanatic on the subject of electric deregulation. As for Rickover, I couldn't care beans about what he thinks. A few days ago Candy Crowly interviewd John McCain and Joe Lieberman on CNN, and I never heard such ignorance and stupidity as what they sprouted. That was when it was clear to me once again that men (and women) will say or write anything if it helps them to get a leg up - and maybe a leg over.
Speaking of Rickover and his wisdom, there is a reactor in every US sub these days I guess, and I have not heard of any of them melting down, although it is possible. It is possible because people like you and a few others above might find yourself in the crew. Take the Fukushima incident: after the tsunami in Thailand that complex should have been moved, and please dont say that they couldn't afford it.
You've come to the wrong site to sing the blues about nuclear. There are some smart people in this forum, and I happen to be one of them.
Len Gould 4.26.11
"By splitting the atom, people are recreating the poisons that precluded life from existing." -- That Rickover quote smells a bit. Would a knowledgeable nuclear scientist equate radioactive nucleides with cosmic rays? Clearly, if we damage our atmosphere or magnetosphere to the point where lethal hard cosmic / solar radiation gets to us, we could recreate conditions "that precluded life from existing." {on earth}, but also clearly that does NOT describe either Chernobyl or Fukishima.
Ferdinand E. Banks 4.26.11
The idea of outlawing reactors couldn't possibly have come from Rickover if he was sober, unless of course his brain had ceased to function. He was, as you might know Mr Fleming, one of the most controversial officers in the history of the US Navy, and he must have served for about 60 years. He was very definitely a victim of anti-semitism for a long time, and had he not been a nuclear fanatic when the Navy needed a nuclear fanatic who was also a gifted engineer, he would have been bounced out of the service long before he finally retired
The thing of interest to me is that the dumbest president in the history of the US, Ronald Reagan, was the man who put the skids under Rickover. Now that is something that will unbalance a guy, and start him talking about poisons. I perhaps should mention again for the 1000th time that the highest energy bureaucrat in Sweden has a PhD in physics, and is against nuclear. That doesn't bother me, because I suspect that the most attractive ladies in his inner circle are also members of the anti-nuclear booster club.
George Fleming 5.2.11
''Onkalo (Finnish for “hiding place”) is under construction: it’s a cavernous world of tunnels and corridors, a permanent storage facility for nuclear waste, meant to last 100,000 years. (That’s 20 times as long as the pyramids have so far.) Conceptual artist Michael Madsen’s film is a creepy, eerily elegant meditation on human folly, punctuated by philosophical and historical references, that asks: how do you keep 3,000 future generations from inadvertently opening this Pandora’s Box? Should markers be posted in every language or in hieroglyphics that say “keep out”? (Someone suggests Edvard Munch’s “The Scream” might work nicely.) Would it be better not to post any notice and hope no one will chance upon it? And what about the Ice Age predicted to occur in a mere 60,000 years? Will the weight of the ice impact the structural integrity of Onkalo? If you thought the BP oil spill was scary…''
http://internationalfilmcircuit.com/eternity/
Richard Vesel 5.3.11
Regarding Rickover's so-called testimony - I suggest that people commenting within these articles, besides learning to "do the math", should also learn how to research and verify their assertions, before merely passing on third-party drivel as "fact"...
Rickover decried the use of nuclear energy as a WEAPON, not as a technology for peaceful constructive purposes - see below: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2010/11/admiral-rickovers-final-testimony-to.html
On Jan 28,1982, immediately after being fired at the age of 82, by a vengeful SecNav, with the concurrence of several other officers and officials with a variety of motivations, Rickover was called to present his views on "Economics of Defense Policy" before the Joint Economic Committee. Actually, only President Reagan could fire him, because he was an official in the AEC, "with additional duties in the Navy."
His testimony is published in a 205-page congressional report (and that's just "Part 1" of six.). In all those small-print, single-spaced pages, there are only a few sentences, on pages 60 and 61, mentioning abandoning nuclear technology. The subject of the testimony is economics, and this is the Joint Economic Committee. In the first paragraph headed "Nuclear Reactor Safety," Senator Proxmire opens with the question:
"In view of the experience with Three Mile Island and the other accidents and mishaps, do you believe that civilian nuclear reactors can be operated safely?"
To which Rickover answers "Absolutely, sir."
On page 60, under "Need for Nuclear Energy," Rickover says, "Ultimately, we will need nuclear power because we are exhausting our non-renewable energy resources; that is, coal and oil." Then he diverts to the subject of radiation and the need to control it. And then, "There are, of course, many other things mankind is doing which, in the broadest sense, are having an adverse impact, such as using up scarce resources. I think the human race is ultimately going to wreck itself. It is important that we control these forces and try to eliminate them."
Note that this talk of restricting use of resources is generic; no mention of nuclear yet. And then, in the next sentence, Rickover says: "In this broad, philosophical sense, I do not believe that nuclear power is worth the present benefits, since it creates radiation. You might ask, why do I design nuclear-powered ships? Because it is a necessary evil. I would sink them all."
Then, further down the page, he says, "From a long-range standpoint--I am talking about humanity--the most important thing we could do at present is to have an international meeting where first we outlaw nuclear weapons. Eventually, we could outlaw reactors too" He said 'could,' not 'should' or 'must.'
And that's it. Only those brief sentences, in a very philosophical vein. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Hyman_G._Rickover
(Rickover,) As quoted by President Jimmy Carter:
James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, Jr. served as the 39th President of the United States from 1977 to 1981 and was the recipient of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, the only U.S. President to have received the Prize after leaving office...during his 1984 interview with Diane Sawyer:
"One of the most remarkable things that he ever told me was when we were together on the submarine and he said that he wished that a nuclear explosive had never been evolved. And then he said, 'I wish that nuclear power had never been discovered.' And I said, 'Admiral, this is your life.' He said, 'I would forego all the accomplishments of my life, and I would be willing to forego all the advantages of nuclear power to propel ships, for medical research and for every other purpose of generating electric power, if we could have avoided the evolution of atomic explosives.'" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover
Following his formal education in the U.S. as described above and the birth of his son, Robert,[36] Admiral Rickover developed a decades-long and outspoken interest in the educational standards of the United States, stating in 1957:
"I suggest that this is a good time to think soberly about our responsibilities to our descendants - those who will ring out the Fossil Fuel Age. Our greatest responsibility, as parents and as citizens, is to give America's youngsters the best possible education. We need the best teachers and enough of them to prepare our young people for a future immeasurably more complex than the present, and calling for ever larger numbers of competent and highly trained men and women." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amen...
