Keith and Bill,
Power is the key to everything. With enough power available you could turn ashes into coal in a coal shortage. However, we have enough coal in the US for several thousand years, so that shouldn't be necessary!
Coal is a killer. The "Direct Use of Coal" published in the late 70's estimated (I think) 87,000 people died from the pollution caused by coal. I hope it's less now. Add to that the actual deaths transporting the stuff across country, plus the half million miners who have come down with Black Lung - coal is definitely a killer.
Uranium mining has about the same lethal effects as coal. However, enough electricity for an average person in the US takes about 3 tons of coal, but only 30 - 70kg of uranium ore. Much less mining is required when the fuel is uranium.
At the other end, for the same amount of power, one truckload of uranium waste is equivalent to 35,000 truckloads of coal waste. (The one truckload of uranium is actually carried in 60 trucks because of heavy shielding.)
However, there is more radioactivity in the coal ash than the uranium. No-one checks where it's going - probably under a sub-division. (In any event, it appears that low level radiation may be good for us.) Then, there is all that plant food that coal emits (CO2) but that doesn't matter.
So, it's likely to be either coal or nuclear. Then, there's that Ice Age that's looming. I think we'll go underground and nuclear will be de rigueur. We get our uranium from Canada which will be mostly under ice - perhaps except the coasts. Australia has lots of uranium so we may get our fuel from down under.
Well, that's the future. What about now?
Well, Keith, the "defunct" industry has 441 nuclear power plants worldwide. Another 31 are being built, 29 are on order, or in deep planning. In the US, the first reactor for many years is in the application process, which will take several years. (One of the problems.)
Incidentally, there are 256 research reactors running in 56 countries. Ships have pioneered small reactors - which I think is a portend the future - and there are 200 of them in 150 ships.
Then, there is decommissioning. In the US, the utilities add from 0.1 cents to 0.2 cents per kWh to fund the winding down of the nukes. By 1998, $22.5 billion of the total costs of decommissioning all US nuclear power plants had been collected, leaving another $9.5 billion to be recovered over the operating lives of 104 American reactors.
The original nuclear reactors were designed to operate for 30 years, though some have lasted quite a bit longer. The newer plants are designed for a life of 40-60 years.
I won't go into the methods of decommissioning, but the retiring of 90 commercial power reactors and 250 research reactors (and no doubt a number of naval reactors) have earned an enormous amount of experience for the future. Sooner or later, they'll be building them for easier retirement 60 years in the future.
I've already mentioned the new breed of safe reactors. Told you how I saw the technicians turn off the coolant and sit down to eat their lunch. I bet you didn't believe me.
These new ones are called "passive" reactors, rather than "active" reactors. Passive means that in the event of an emergency, the reactor closes down without human intervention. Active means someone has to do something to close it down. In other words, the new reactors are all fail-safe.
The old generation were all active reactors. The new ones are likely all to be passive. Also, the new ones are likely to be smaller. In genuine futuristic style, I predicted some 20 years ago (not entirely with my tongue out of my cheek) that eventually every apartment house would have a heating and cooling nuke in the basement.
As for alternatives - a newly erected modestly sized California power station is running and producing more power than all the State's 13,000 windmills.
Harry
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keith wrote:
Harry, There's no future in nuclear power. It requires too much for and aft subsidies from government.If it were so efficient (and dependable) then governments and private enterprise would be piling into it. The following is the general situation at the moment: • No new reactor has been built in the US since 1973 • No new reactor has been built in the Germany since 1987 and the industry is now due to be wound down • Sweden, Switzerland and Canada are winding down • New reactors are now seriously doubtful in Russia, Japan, India, Brazil, France, UK and Belgium It *might* take off again in 20 or so years' time if and when developed countries can't cope with very high fossil fuel costs (e.g. from tar sands or deep-mined coal) or haven't yet developed new energy technologies (solar-based), but it's doubtful. Because the existing reactors will then be in mothballs and the true maintenance costs of wastes will be mounting, then a more objective appraisal of nuclear power will be possible. But, so far, the costs of the whole business are obscured by too much special pleading and, often quite false figures. Keith >------------------------------------------------------------- > >Keith, > >When I was involved with nuclear I ran into an interesting comparison in >Chicago. They used coal, oil, and nuclear power plants. The engineer in >charge made the point that of the three nuclear provided the cheapest >power, and also had the least downtime. > >He did point out that had he been able to use local "dirty" coal, ten coal >would have been cheapest. Bringing "clean" coal in from the West pushed >coal power above nuclear. > >Two political problems have dogged nuclear. First, keeping a $5 billion >plant from operating while 2-3 years of court antics take place is no way >to run a business. The plant is already heavily in debt when it finally >starts operating. > >Secondly, if they had been able to drop their spent fuel rods in the ocean >trenches instead of keeping them on site - the present expensive and risky >situation would never have developed. > >Also, the new nukes are apparently efficient and very safe. You didn't >believe they could be run with the coolant off, but I've seen it happen. >They don't even need containment shelters. To me, they seem to be the key. >Environmentalists are perhaps in a state of shock - these horrible things >don't even emit that well-known plant food - CO2. > >Privatization in Britain demonstrated that the conservatives had no firm >philosophy. This included Thatcher, who did some good things but inevitably >began to guess at what to do in the absence of a solid understanding of the >free market. In any event, I suppose had she tried to do something >significant, she would have been stopped. Meantime, the idea of privatizing >monopolies is beyond belief. > >Harry
****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/25/2002
