Using fission for 1/3 global electric would require a new Yucca Mtn every 2 years

[kristopher]

That is a new Yucca Mtn sized storage facility every two years if we meet 1/3 of global electric demand, not total energy use.
Fission fantasizers will argue that we can use other technologies that don't produce as much waste, but when you examine those arguments in detail you find they exacerbate other problem areas of safety, proliferation, and costs and therefore even less desirable than the once through uranium fuel cycle.

No matter what we do, however, we have a lot of existing waste that we have to deal with. This Guardian article is a good look at the problem.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/apr/24/nuclear-waste-storage
Nuclear waste: Keep out – for 100,000 years
Few architects have to design anything to last more than 100 years, so how do you build a nuclear waste facility to last for millennia? And what sign do you put on the door?


It is also important to note that GHG emissions of nuclear are not expected to remain low if we ramp up nuclear. In fact, as high quality ore is consumed, the levels associated with the full fuel cycle for nuclear would rise to the level of natural gas.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x284583

[pansypoo53219]

1. WHY

can't they use HOT fuel til it's cold? why are they storing HOT fuel? seems a waste.

[kristopher]

2. Because...

...fission is, by its nature, a very pricey and dangerous Rube Goldberg machine?

http://www.rubegoldberg.com

[kristopher]

3. Nuclear environmentalist Rep. Shimkus wants Yucca Mtn restarted

Spring break at Yucca
A congressional junket shows the foolishness of plans for nuke waste dump

Wednesday, April 27, 2011 | 2:01 a.m.

As part of his “investigation” into President Barack Obama’s decision to shut down the Yucca Mountain project, Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., led a congressional delegation to Nevada on Tuesday to tour the site.

Shimkus, chairman of a House subcommittee that oversees nuclear waste, said the administration has “illegally closed Yucca Mountain.” He points to a law that pushed the nation toward building a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The administration is trying to withdraw an application before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the agency tasked with determining whether a nuclear waste dump is built there.

The government has spent a quarter of a century trying to prove that Yucca Mountain is a good place to put nuclear waste, but all the site has proven to be is a money pit. After spending more than $13 billion, all the government has is a massive hole in the ground. It would takes billions more to complete the project, and that would be a waste. Yucca Mountain is an unsuitable site and the plans to send waste there are dangerous.

Shimkus is doing the bidding of the nuclear power industry, which wants to turn Nevada into a nuclear waste dump. His complaints about the administration’s actions are laughable. Should Congress really continue to support a failed project, especially in this era of budget cutting? And if he’s concerned about legality, he should know that Congress recently approved a plan that zeroed out funding for Yucca Mountain. After all, he voted for it....

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/apr/27/spring-break-yucca/

[NickB79]

4. "the levels associated with the full fuel cycle for nuclear would rise to the level of natural gas"

Funny, how for so long people have been touting natural gas as a cleaner, greener source of energy on the one hand, and then claiming anything that releases as much GHG emissions as natural gas are bad on the other hand.

[kristopher]

6. If that is confusing to you it is no wonder you support nuclear.

I'm betting, however, that you aren't confused at all and instead, are trying to make a backhanded dishonest argument.

We COULD right now turn off all coal in the country and switch to natural gas - a move that would reduced CO2 emissions from the electric sector by (WAG) about 60% or so. That recommendation is made as a part of the answer to the question "what is the fastest way to reduce our CO2 emissions?"

The rest of the recommendation is that we take all infrastructure money and direct it towards building renewable energy capacity - wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and wave/current/tidal. The more renewable capacity we bring online the less natgas we use. Since natgas is a rather expensive fuel there is a natural niche for developing dispatchable alternatives with no fuel costs (and that would include storage).

That is a clear, bright path to a fossil free power structure that could be achieved faster than any other path.

What you get with nuclear is an expensive, dangerous, slow to deploy technology with rising CO2 emissions tied to increased deployment. What we end up with in fission's proven technologies is a huge new infrastructure that we can't afford to change again; it is more expensive, less safe and dirtier than what we might have had; AND it is a system where we are locked into either GHG emissions equal to natgas OR again rebuilding the entire generating infrastructure.

What is your "out"? That after getting us into this infrastrutural pickle built to last 100 years, maybe we can figure out a way to make nuclear do what we could have done easily with off the shelf renewable technologies.

That is an insane proposition.

[NickB79]

8. "switch to natural gas - a move that would reduced CO2 emissions"

Uh, think again:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/11/gas-from-fracking-could-be-twice-as-bad-as-coal-for-climate-study/

"Shale gas, produced by "hydraulic fracturing" or "fracking," could create as much as twice the greenhouse gasses as coal, according to a study soon to be published by Cornell University professors."


The rest of your argument falls apart after this, since expanded use of natural gas in the short-to-mid term is vital to supporting the rest of your "bright, clear path", and fracking is the only way to obtain as much gas as we'd need in this scenario.

[kristopher]

11. Do you see the word "could" in the post you made?

There are two problems with using that as a rebuttal to the post I made. First, that path was charted BEFORE we started fracking and was based on the natgas recovered from conventional sources.

Second, that is a preliminary study that needs to be confirmed; and if confirmed the implications are unclear. As I read the study, the main problem is that the problem the author has identified is related to sloppy practices that allow up to 11% of the gas to escape. If that is the case, I'd speculate that motivating the well operators to stop those leaks will not be difficult since there is a built-in economic incentive for them to go in that direction anyway.

I'm far more worried about the effects on the water supply personally, and I'd love to see a complete and critical review of the practice by an empowered EPA. It would be nice to have the extra natgas since it would take coal offline faster because of lower costs; but as I noted in my first point, fracking isn't a critical part natgas's temporary role in the renewable/efficiency path.

[NickB79]

5. This claim seems to assume we stick with a once-through uranium fuel cycle

As opposed to the more advanced reactor designs on the table that either burn up much more of their fuel per cycle or use thorium in place of uranium.

[kristopher]

7. This claim assumes we deal with the real options that are out there.

Yes there are alternatives, but when you balance the COST, SAFETY, WASTE, and PROLIFERATION problems you can't even solve those all in one design.

Throwing in the escalating CO2 emissions just destroys the first choice of a bad set of choices that can't solve those other 4 problems.

"Data Trimming, Nuclear Emissions, and Climate Change," Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (2009):19-23.
http://www.nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/final-see-2009-data-trimming-climate-nuclear-fulltext.pdf

[NickB79]

9. Our only "real" option is to build Gen I and Gen II reactors off of 40-yr old designs?

Seriously?

[kristopher]

10. Gen III are once-through fuel cycles also.

They are also unaffordable.

They also enable transfer of dual-use technologies that enable the spread of nuclear weapons.

Their safety is unproven.

In short, they are not a viable solution.