True News: Nuclear Power Exposed! - From Freedomain Radio

[Stefan Molyneux]

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNnRXwPSGJk]

Thanks again to the listeners for all the great references!

http://c4ss.org/content/6462

 

http://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/research/working_papers/2008/wp0804.pdf

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34645.pdf

http://www.imeche.org/knowledge/industries/power/nuclear-power-committee/nuclear-power/about-nuclear-power/nuclear-uk/unpopular-in-britain

http://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/research/working_papers/2008/wp0804.pdf

 

[Nielsio2]

I've also found this information:

 

Energy From Thorium: A Nuclear Waste Burning Liquid Salt Thorium Reactor @ Google Tech Talks

&

http://energyfromthorium.com/

&

Dr. Kiki's Science Hour 84: The Nuclear Alternative

 

 

Because LFTRs operate at atmospheric pressure, they are less likely than conventional pressurized reactors to spew radioactive elements if an accident occurs. In addition, an increase in operating temperature slows down the nuclear chain reaction, inherently stabilizing the reactor. And LFTRs are designed with a salt plug at the bottom that melts if reactor temperatures somehow do rise too high, draining reactor fluid into a containment vessel where it essentially freezes.

It is estimated that 83 percent of LFTR waste products are safe within 10 years, while the remainder needs to be stored for 300 years. Another advantage is that LFTRs can use plutonium and nuclear waste as fuel, transmuting them into much less radioactive and harmful elements, thus eliminating the need for waste storage lasting up to 10,000 years. No commercial thorium reactors currently exist, although China announced a project earlier this year that aims to develop such reactors.

The main problem with energy supply systems is that for the last 100 years, governments have insisted on meddling with them, using subsidies, setting rates, and picking technologies. Consequently, entrepreneurs, consumers, and especially policymakers have no idea which power supply technologies actually provide the best balance between cost-effectiveness and safety. In any case, let’s hope that the current nuclear disaster will not substantially add to the terrible woes the Japanese must bear as a result of nature’s fickle cruelty.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/15/nuclear-disaster-in-japan

 

[J-William]

that's a good perspective on nuclear power. 

Nuclear power is such a great source of cheap power that I'm sure someone would try to make it work in a free market. Though you certainly have a point that the liability may make that "cheap" power impractical in a free market. 

Anyhow on another aspect, how far is this radiation spreading? Is it going to be a threat to people in Tokyo? I really haven't been keeping up with the news.

[MrCapitalism]

"Nuclear Power Exposed!"

May not look good for me, but I lauged, I'll admit. []

[Indefiance]

Good review of the situation as it stands now, and some of the history involved.  Informative and entertaining as usual.  I was howevever a little disappointed that You didn't bring up at least in a cursory mention the alternatives possible with thorium.  If only a private firm could become involved instead of governments yet again, I think Thorium would be a perfect for a safe and stable production of nuclear power without all the baggage associated with Uranium. Governments corrupt everything, they like weapons, and thus Uranium reactors were the best option for them since it provides weapons grade material at the same time it produces power.   Makes sense from the viewpoint of sheer evil, just not from the viewpoint of a society that wants peace and no hazardous materials to keep track of for 20,000 years.

 

[Don Sebastian]

Well what CAN I say?  the words Nietzsche, nuclear power and pinata all in the same video. 

Wonderful!

[e_b_ sarver]

Check out this infographic that shows energy industry subsidies and tax breaks in the USA.

At this point in history, if all government liability loopholes, tax breaks, and subsidies were removed in the energy industry, SOLAR would be the most profitable energy source.

Nuclear, coal and oil plants cost more to build and insure than a couple different varieties of the latest solar plants, and require the purchase of fuel that keeps rising in price. Solar plants cost less to build (at least some of them), and have no future fuel costs, and cost less to insure. Without insurance breaks, nuclear is less profitable that solar. Without subsidies, coal and oil are less profitable than solar. Without government, companies would follow the money to solar.

[Stefan Molyneux]

Wow, do you have more numbers on this?

[e_b_ sarver]

One Solar source that is cheaper than coal:

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h9FLvj2ZJM]

Here's the official site for the manufacturer.  The parts are cheap, and manufactured from recycled materials.

From my understanding, at this point there are several types of Solar Thermal (which is the type of solar at the above video and link) that have a lower cost to build than a coal plant, and lower long-term maintenance costs when compared to coal plants.

I had also read that some sources of wind power, the VAWT and HAWT types, can be more cost effective than coal in the long run.  Basically, the cost of initially building the plant is higher than coal, but after a decade of operation, the cost is equal, and after two decades, is lower.  The reason should be obvious: you don't have to buy coal.  Both plants, of course, have maintenance costs.  The maintenance costs are higher on traditional wind farms, but on the HAWT and VAWT varieties, about the same as a coal plant.  So as time goes on in the long-term, the coal plant continues to have fuel costs, and eventually the wind has "paid for itself" in lack of fuel costs.  As a bonus, HAWT and VAWT technologies can be installed on-site, such as on the roofs of commercial buildings, so the power is generated locally.  There's an office building down here in Southern California that has a roof covered with HAWT turbines.  I could see them from the road as I was driving by.  I'll bet they have a zero energy cost in that building, maybe even a surplus being sold back to the electric company, unless they have a server farm in there or something....

Hydroelectric on the large scale remains incredibly expensive, due to the massive costs of developing the plants.  Not to mention the ecological devastation they bring. Small scale hydro (also called microhydro) is a great way to power a home, but large scale hydro is incredibly devastating to the environment and super-expensive.

Nuclear is a very high-cost method in the long term, due to perpetually rising costs of fuel, waste disposal, and of course, the inusrance problem you mention in the video.  Without subsidies and breaks on fossil and nuclear fuels, they're incredibly expensive, and the cost rises as scarcity gets worse.  Most of the remaining global supplies of both fossil and nuclear fuels lie outside US borders, making us reliant on foreign energy sources.  Not good.

The most exciting thing coming on to the scene are so-called "zero point energy" devices and other "over-unity" power devices.  You can read more about those on PesWiki.

[Don Sebastian]

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb0N-fpWCS4&feature=related]

[Alan C.]

GE Likely to Avoid Liability in Japan Nuke Crisis

Even if GE's containment system failed, its liability in Japan appears limited. Japanese law channels liability for nuclear accidents to the plant operator, which must maintain 120 billion yen ($1.2 billion) of insurance per site to cover potential damages. If damages exceed that amount, the government is required to pick up the tab. If the government determines that the accident was caused by a "grave natural disaster of an exceptional character or by an insurrection," it assumes all liability.

. . .

Japanese citizens injured in the disaster would face major obstacles if
they sue GE in a U.S. court, however. Over the last few decades, U.S.
courts have frequently invoked a legal doctrine known as forum non
conveniens, or "forum not agreeing," to dismiss cases involving injuries
that occurred overseas. In 1987, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit dismissed lawsuits filed against Union Carbide by victims
of a toxic gas leak in Bhopal, India, considered one of the worst
industrial disasters of all time. In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit cited the forum doctrine when it upheld dismissal
of lawsuits filed by hundreds of Australians who were allegedly harmed
by emissions from three Alcoa refineries in Western Australia.

[Justus Ranvier]

I'd like to add to what a previous poster mentioned about LFTR technology.

 

Here are four Google Tech Talks on the subject:

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: What Fusion Wanted To Be

Liquid Fluoride Reactors: A New Beginning for an Old Idea

Aim High: Using Thorium Energy to Address Environmental Problems

Energy From Thorium: A Nuclear Waste Burning Liquid Salt Thorium Reactor

 

I'm not going to duplicate the information of these videos so please accept for the purposes of the following discussion assume that this technology addresses any reasonable technical objection you have to nuclear power on the grounds of cost, safety, efficiency, waste or proliferation.

 

The story of nuclear power in the US (as well as around the world) is a perfect example of how the first generation of  government bureaucracy can accomplish amazing things and then just as rapidly decay. Commercial nuclear power is based on the work of Admiral Rickover's work in producing submarine nuclear power. His group started from scratch and had not one, but two submarines operating successfully at sea with completely different nuclear power plants (pressurized water reactor and molten sodium) in less than a 15 years after the first ever controlled fission by human beings. In the process they had to invent entirely new fields of engineering, chemistry, metallurgy, control system theory and physics. This is one of the most incredible engineering achievements of the 20th century (that you've never heard of).

 

What happened since then? The Navy was busy building submarine reactors and the rest of the MIC was busy primarily building nuclear bombs. All commercial nuclear power plants that have ever been built in the US were able to produce useful bomb-making material.That's one of the reasons that better technologies never got a foothold. The molten salt reactor was developed from an abandoned project to build nuclear-powered long range bombers. While the experiment was highly successful the military never funded it because the material it makes is extremely impractical for building bombs. So after the initial building boom of power plants (based on (1950s and 1960s) technology the entire industry stopped. The bomb building business dried up so the government had no reason to keep building sources of plutonium. The utilities didn't drive any innovation in this area because they build whatever the regulators and subsidies tell them to build and the coal lobby won that battle. The power plant support industry derives most of its profit from the manufacture of expensive solid fuel models that take decades to gain regulatory approval for and require millions of dollars to develop. The last thing they want is to build power plants that can just dump powered thorium into a reactor like coal plants dump powered coal into a furnace. The regulators aren't going to reduce their own job security by pushing for inherently safe reactors that can't melt down and don't require complicated safety systems and procedures. So because all the players with any power are happy with the status quo no technological advancement in this area has been put into operation for the last 50 years.

 

The enormity of the damage inflicted on the economy by the energy industry being centrally planned can not be underestimated. Here is a technology that can take 1 ton of a common metal and safely produce 1 GW-year of energy with it. Thorium is so common that a average cubic yard of soil contains 30 barrels of oil equivalent. The ashes from a coal power plant of typical size (1 GW) contain 13 tons of thorium which currently  just gets dumped into the air and landfills - so every coal power plant is throwing away 13 times as much nuclear energy as it produces in electricity. Not only has the economy lost the benefit of 30 years of not using the technology it's also lost all the innovation that would have occurred but didn't because of government interference. The MSR Experiment ended successfully in 1969. Look around at every other type of technology and notice how much it has advanced since 1969. Now consider that currently the government tells us that "fourth generation" technology from the 1960s and 1970s just might get built on a commercial scale somewhere between 2030 and 2050, if we're lucky. To put this in human terms every GW of energy, be that in electrical or chemical form, represents the amount of work 20-50 million human beings can perform via sustained manual labor. When you're compiling the list of crimes of the state be sure to include this reduction in the standard of living of everybody who would have had access to this energy but doesn't.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Solar power as a widespread form of baseload power generation is a joke. It's a niche technology that works in certain areas geographical areas.

Terrestrial solar power will never overcome two hurdles: solar energy is incredibly diffuse and the sun only shines for half the day and not as strongly in the winter as the summer. Right now this means that the best capacity factor that you can achieve is about 20% in an ideal climate like Arizona. If you want to provide baseload power then it means that you've got to build in enough capacity to meet the expected demand even the sun isn't shining in the middle of winter.

Concentrated solar power can do this by storing molten salts so that it can produce power at night, which is great but doesn't change the overall capacity factor. So if you consider that in an ideal location 1 GW (peak) of generation requires 6000 acres of mirrors. Multiply that by five to account for the daily capacity factor then double that to account for winter vs summer sunlight availability. Now you need 100 square miles of mirrors to replace a single 1 GW coal power plant in Arizona.

Ok, that's great because Arizona has plenty of empty land but not every populated area in the world gets 364.75 sunny days per year nor are they all at favorable latitudes. Are you going to generate all the power in Arizona and build transmission lines to carry it up to Canada? That's going to be quite expensive in terms of manpower and energy losses. Are you going to build CSP plants in Toronto? I'll leave the calculation of how many square miles of mirrors you'd need to produce 1 GW of power in the middle of a blizzard as an exercise for the reader.

 

 

[Alan C.]

[view:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifF-MOuzM_s:640:390]

[Bear]

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifF-MOuzM_s:640:390

 

Great link!

[Don Sebastian]

That design kicks ass. I don't know how or where but I can see that being open sourced by many in the years to come. 

[e_b_ sarver]

 

[view:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifF-MOuzM_s:640:390]

 

Very cool!  I have seen other, similar designs.

HAWT and VAWT designs are even better, however, as they work at much lower wind speeds, and do not kill birds.  HAWT is an abbreviation for Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine, and VAWT for Vertical Axis.  The most efficent HAWT/VAWT designs are of the helical variety, though there are many styles of turbine out there.  As an added bonus, helical HAWT/VAWT turbines are far more aesthetically pleasing than traditional turbine designs.

The most efficient form of wind turbine is the maglev VAWT.  This is a magnetically levitated, and therefore frictionless turbine.  A couple of companies have experimented with such designs, and achieved power almost 1000 times greater than standard wind turbines, given the same input wind speeds and size of turbines. Here's one example: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:MagLev_Wind_Power_Generator

Propeller designs are, frankly, horribly inefficient in comparison to HAWT and VAWT designs, and don't work in low winds.  Additionally, the parts wear out quicker.  Traditional propeller type designs really don't make much sense in comparison to these much better techniques..