[jr2]

http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/05/15/we_could_get_rid_of_fossil_fuel_electricity_in_just_25_years_with_nuclear_power_109222.html


The World Could Get Rid of Fossil Fuel Electricity in Just 25 Years with Nuclear Power
by Ross Pomeroy



Fossil fuel electricity could be replaced with nuclear power in just 25 years, cutting worldwide human carbon emissions by half, a new analysis published to PLoS ONE finds.

Climate change is widely recognized as a global threat, but thus far there's been little effective resolve to curtail carbon emissions, which are largely responsible. A world powered by carbon-free renewable energy would undoubtedly be a better place, but getting there is the tricky part. The combined power of solar, wind, geothermal, and hydropower cannot feasibly electrify the world at this time. In a number of years, when energy storage technology improves and solar panel efficiency increases, that could very well change.

But there is a solution available right now that's reliable, clean, safe, and affordable: nuclear energy.

Staffan Qvist, a physicist at Uppsala University in Sweden, and Barry Brook, a Professor of Environmental Sustainability at the University of Tasmania, wondered how long it would take for nuclear power to be deployed in order to replace all fossil fuel electricity, which primarily comes from coal and natural gas. So they analyzed the cases of Sweden and France, two countries that successfully completed large-scale expansions of nuclear power.

In the early 1960s, Sweden began a massive project to build nuclear power plants. By 1986, half of the country's power came from nuclear, CO2 emissions per capita fell 75% from the peak in 1970, and energy costs were among the lowest in the world.



Beginning in 1973, France embarked on an ambitious path to free itself from foreign oil and generate almost all of its power from nuclear energy. Today, nuclear produces 75% of the country's electricity at the 7th cheapest rate in the European Union.

Qvist and Brook calculate, based on a per capita rate, that if the world built nuclear power plants as fast as Sweden did between 1960 and 1990, all coal and natural gas power plants could be phased out in 25 years. If the world emulated France's historical rate of construction, the phase out would take 34 years.

"Continued nuclear build-out at this demonstrably modest rate, coupled with an electrification of the transportation systems (electric cars, increased high-speed rail use etc.) could reduce global CO2 emissions by ~70% well before 2050," they write.

One could endlessly speculate on the potential ramifications of such an undertaking. Nuclear weapons proliferation, handling and disposal of radioactive waste, and the chance of a nuclear disaster are all consequences that will have to be measured against the known benefits of nuclear energy. Optimistically, it's entirely possible that in a world dedicated to nuclear power, scientific and technological innovation will rapidly solve all of the current drawbacks.

"Replacement of current fossil fuel electricity by nuclear fission at a pace which might limit the more severe effects of climate change is technologically and industrially possible—whether this will in fact happen depends primarily on political will, strategic economic planning, and public acceptance," the authors conclude.

Source: Qvist SA, Brook BW (2015) Potential for Worldwide Displacement of Fossil-Fuel Electricity by Nuclear Energy in Three Decades Based on Extrapolation of Regional Deployment Data. PLoS ONE 10(5): e0124074. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124074

(Image: AP)

[The E]

Neat.

Now, do you also have a way to build secure nuclear plants cheaply? A way to deal with the nuclear waste efficiently?

Because as much as I detest the trend away from it and am all for solutions that use more nuclear power, let's not pretend that there aren't any issues with it.

[Luis Dias]

The biggest hurdle to get more nuclear power is political will, IMHO.

[jr2]

Neat.

Now, do you also have a way to build secure nuclear plants cheaply? A way to deal with the nuclear waste efficiently?

Because as much as I detest the trend away from it and am all for solutions that use more nuclear power, let's not pretend that there aren't any issues with it.

Apparently France and Sweden do.    Let me go copy-pasta the article.

The biggest hurdle to get more nuclear power is political will, IMHO.

This.

[The E]

Apparently France and Sweden do.    Let me go copy-pasta the article.

France and Sweden are not the issue. China, India, Africa and South America are. Solutions that work in France or Sweden will not work there.

[Galemp]

If nuclear power was the norm, and someone came along proposing coal (and all the mining hazards associated with it), not a single plant would be built.

[Cyborg17]

There was a somewhat long thread on here about chemically bonded uranium which handles the problem of waste pretty well, but no one wants to develop or use it.  It seems like there are a few technologies which are developed which could really benefit humankind but which aren't really invested into. 

[Dragon]

A way to deal with the nuclear waste efficiently?

Reprocess it and put it back into the reactor. Really, most "nuclear waste" contains a lot of good Uranium that simply is cheaper (for now) to store in the waste dumps than to extract and reuse. Improve reprocessing techniques and the waste problem becomes almost moot. What remains could be used in low power radioisotope thermal generators.

France and Sweden are not the issue. China, India, Africa and South America are. Solutions that work in France or Sweden will not work there.

Nuclear power is the fourth-largest source of electricity in India after thermal, hydroelectric and renewable sources of electricity.[1] As of 2013, India has 21 nuclear reactors in operation in 7 nuclear power plants, having an installed capacity of 5780 MW[2][3] and producing a total of 30,292.91 GWh of electricity[4] while seven other reactors are under construction and are expected to generate an additional 6,100 MW.

Missed the mark here. India is already on their way there, with nuclear power being the 4th largest energy source (overtaken only by other "clean" ones). China operates a large number of nuclear plants as well, and having recently discovered "the environment", they're planning to rely on them even more. They both have already figured those "issues" out. Also, India is extremely interested in thorium-based plants (they have a lot of thorium) and conducting a lot of research towards them.

Agreed on South America and Africa, but even there, some countries have adopted nuclear power already. If anything, developing countries have an easier time adopting nuclear power (once they can afford it, that is), simply because their citizens don't have nearly as much to say about the issue as in the West. While Germany is struggling with a bunch of morons who want the government to close down their nuclear plants (and another bunch of morons in the government who complies instead of throwing the former bunch into a coal-burning boiler), China could order 100 of them built for the revolution's anniversary if they so desired and nobody would be able to stop them (not that it'd be a good idea, but police would be the only ones to listen to someone trying to tell them that). In all but the few poorest countries, political will is the biggest obstacle for adopting nuclear power.

[Mongoose]

The biggest hurdle to get more nuclear power is political will, IMHO.

That and NIMBY idiots.

[Gee1337]

I agree that Nuclear Power is the way forward, given that 96% of it is renewable. Obviously, it is not without its problems such as the 4% that cannot be renewed and disasters such as Chernobyl and more recently... Japan. It will always be better than fossil fuels, as my main concern about fossil fuel is not the CO2 emissions, but rather the other toxins they spew into the atmosphere like nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide, which we then have to breathe. At least the CO2 produced by nuclear plants could then be combated by planting more trees!

I'm going to throw the cat amongst the pigeons with what I am about to say next, but it is my belief. If you disagree, that's fine and I respect that, but please don't hound me down for it with comments like "everything he says is false" without being able to back it up.

I did say on another thread that Global Warming is a scam and by this, I meant that "man-made global warming" is a scam. Global warming is happening, but this is due to astrological events such as the sun getting hotter and the last ice age ending about 11.5k years ago. So with this, it would be safe to assume that it will get hotter as the sun burns more of its fuel and the next ice age being anywhere from 35,000 to 85,000 years away. So, this could mean that the earth probably won't start cooling for about another 50k years or so (I'm to lazy to do the maths on the cycle).

I won't deny that CO2 can have an impact and that it is a greenhouse gas, but I believe that impact to be rather negligible and not the exaggeration made by certain people. If CO2 is the problem then it is Russian, China, India and the U.S.A who would need to do more to reduce their emission rates (no specific order).

One of these people I mention is Dr Rajendra Pachauri who has made a lot of money out of marketing Global Warming and has falsified data to back up wild claims like the Himalayan Glacier melting by 2035, which was made by Dr Syed Hasnain. Dr Pachauri is a man who career out of global warming then produced 121.1 tons of CO2 in a 19 month period with his travel around the world on "business" trips. Given that this data was falsified, it does make me wonder how much and what else was falsified!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11441697/Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri-the-clown-of-climate-change-has-gone.html

Dr Pachauri was the chair for the IPCC who has now resigned his position because of allegations of sexual abuse to a junior colleague. This man's exploits are why I cannot believe in "man made global warming". I would recommend people looking into the articles written by Richard North and Christopher Booker, then make up your own minds.

Where I live, we are going to have a tidal lagoon to generate hydro-electric power. Whereas the premise is good, I do wonder about the impact that this is going to have on the city in the forms of blighting the bay and the environmental damage that will be done in the construction of it, and the cost which will most likely escalate as most vanity projects do!

[Dragon]

A minor nitpick. Nuclear plants do not produce CO2 at all, unless you want to factor in production process for the components (which doesn't contribute much, either). The smoke that comes off those giant towers? Water vapor. Those things are just giant heat sinks (you can't produce power from heat itself, but from heat transfer) and do not contribute to pollution. You can even see such towers on some conventional plants, for efficiency reasons (it's easy to tell them apart: actual smokestacks are usually very tall and skinny, cooling towers are more squat).

Coal plants do indeed cause a host of problems besides CO2 emissions, most of this being plain ol' air pollution. Oil plants likewise. Natural gas ones do much better about it, but they still don't emit pure CO2 and water (though they come close with modern filters and good quality gas), not to mention they're expensive. In the end, phasing out fossil fuels is a good idea no matter how you feel about global warming.

Also, you're right that USA, China, India and Russia need to reduce CO2 emissions to really budge anything. EU choking itself with economic restrictions won't do much if those four won't start really moving to fully nuclear power systems.

[Klaustrophobia]

Neat.

Now, do you also have a way to build secure nuclear plants cheaply? A way to deal with the nuclear waste efficiently?

Because as much as I detest the trend away from it and am all for solutions that use more nuclear power, let's not pretend that there aren't any issues with it.

Cost:  If it wasn't already economical, utilities wouldn't be building them (they are).  Beyond that, removing costly political roadblocks and what I think of as the "stigma cost" wherein any standard component with the word "nuclear" attached is tripled in price (vice the literally IDENTICAL component that would go into any other plant or industrial use) could drastically lower costs. 

Waste:  NIMBY is the real problem here.  Spent fuel pools are part of a reactor's design.  It can be handled on site until it's cool enough for dry cask storage.  And once it's there, it's not emitting enough to be detected at the edge of the fence.  Most sites have enough on-site storage to just sit the spent fuel on the blacktop for the life of the plant.  Hell, the one I toured had enough room in the pool for the life of the plant and doesn't even have to be concerned about dry storage. 

[Klaustrophobia]

disasters such as Chernobyl and more recently... Japan.

Also part of the grand public misconception of what nuclear power (or anything "nuclear") really is.

In a nutshell: no, radiation is not something you should go intentionally exposing yourself to unnecessarily, but it's actually not terribly dangerous at all short of acute dose levels (i.e., bomb survivors and unprotected emergency responders).  Are you afraid of the hospital?  Because it's several orders of magnitude more likely to give you cancer (or any other disease) than nuclear power.

[karajorma]

Not to mention that the pollution from coal causes far more deaths than nuclear power ever did.

[Black Wolf]

Australia should have gone nuclear decades ago. We have more ischium in the ground than any other country, we have the technical capabilities, the political stability to ensure the material is used appropriately, and the vast, empty, dry, geologically stable land to store even the nastiest waste without bothering anybody. It's crazy that we're still reliant on coal (especially in my part of the country (Western Australia) where our coal is of pretty poor quality and very limited in distribution. NIMBYism and massively misguided green activism is to blame for the anti nuclear status quo, and it's a real, real shame.

[watsisname]

Global warming is happening, but this is due to astrological events such as the sun getting hotter

Pretty sure physics isn't governed by horoscopes.

Your astrophysics is sort of right, it's just a big question of timescales.  The sun is growing more luminous as it ages, which does contribute a positive forcing to the Earth's energy balance over time (which means that if all else is equal, then Earth gets hotter).  But this is relevant over billion year timescales, not human timescales.  It also turns out that the Earth is nicely proofed against this forcing (all else is not equal) by the rock-weathering cycle, which sequesters CO2 more rapidly when temperature is higher and allows CO2 to accumulate when it is colder.  This natural thermostat is why the Earth was still pretty mild billions of years ago when the Sun was about 30% less luminous than today.

As for the ice ages, they're tied to Earth's orbital-obliquity cycles, so if you study the gravitational interaction between the Earth, Sun, and Moon then you can understand a lot about what's happening with Earth's climate over timescales of tens of thousands to millions of years.  But again, it's not very relevant to the present warming.

To understand Earth's temperature one really only needs a simple model comparing "energy in" vs "energy out".  In other words, a model of radiation balance.  This yields four fundamental variables:
-The sun's luminosity
-The Earth's orbital distance
-The Earth's albedo (reflectivity over the whole spectrum)
-The Earth's emissivity (how effectively it radiates thermal blackbody radiation)

The first three are probably trivial.  The emissivity might seem a little mysterious.  In this radiation balance model, it's the greenhouse effect.  It is the reduction in the efficiency by which the surface can radiate out to space because of an intervening atmosphere which absorbs and radiates at those same wavelengths.  In a more realistic model where the vertical profile of the atmosphere is accounted for, the greenhouse effect appears as an increase in temperature at the surface and lower atmosphere, and a decrease in temperature in the upper atmosphere.

Over long timescales, all four of these variables are relevant to Earth's climate.  On present and human timescales, it is primarily the fourth one -- an enhanced greenhouse effect due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

[Klaustrophobia]

Plz to not be turning this to global warming debate thread.

[watsisname]

It isn't one, I was just clearing some confusion on physics and astronomy.

[BirdofPrey]

It's the citing of previous nuclear disasters that are the real problem.  People say oh noes Three Mile island, Chernobyl, Fukoshima, that could happen again.  While it's true accidents can and do happen, they are VERY overblown and also forgets the important thing that those were all older reactor designs.  Newer nuclear power plants are much safer, and the most recent designs have fuel elements that are designed in such a way, the fission reaction decreases with heat thus making it IMPOSSIBLE for one of them to suffer meltdown.

The second is waste, MOST of the nuclear waste is still primarily fissile material, so waste could be greatly reduced with fuel reprocessing, but that hits a wall when everyone gets all paranoid it will be stolen in transit by terrorists wanting to make a bomb.  I think some countries even have laws that make reprocessing difficult or impossible.  Again, it's not that bad stuff couldn't happen, just that it's a problem that is greatly overblown and eceedingly unlikely that people are overly paranoid about.


Somehow though, nobody ever cites the BP oil spill or Exxon Valdez as reasons oil is extremely hazardous.

[BritishShivans]

Not to mention Three Mile Island was a good example of a well maintained nuclear power plant. Even though the meltdown still happened, the plant's safeties (I forget the terminology) contained 50% of the material that leaked out.

At most, it was human error and improper training.