Len Gould says

And I've seen nothing, though I've looked hard, which can convince me that N. American gas supplies will be sufficient to supplant coal or nuclear for even the next 25 years, much less 100. Tight-gas wells deplete EXTREMELY rapidly, on the order of a couple of years, versus traditional gas wells which usually last 10 years or more to a given % reduction in flow. But the EIA only recently discovered this detail apparently (or were forced to involuntarily admit it).

Ferdinand E. Banks says

Ferdinand E. Banks says

Fred Linn says

There is no chemical difference between fossil methane and biomethane. They are both CH4---the same stuff. The two can be mixed in any proportion whatever and there is no loss of performance in any application.

And methane can be used in any application we need. There is nothing we need done that can not be done with methane.

Methane use does not pollute the air, water, land and produces no toxic combustion emissions. Methane produces no ash, soot, particulate matter, or radioactive waste.

What is left over after methane is manufactured from organic waste is clean water and compost. You can grow a garden with it. Try going a garden with the waste from coal furnaces or radioactive waste from a nuclear reactor,..................................................but don't invite me to dinner.

bill payne says

Any comments?

Five new generators are on track for completion this decade, including two reactors approved just a few weeks ago (the first new reactor approvals in the US in over 30 years). Those will add to the 104 reactors that are already in operation around the country and already produce 20% of the nation’s power. Those reactors will eat up 19,724 tonnes of U3O8 this year, which represents 29% of global uranium demand. If that seems like a large amount, it is! The US produces more nuclear power than any other country on earth, which means it consumes more uranium that any other nation. However, decades of declining domestic production have left the US producing only 4% of the world’s uranium.

With so little homegrown uranium, the United States has to import more than 80% of the uranium it needs to fuel its reactors. Thankfully, for 18 years a deal with Russia has filled that gap. The “Megatons to Megawatts” agreement, whereby Russia downblends highly enriched uranium from nuclear warheads to create reactor fuel, has provided the US with a steady, inexpensive source of uranium since 1993. The problem is that the program is coming to an end next year.

The Upside to a Natural Gas Downturn Marin Katusa, for The Daily Reckoning Monday April 2, 2012

Regards,

bill

http://portal.acm.org/author_page.cfm?id=81332520373

Michael Keller says

“The patented hybrid-nuclear SMR produces massive quantities of pressurized air, while the fossil fuel burning gas turbine generates electrical power. With a nuclear thermal output of about 600 megawatts, the hybrid is technically a small reactor. However, the use of the gas turbine allows the plant to produce over 850 megawatts of electricity. This approach yields significant economies of scale that lead directly to reasonably priced power for industry and the consumer.

The hybrid can use all fuels indigenous to the US, thus significantly strengthening our strategic energy independence goals. The highly efficient use of multiple fuels greatly improves energy sustainability for future generations. The hybrid beneficially transforms about 85% of fossil energy whereas conventional power plants usefully transform from 30% to 50% of carbon-based fuel energy.

The partial use of nuclear fuel results in exceptionally low emissions, including green-house gases. Most of the hybrid’s electrical power is produced by the combustion turbine’s generator and that means water needs are low. The high efficiency of the plant and partial use of fossil fuel collectively produce significantly lower amounts of spent nuclear fuel than conventional (large or small) reactors.

The hybrid is specifically designed to: (1) use materials already approved by industry codes, standards and government regulations; and (2) be fabricated and manufactured by existing US facilities. Efficient modular construction techniques, similar to methods used by US shipyards, are employed.

The simple, fail-safe hybrid relies on a number of diverse passive methods to dissipate the reactor’s decay heat. A full containment is employed. The key safety objective of the hybrid is to insure that the public is always safe even if cooling water, electrical power and plant personnel are unavailable. The hybrid is several orders of magnitude safer than conventional nuclear reactors.”

An unusual feature of the hybrid-nuclear proposal is to salvage the taxpayer's over 1/2 billion dollar investment in the recently mothballed Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) program, which was a high-temperature graphite reactor effort that was apparently aimed at providing high-temperature nuclear heat for process industries (kind of a bridge-too-far from an engineering perspective).

Ferdinand E. Banks says

Anyway, the safe reactor is already here (Finland and France), although some tuning up is probably necessary. As for the benefits of technological change when it comes to nuclear, that should be obvious. Of course, I don't want to go too far into that because I might end up saying a few things that I dont want to say.

But don't worry. We - in the US and hopefully Sweden - are going to get the nuclear equipment we deserve. This is certain. What I want though is the educational system we deserve, although I suspect that the people who are badly in need of that are people like Mr Obama and the ignorant Swedish politicians hanging around the NATO meeting in Chicago.

Jim Hoerner says

Even if the cost of fuel (U3O8+SWU+fab) were to triple, it would still only account for about 1.5 to two cents per kWh of production costs. Importantly, at that rate, MOX fuel becomes economically competitive, and there's plenty of spent fuel at relatively low burnup with great plutonium isotopics all over the united states waiting for recycling. :-)

Best regards, Jim

Fred Linn says

Producing nuclear power produces extremely radioactive nuclear waste.

There is no such thing as a nuclear power reactor that does not produce radioactive waste.

Jim Hoerner says

I'll tell you what. You sit in a room full of your friendly methane (or its ash, CO2) for 10 minutes. If you survive, I'll sit in a room full of radioactive waste.

Best regards, Jim

[The point is, that dangerous substances like gasoline and plutonium can be effectively managed]

Jim Beyer says

It looks like all those Swedish reactors were built by 1983. How much will it cost for a new reactor to be built in a first world country today? I think that's kind of an unknown.

I have a goofy belief that complicated things become much more expensive (or even impossible) to build as the political and regulatory infrastructure matures. Thus, we could build Apollo rockets in the 60's, but it would be very hard to go back to the moon today. Similarly, we could build complicated nuclear reactors in the 70's and 80's, but are hard-pressed to do so now. I don't know why this is -- just an observation.

Fred Linn says

No problem Jim. I have done it many times. CH4 is lighter than air. It migrates up to the ceilings by diffusion. That is why dairy or hay storage barns have cupolas on top----to allow the naturally generated methane to escape.

Good luck with the radioactive waste.

------------" [The point is, that dangerous substances like gasoline and plutonium can be effectively managed]"------------

Maybe so-----------but not by humans.

Ferdinand E. Banks says

The cost of nuclear in a first world country is unknown to this dumb guy, but you see, he aint interested. Without having a nuclear industry, Sweden constructed 12 reactors in 13+ years. They did it because they thought - thought - that if they didn't they would go under. Also, beginning in the l970s, they constructed one million apartments, although some very smart - and I mean smart - bankers told them that it was impossible, and if they tried it would ruin the capital market. What they did then they could do today - if they wanted to.

What are we dealing in today?. Ignorant Swedish politicians go to Chicago to suck up to dumb NATO politicians, hoping that some day there will be a highly paid non-job for them in Brussels, and the incompetent US president evidently doesn't know how much the stupid war in Afghanistan costs.

The most relevant failure iin the US is the failure of the educational system. When they started tooling up for the BIG war in the US they were coming out of a recession, and the country was in terrible shape. People like George W. and Obama dont even know what century that war was in, and they definitely dont know that 5 years later the US was in the process of building a navy larger than all the navies in the world, and probably also an air force with similar dimensions, and moreover TRAINING A COUPLE OF MILLION MEN AND WOMEN TO BUILD AND OPERATE THOSE SHIPS AND PLANES. What I am talking about here is miracles, and miracles that would be possible today if the American voters had not gone crazy and reelected George Bush.

And you are right when you suggest that nuclear facilities cannot be construced in less than 5 years today in the US and Sweden.. It's impossible because to the morons mentioned above think anything is impossible if it cant be done in a few months, or maybe a year or two.

Jim Hoerner says

I am sure you know that a room full of CH4 cannot support life and is very dangerous due to its explosiveness. Still, it's a great way to heat homes or cook food and is piped long distances into homes nearly everywhere in the developed world.

I believe you were making the claim that nuclear waste is extremely dangerous, and natural gas would be a better alternative. Try googling killed natural gas explosion. It's quite shocking.

Best regards, Jim

bill payne says

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57439835/iran-nuke-talks-start-new-proposals-pitched/

Nuclear reactor fuel supply problem or not?

bill payne says

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/05/foreign-dominance-of-us-clean-energy-market-spells-trouble-for-america#readercomments

bill payne says

http://www.radiojavan.com/mp3s/mp3/Ahmad-Saeedi-Dooset-Daram

Ferdinand E. Banks says

This couldn't happen in e.g. Sweden, because having the police and military guarding nuclear waste would be regarded as an infringement on somebody's freedom. Instead, a pile of nuclear waste might be guarded by a couple of young part-time students, who while away the lonely nights watching song and dance contests on TV, or maybe documentaries about 'crime scene investigations' in Beverly Hills or on Park Avenue. Those charming young people would be armed though - with billy clubs.

Fred Linn says

------------" Contrary to most European countries, France has recently reinvested in nuclear energy. After the Fukushima disaster in Japan in March, which was the largest nuclear accident since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, countries like Germany, Switzerland and Italy voted to discontinue their nuclear programs.

But in June, France's President Nicolas Sarkozy said he was committing one billion euros (about $1.36 billion) to nuclear power.

"We are going to devote a billion euros to the nuclear program of the future, particularly fourth-generation technology," Sarkozy told a news conference in June."--------------------

Perhaps this is why Sarkozy is no longer president. You can fool some of the people, some of the time, and you can fool part of the people, part of the time---------but Ferdinand Banks is the only person you can fool ALL of the time.

Ferdinand E. Banks says

They did not VOTE to dump nuclear in Germany. The totally stupid Angela Merkel and her flunkies in the German government and their advisers decided on that, because they thought they could win a few votes. If the polls in Germany mean anything, Ms Merkel will be out of office in the not too distant future.

But I dont care whether she is or not. Germany is not going to abandon nuclear. As for France, if Sarkozy had sworn on a stack of bibles that he would not abandon nuclear, and I could have voted in France, I would have voted against him. You see Mr Linn, your knowledge is the kind you get from the evening papers in whatever country it is that you live in, while nuclear economics is a science to me.

Ferdinand E. Banks says

Which brings us to that staunch reader of the evening press, Mr Fred Linn. Sarkozy lost in France because he did not provide French voters with the employment and welfare they want and deserve. Where nuclear energy (and energy in general ) is concerned, he never learned that action speaks louder than words.

As for those countries that say that they will dump nuclear, Switzerland is the richest country in the world, and comparatively speaking, Germany is also in good shape. They are both heavy users of nuclear and will continue to be so REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY SAY! Sweden is also doing fairly well, but if this country would progressively reduce the export of electricity, and either nationalize the big electric generators or insist that they operate efficiently, the Swedish economy (industries and households) would get a huge boost.

Note what I said, the electric generators in Sweden should be nationalized if they do not shape up - they should not be permitted to make fools of Swedish voters and the Swedish government. I would also like to make it clear that JAPAN WILL NEVER GIVE UP NUCLEAR!

What about Spain and Italy. Few countries need nuclear more than Italy, which has none, but does have an extremely weak economy, while the Spanish government - which is so proud of its renewables - is now supervising a country whose economy is in free fall . Spain has no nuclear, but it does have a general unemployment of more than 20 percent, and unemployment among young people is over 40 percent.

Japan will never give up nuclear and Germany will never give up nuclear. As the richest country in the world, Switzerland can do as they please. But they are not so dumb that they will risk their prosperity by having to import a very large amount of electricity.

Fred Linn says

As of this month, there are no operating nuclear reactors in Japan. And no plans to restart any of them any time soon.

Fred Linn says

Japan already has. There are no current plans to restart any of 58 shut down nuclear reactors.

Germany has already shut down 8 of 17 reactors, and the rest will be taken off line by 2022.

-------" On 30 May 2011, Germany formally announced plans to abandon nuclear energy completely within 11 years. The plan included the immediate permanent closure of six nuclear power plants that had been temporarily shut down for testing in March 2011, and two more that have been offline a few years with technical problems. The remaining nine plants will be shut down between now and 2022. The announcement was first made by Norbert Röttgen, head of the Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, after late-night talks.[2][3]"-----------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany

---------" Italy nuclear: Berlusconi accepts referendum blow

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has accepted the rejection of his nuclear power plans and other policies in a popular referendum.

With more than 90% opposition to his policies, he said Italians had made their opinion "clear" and government and parliament must "respond fully".

The PM had wanted to restart a nuclear programme abandoned in the 1980s."-------

Spain-------" There are currently no plans for either expansion or accelerated closure of nuclear plants.[2] A leak of radioactive material from the Asco I nuclear power plant in November 2007 sparked protests.[8] The country’s government has pledged to shut down its eight nuclear reactors once wind and solar energy become viable alternatives such as in neighouring country Portugal."----------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Spain

Switzerland--------" In May 2011, the Swiss government decided to abandon plans to build new nuclear reactors. The country’s five existing reactors will be allowed to continue operating, but will not be replaced at the end of their life span. The last will go offline in 2034.[13]"------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Switzerland

Ferdinand E. Banks says

As for Switzerland, which is the richest country in the world - by my standards - the nuclear future cannot be predicted. But one thing is certain, I am not interested in the ignorant terminology in those quotations you cite. They were not written for me and many persons in this forum.

Spain and Portugal are almost economic basket cases, and they need nuclear. The same is true of Italy. Now, repeat after me everybody: JAPAN AND GERMANY WILL NEVER GIVE UP NUCLEAR. Notice my use of the world ignorant in the above. Well, to think that wind and solar can replace nuclear is not ignorant - IT IS STUPID.

Jim Beyer says

At this point (at $1/Watt) it's possible that solar is actually cheaper than nuclear. Which, I think, says more about the nuclear power industry than it does solar.

Len Gould says

Solution - obviously, throw as big a scare as possible, using their controlled media, into the likes of Tam Hunt etc. Perhaps a "headline story" about radiation from Fukushima being "detected" (at levels above background in yellowfin tuna conveniently unstated, therefore probably just barely detectably higher than background with no proven risk to anyone) off the coast of California. Bingo. We have a winner. Thank you pointless arts education systems which completely ignore any sciences or maths, which even their revered greek philosophers would have considered crazy.

Ferdinand E. Banks says

I dont know whether we are witnessing a tragedy or a farce. I attended a sort of conference in which a perfectly honest young engineer gave a talk on the future of coal and his firm - the Swedish firm Vattenfall - which led me to believe that he was not only honest and well meaning, but completely ignorant. So, I guess that we will just have to tough it out for a while and hope that sooner or later we will get lucky.

Fred Linn says

Using the figures from the permit applications for the two reactors in Georgia on estimated construction costs/ design capacity, you will get a cost basis of $6.86 per watt. This is considerably more than $1/watt.

The cost basis is for construction only----and does not make allowance for cost overruns, something the nuclear industry is a bar setter at accomplishing-----many projects coming in at over twice the original cost estimates.

It also does not consider any other associated expenses---payroll, fueling, etc.

Jim Beyer says

A nuclear power plant runs nearly 100% of the time. Solar panels perhaps 40% of the time. I'm not saying solar is a slam dunk over nuclear, far from it; just interesting. Also, what area would need to be covered to get a GW of solar? My technical mind tells me "a lot".

I am trying to avoid being in the stupid camp as cited by Fred B.

Jim Beyer says

Unfortunately, I don't think you can blame Big Oil for the public's nuclear aversion. NG will remain cheap because we really can't store it. There's some geological structures in Michigan that are pumped up and I imagine they are quite busy right now; and topped off...

Personally, I will show off my own ignorance in not knowing that a nuclear power plant needs several megawatts of electric power to avoid melting down, even when it's not running (but not shutdown). I didn't really know that. I knew that shutting one down is a protracted process, but not the power requirements. Makes total sense for the cooling, etc.

But gees! If that power was so critical, then why not have a protected source for it? It bothers me what happened at Fukushima. If nothing else, completely trashing 3 (4?) reactors because they didn't have adequate power backup will do that much more to raise costs for new plants. Shame on them! At the risk of sounding culturally insensitive, these are the same folks that were bright enough to pull off the Pearl Harbor attack, but still failed to hit the fuel depots, the repair docks, and of course, the carrier force.

BTW, a GW of solar would cover roughly 20,000 acres. This is based on the 200 MW farm in Hardee County, FL covering 2000 acres.

Jim Beyer says

Fred Linn says

NO. They want to fry your butt.

That's what a nuclear reactor IS----a nuclear bomb that that they are trying to slow down enough to make useful energy out of. It works by chain reaction either way. A nuclear reactor is like being on a bicycle on a steep hill that go supersonic and destroy everything in sight if there are no brakes.

And the only brakes you have are dragging your feet.

That is why they are so expensive and dangerous----if the brakes give out---you and everything else for a long ways around it are toast.

Ferdinand E. Banks says

I was arguing with some fool who said that he had a PhD from MIT. When he decided to put me in my place, he sent me an article from the Financial Times. What can you do with people like that? From the FT no less.

Len Gould says