The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on June 24th, 2017 at 11:29 am
Nukes are quietly – also safely and cleanly – making a comeback:
After a hiatus of nearly three decades, nuclear energy is booming. Seventeen power companies in the U.S. are making plans to build more than 30 nuclear plants.
Support for nukes within the US has grown from 49 per cent to 64 per cent since 1983. Electricite de France is looking to up-nuke the UK:
EDF … has said it wants to build at least four nuclear plants in the United Kingdom.
Five nuclear plants are currently under construction in China, India and Iran; they could be followed by plants in Bulgaria, Morocco, Vietnam, Egypt and South Africa:
Thirty other nuclear plants are currently being built in 12 countries …
Australia should join this exciting global trend.
Seventeen power companies in the U.S. are making plans to build more than 30 nuclear plants.
“Making plans” and constructing new nuke plants are two very different things. The leftist environmentalist wackos still have a lot of clout in the US. The chances of any nuclear power plants actually being built in the next decade are practically nil – we’re far more likely to see some older existing ones shut down.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2008 03 30 at 11:47 AM • permalink
I dunno, Spiny. There’s some serious clout behind those plants, and it’s possible.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 03 30 at 11:50 AM • permalink
Something else that may have implications for the Middle East:
Massive Oil Deposit Could Increase US reserves by 10x
America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America’s Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC’s short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant.
Does anyone know if any of this is true, is it just an urban legend, or is someone in North Dakota trying to sell “drilling rights”? It would be great if it’s true, but a Google search leaves me with the impression of “pie in the sky”.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2008 03 30 at 12:42 PM • permalink
Expect Saudi money for Greens to fight nuclear power in the Courts.
When Steve Emerson gets done with CAIR, maybe he’ll take a close look at the various Greens.
Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2008 03 30 at 01:12 PM • permalink
Interesting blog entry on the Bakken oil deposits:
Maybe not so much “pie in the sky”. Cool.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2008 03 30 at 04:05 PM • permalink
Why would Australia want to build nuke plants?
Yes, sure there’s a plentiful supply of Uranium in the Australian ground. But there’s also a plentiful supply of coal in that ground too.
Nuclear won’t beat coal in price for a long time yet for Australia.
So Tim, you turned green or something? Wanting Australia to make the environment fiendly decision instead of the economically sound one?
- #12 Sam, there is a large lead time before the latest nuke plants could come online.
Since you back the increased cost of coal and gas, how can you say nuclear won’t be cheaper as well as cleaner?
Please be consistent, as people like you demand more investment to make wind and solar ‘efficient’.You have to hand it to the French [sometimes]. They don’t easily follow the herd of lemmings, except in regard to terrorism..
Last time I was there, their diesel price was 20-25% cheaper than the more polluting gas.
Australia should join this exciting global trend.
Well said, Sir Tim!
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2008 03 30 at 07:02 PM • permalink
Labor has staked everything on unproven clean coal power to meet post Kyoto targets. Expect the Europeans in particular will argue that it doesn’t matter if CO2 emissions are captured or not, they are still being created and should be counted.
With Labor signed on to the post-Kyoto CO2 cuts and locked into a no-nuclear policy, it will be in deep shit. The only thing that will save Labor is global warming being revealed as a scam. Watch the party decide around 2012 that on new evidence global warming isn’t as serious as claimed and is probably natural climatic variation anyway.
Yes there really is something exciting in thinking of ways to safely store radioactive waste with a half life longer then recorded human history.
“In the half century of the nuclear age, the U.S. has accumulated some 30,000 metric tons of spent fuel rods from power reactors and another 380,000 cubic meters of high-level radioactive waste, a by-product of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons. None of these materials have found anything more than interim accomadation, despite decades of study and expenditures in the billions of dollars on research, development and storage,” Chris G. Whipple, Can Nuclear Waste Be Stored at Yucca Mountain? Scientific American, June, 1996
For some further reading try.
National Geographic
- Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 03 30 at 08:44 PM • permalink
Re #18, philip, there are several options.
For example, new nuclear reactors could use a “pebble bed reactor” design. This uses spherical pebbles made of pyrolytic graphite, which can can be separately encased in another material ( ceramics I do believe) for long term storage.
If a conventional design is used, one proposal I’ve read of is to reprocess the rods into pellets, after extracting any usable materials, and encasing those in another ceramic.
But the key point is to stop using “temporary” storage methods. We’ve have functioning nuclear power plants for well over 50 years; the only reason that we lack a longterm storage solution is because no one will accept a single solution as “permanent”.
So all of our “temporary” solutions are de facto permanent solutions though simple dithering by indecisive leaders pandering to greenies and people unfamiliar with radiation.
And, by the way, that radioactive waste includes industrial and medical sources, where radioactive materials are critical for our civilization. Ever get an x-ray from the dentist?
I suggest that a series of band aid solutions is WORSE than a permanent solution. SO it’s time to man up, and stop being afraid of that stuff; nuclear material is dangerous when concentrated. Radiation, when dissipated, is not, it’s part of our natural environment.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 03 30 at 09:00 PM • permalink
A “ps” to #24…..the concept of encasing nuclear waste in small, contained pellets, for long term storage far underground, is not a new one. I don’t have a reference, but one of my college professors discussed this very concept when I was in college…..in the late 1970’s.
So it ain’t new, and it ain’t rocket science. It’s just a matter of backbone….or using more candles.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 03 30 at 09:03 PM • permalink
- Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 03 30 at 09:06 PM • permalink
I live less than 50km from the Daya Bay nuclear power plant (located in Guangdong, just across the frontier from Hong Kong). And every day I wish there were 10 more just like it! And I wish all bulkers, tankers and other ships were nuclear powered, too. Then Hong Kong wouldn’t have air the colour of a bad sepia-toned photograph.
By my calculations, 50 1000 MW nuclear power plants in China would save 350 million tonnes of greenhouse gases per year – not to mention the lives of hundreds of unfortunate Chinese coalminers.
All of this seems like a lot of effort when all the Chinese really needed to do to reduce per capita emissions is to let citizens have more children.
We, however, shall be turning our lights off for an hour every year and singing Khumbaya.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2008 03 30 at 09:40 PM • permalink
Yes, sure there’s a plentiful supply of Uranium in the Australian ground. But there’s also a plentiful supply of coal in that ground too.
Nuclear won’t beat coal in price for a long time yet for Australia.
IMO: Use nuclear for electricity, and convert the coal to liquid fuels for vehicles. Or else just sell it to someone else like China…
Yes there really is something exciting in thinking of ways to safely store radioactive waste with a half life longer then recorded human history.
This comment reveals extreme ignorance.
Firstly, logically, the most radioactive substances (i.e. those with the highest rate of decay) also decay the fastest. The stuff which has a half life of hundreds of thousands of years just isn’t that radioactive, or dangerous.
Secondly, there is technology to use a reactor to transmute the substances with long half-lives into other substances with shorter half-lives.
Thirdly, and relatedly, there is technology to “burn” the spent fuel in a fast reactor, recovering energy, and in the process generating new fuel from depleted uranium (U238 -> U235).
So, the bottom line is, if you’re so worried about waste storage, we should just recycle it. I thought greenies were all in favour of recycling?
#14, when did I back the increased cost of coal and gas?
As a matter of fact I do think coal and gas prices will increase in the short term, but I think the prices of nuclear fuel will as well. We’re in an inflationary period (well the US is, and it’s exporting it) so I expect all commodities to increase in price – but that’s hardly “backing” it, since I think it’s a bad thing caused by bad policies…
And when did you imagine me asking for more investment in solar or wind power?
Oh I see “like you”, tarring me with some imagined brush because I happen to think that for Australia coal is cheaper than nuclear, because there’s so much of it just sitting there asking to be dug up and burnt.
I’d prefer nukes since they do make for much cleaner air, but I’m not quite as big a communist as you as to think that business should do something other than what will make more money (or that the government should be involved at all)…
On the subject of half lives, bananas contain small amounts of radioactive potassium k-40 with a half life of 1,260,000,000 years.
There are indeed many exciting ways to store this particular radio-active element involving everything from banana smoothies to delicious fresh-from-the-oven banana cake.
Human bodies contain a range of radio-active elements (including uranium), which explains why, when calculating your natural radiation dose, you will need to take into account whether or not you are sleeping with another person.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2008 03 30 at 10:13 PM • permalink
#34 – They must be those crazy Jew poisoned bananas. Identifiable by their glow in the dark tip.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 03 30 at 10:20 PM • permalink
#34 another giveaway for the Jew-poisoned banana variety are the ones with a bend.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2008 03 30 at 10:26 PM • permalink
I’ve always been partial to banana cream pie.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2008 03 31 at 02:03 AM • permalink
““temporary” solutions are de facto permanent solutions though simple dithering by indecisive leaders “
That’s it in a nutshell. The heaviest element known to science was recently discovered by investigators at a major U.S. research university. The element, tentatively named Bureaucrium, has no protons or electrons and thus has an atomic number of 0. However, it does have one neutron, 125 assistant neutrons, 75 vice neutrons and 111 assistant vice neutrons, which gives it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by a force that involves the continuous exchange of meson-like particles called morons.
Since it has no electrons, Bureaucrium is inert. However, it can be detected chemically as it impedes every reaction it comes in contact with. According to the discoverers, a minute amount of Bureaucrium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete when it would have normally occurred in less than a second.
Bureaucrium has a normal half-life of approximately three years, at which time it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which assistant neutrons, vice neutrons and assistant vice neutrons exchange places.
Some studies have shown that the atomic mass actually increases after each reorganization.
Research at other laboratories indicates that Bureaucrium occurs naturally in the atmosphere. It tends to concentrate at certain points such as government agencies, large corporations, and universities.
Scientists point out that Bureaucrium is known to be toxic at any level of concentration and can easily destroy any productive reaction where it is allowed to accumulate.
Attempts are being made to determine how Bureaucrium can be controlled to prevent irreversible damage, but results to date are not promising.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2008 03 31 at 02:21 AM • permalink
LMAO! Bureaucrium. That’s perfect.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2008 03 31 at 02:48 AM • permalink
#31 & 32; nicholas; a thorium reactor would utilise plutonium and nuclear waste as fuel, so the issue of half lives and dangerous waste would be largely mitigated; the fact that neither the greens or the pollies are talking about this is amazing; well, mildly surprising; actually, it’s perfectly understandable; they’ll all a pack of zombies; radioactive ones.
Really want to safely dispose of nuclear waste? Use homeopathy. Take one pound of radioactive waste and mix it with one pound of dirt. Take that and divide it into two one pound blocks. Mix each with a pound of dirt. Continue until the ratio is one part radioactive waste to 99 parts inert dirt. If you’re really cautious you could make the ultimate ration 1 in 999, but it would take more time and effort.
As an alternative, dump it all in one of the Pacific Ocean trenches. The great bulk of it will get caught in the mantle, and the vanishingly small amount that makes it back to the surface will only do so after millions of years. Now a horse aint likely to learn how to talk in a year’s time, but in a few million years who knows what our descendants will be capable of.
Posted by mythusmage on 2008 03 31 at 05:07 AM • permalink
In all seriousness, dumping nuclear waste in the ocean would probably be no big deal. Water is a great shield for radioactivity, which is why the sinking of the nuclear submarine the Kirsk created no serious environmental hazard.
Like the rest of the world, sea water is already full of radioactive elements, like uranium.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2008 03 31 at 05:31 AM • permalink
Brilliant!
I wonder if we could convince the greenies that Bureaucrium threatens Gaia. No need to tell them what this element does – for them the activism is reason enough. If we have to give them any explanation at some point we can just lie and tell them that Bureaucrium creates wealth – that should get any self-respecting greenie slavering.
Posted by Toiling Mass on 2008 03 31 at 05:34 AM • permalink
The sensible solution to used fuel rods is to reprocess them as this significantly reduces the amount of material that needs to be stored. Unfortunately the US does not do any reprocessing in an attempt (failed) to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Yes, I know there are treaty obligations etc, etc. Europe does reprocessing (especially France).
Posted by FreddyFrog on 2008 03 31 at 05:42 AM • permalink
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t it impossible to “produce” radioactive waste? Isn’t the stuff already naturally radioactive and by processing it we concentrate the radioactive bits? Then we use up some of the radioactivity to produce energy and then dispose of the remaining radioactive bits? So as waste they’re just more concentrated than they were when in the ground? (Actual amount of radioactivity is decreased though – great selling point!)
Maybe this is what mythusmage at #47 is getting at. You can return them to original lower concentration by diluting. Energy provided – damage to environment zero.
Bureaucrium is also known as “Administratium”, thus setting up another “aluminum/aluminium” argument.
Research into the properties of administratium continues. In several experiments it has been bombarded with funding; thus excited, anything from one to all (depending on the intensity of the irradiation) of the assistant neutrons are promoted to neutron and the other particles similarly excited, with the deficit in assistant vice neutrons made up by conversion of morons (which are abundant in Nature) to N<sub>AV</sub>. Surprisingly enough, this latter reaction requires almost no energy.
The result, of course, is from one to 125 new atoms of administratium, which are free to poison any reaction in the vicinity.
Regards,
Ric
#57 In the interest of full disclosure, I should have noted above that I adapted “Bureaucrium” from a joke I read years ago at this site.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2008 03 31 at 08:45 PM • permalink
MentalFloss…..BRILLIANT!!! I salute you.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 03 31 at 09:22 PM • permalink
Re #54, Zuzzy, you are right, up to a point. IIRC, the problem two fold.
First, the material is radioactive enough to be hazardous, but not radioactive enough to be useful.
Second, radioactive elements decay into other elements that don’t have the right properties to sustain a nuclear reaction. Else while, we could re-process some rocks for the radioactive bits (much of Washington DC has a slightly higher than normal background radiation thanks to the profusion of granite and marble).
So, in general, recycling radioactive waste can only go so far. Eventually, you wind up with something that must be disposed of.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 03 31 at 09:27 PM • permalink
Zussy, the thing is, Uranium isn’t terribly radioactive unless you concentrate it into a lump. This is because it has a low rate of natural decay, but when concentrated it features chain reactions which increase the radioactivity. That’s also what makes it work so well in bombs – you don’t want a bomb to have a high level of natural decay or else (1) it goes bad too quickly (2) when you set it off, you want it to go off all at once, and this is hard if it’s naturally decaying already.
When Uranium/Plutonium/Thorium/whatever is “burned” in a reactor it results in new elements being formed – the decay products. Some of these DO have a high rate of natural decay. They also tend to emit different types of particles at different energy levels.
However, as pointed out, these elements can be transmuted again into something safer in various ways – neutron bombardment, typically. A fast reactor can do this I believe.
JeffS – yes, you can’t recycle everything, but I’m told what’s left at the end of the process is pretty tiny. A few kg per reactor per year maybe. Disposing of such a small amount properly (diluting it, etc.) is not such a big deal.
- Mental Floss
You have carefully avoided explaining how Bu 312 can be accommodated by the Standard Model.Just asking. 1CheersPosted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2008 03 31 at 11:18 PM • permalink
#64 JMH, I’ll get back to you on that as soon as I install that last “unconventional” superconductor under the floor to complete the Large Hadron Collider I’m building out in the shed…
(sub rosa, I think the CP violation will come out on top, strangely charming bottoms not withstanding)
Posted by MentalFloss on 2008 04 01 at 01:05 AM • permalink
They’ve should have already been built. The only reason they weren’t was because environmentalists, greens, liberals, leftists, and the Hollywood set were screaching that nuclear power would doom – DOOM !!!! – us.
If we could have built nice safe nuclear power plants, all heavily regulated, greenhouse gasses would have been substantially reduced by now. Plus utility prices, most influenced by the turbulent fluctuations of oil, natural gas, and coal, would have stayed low.
IDIOTS ! All of them.