''Nuclear Power is the best alternative to Fossil Fuels''

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

No they are not, because cost determines viability of energy recovery.

In the context of this discussion it is, as the cost of uranium has such a low impact on the cost of nuclear energy.

That does not change the fact that nuclear energy is not sustainable for the planet as a prime source of energy and is not a long term substitute for fossil fuels.

Just because we see X amount of uranium reserves available, does not mean we have just X amount to exploit in the future. As prices increase, mining companies put more effort into exploration (there's been decades of inactivity owing to a price crash), and new reserves open up that were previously uneconomic. Its the same old story, only the consumption of it is low carbon emitting (like wind and solar)*.

Perhaps not in the short term, however in the last 7 years I understand uranium prices have risen considerably around 1000% With a growing demand against diminishing supply prices will increase further and the compounding effect of price rises over the next 7 years could tell a different story. At the end of the day, nuclear is simply not a long term solution, nor a sustainable substitute for fossil fuels.

See previous post on France.

But you need to clarify what you mean by short, medium and long term.

The truth is that nuclear energy is more than viable for the life of any new builds we set up now, and beyond. We're talking about the sort of timescale that to plan for in any great detail would be pointless.

We may want to aim for a sustainable society, but we also want one that is affordable, and one that maintains our lifestyle with the minimum of impact. Nuclear power fits that bill in a significent way.

Not in the long term. Nuclear simply can't be sustained and it will end up costing us just as oil has now. In anther 50 years or so, I expect this whole saga might play itself out again with nuclear energy, while we continue to predominantly rely on diminishing fuel reserves at affordable cost. Someone else will be having this same discussion about why we continued to remain predominantly dependant on diminishing fuel resources against rising demand and cost.

As I've already alluded, there is much to develop in the nuclear cycle even further than we have. A ton of uranium would have produced far less energy than it can today, and in the future, we will see even more improvements. Especially if demand increases as you claim.

And could cost even more to extract and could do more environmental damage to extract. The mining paradigm also cannot be sustained indefinitely, even if the fuel can be recovered. Further more the storage of nuclear waste on a very large scale will present more environmental issues.

The mining impact is so often exaggerated by the anti-nuke camp, but nothing is without impact.

The question of waste is a non-issue. We've long known how to deal with nuclear waste. The scale isn't that big. Especially when one considers the amount of energy that it produced (huge amounts).


*Don't forget this. Wind and solar both have comparable energy costs to nuclear. The carbon emitted by them is comparable to nuclear. Also, they don't generally last as long as a nuclear plant.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

In the context of this discussion it is, as the cost of uranium has such a low impact on the cost of nuclear energy.

I understand around 20% of the price at present but that's not likely to continue indefinitely. Mining costs per ton will rise over time as uranium ore deposits require more effort to extract against increasing global demand and more stringent mining regulation.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Just because we see X amount of uranium reserves available, does not mean we have just X amount to exploit in the future. As prices increase, mining companies put more effort into exploration (there's been decades of inactivity owing to a price crash), and new reserves open up that were previously uneconomic. Its the same old story, only the consumption of it is low carbon emitting (like wind and solar)*.

More stringent environmental regulation will add to mining costs in future. Markets might open up, but that does not necessarily guarantee cheaper nuclear power prices if its costing more to extract per ton. Lower grade ore will then also yield lower energy and thus add to cost.

Originally Posted by Wobs

The truth is that nuclear energy is more than viable for the life of any new builds we set up now, and beyond. We're talking about the sort of timescale that to plan for in any great detail would be pointless.

Even if that's the case, that's only a minor segment of global growing energy demand which nuclear cannot meet at competitive cost in the longer term. On a global scale, nuclear cannot ever economically replace other fossil fuels in a major way, as demand would be too impinging on available supply and cost, driven up by demand, energy recovery costs and greater environmental regulation in future.

Originally Posted by Wobs

We may want to aim for a sustainable society, but we also want one that is affordable, and one that maintains our lifestyle with the minimum of impact. Nuclear power fits that bill in a significent way.

Unfortunately nuclear does not fit that bill at all. Building greater global dependency on non renewable resources like nuclear, is only creating another peak oil X years from now, except it will be peak nuclear. Your efficiency argument does not stand up when speaking about diminishing ore at rising prices and higher cost of ore recovery against growing demand for energy. It has not stood up with oil and it wont stand up with nuclear. Cars are more efficient but we have more of them. Oil recovery and refinery is more efficient, yet look at where the world is today with oil.

The more efficient we become the more we tend to consume to a point. Of course that applies to all energy industries, however demand negatively impacts affordability of resources that diminish at the greatest rate. Its only taken 100 odd years for and oil crisis to emerge on the back of global demand and further complicated by Climate Change management costs. The problem is in part that our particularly western lifestyles are not maintainable and to some extent, we will have to change in how we use resources and particularly energy.

Renewable energy prices are far less sensitive to price rises of mined resources, because the renewable energy plants core fuel is free. Thus such price rises may impact on up front capital just as with conventional power plants, but no impact on the fuel resource that you get with fossil and nuclear fuel. Renewable energy technology is also evolving more rapidly than other energy industries. I'm not suggesting nuclear wont play a role, however its long term role will be limited and unlikely ever to be major on a global scale. Renewables however in the longer term, perhaps say in 50 years and beyond seem more likely to play a much more significant role in sustainable energy provision well into the future for a very long time and some may say near indefinitely.

Originally Posted by Wobs

As I've already alluded, there is much to develop in the nuclear cycle even further than we have. A ton of uranium would have produced far less energy than it can today, and in the future, we will see even more improvements. Especially if demand increases as you claim.

A ton of uranium only has so much energy so returns on trying to improve technology begin to diminish eventually. However the costs keep rising as uranium ore deposits take more effort to extract and the quality of large quantities of ore at affordable recovery decline over time. l beyond that time, the sun will essentially cost the same, as will the wind, the tides and waves. Renewable energy technology will have evolved along with nuclear, however due to the many constraints on mined fuel resources, I expect their cost will be significantly higher. A classic real world example is that you can't lock in the kwh price of nuclear energy for the consumer, however consumers are being given the option to lock in kwh prices for solar energy with grid connect.

Originally Posted by Wobs

The mining impact is so often exaggerated by the anti-nuke camp, but nothing is without impact.

Of course nothing is without impact, but the future costs of the nuclear industry I expect will constrain its expansion.

Originally Posted by Wobs

The question of waste is a non-issue. We've long known how to deal with nuclear waste. The scale isn't that big. Especially when one considers the amount of energy that it produced (huge amounts).

The question of waste is a serious issue and one that will progressively get worse over time.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/nuclear-waste-containers-likely-to-fail-warns-devastating-report-907200.html

Originally Posted by Wobs

*Don't forget this. Wind and solar both have comparable energy costs to nuclear. The carbon emitted by them is comparable to nuclear. Also, they don't generally last as long as a nuclear plant.

I very much doubt that is true on a full life cycle basis that includes nuclear power plant decommissioning costs.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Well accusations of lack of competition is one factor:

Originally Posted by Wobs

Lack of competition fuels rise in gas and electricity prices says watchdog
-Although that could be certain parts of the press stirring it up.

Accusations ? but are they substantiated and is the competitive mix likely to change ? The article indicates that the UK has six gas suppliers for 55% of the UK market. I would have thought that sufficiently competitive. The problem is when once source of energy rises, it influences the price of other energy sources, as demand in the market shifts toward other sources. Thus when electricity prices rise, gas is likely to follow.

Originally Posted by Wobs

But yes, I have seen our energy bills. I also notice it is a higher rate than what one pays in France. Coincidence? Of course not.
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Media/FactSheets/Documents1/energy%20prices%20jan08.pdf[/quote]

France pays slightly less on the whole for electricity, and emits far less carbon and other emissions into the atmosphere in the process. We, on the hand have coal, gas, and an aging nuclear industry that is in desperate need of updating (building new plants); and cutting down on coal and gas consumption. New nuclear builds must and will be part of that.

As you say France pays only slightly less . Far from convincing that nuclear can offer cheap electricity indefinitely in the face of growing energy demand, more stringent environmental regulation, rising mining and ore costs. If we see another substantial uranium ore price surge over the next 10 years, its impact on electricity prices could be more significant than ever before. If nuclear ore prices go from representing the current 20% to 50% of the cost per kWh, the price dynamics could become a game changer against nuclear. Thus if uranium ore increases just 150% in price per ton over the next 10 years there might be concerns. Keeping in mind uranium ore is said to have risen around 1000% over the last 7 years. Conservatively rising another 150%, over 10 years does not seem that far fetched. Seeing a 300% rise in uranium ore prices over the next 10 years, with all other costs being static ( unlikely ) could see the ore component per kWh reach around 80% of the cost to generate each kWh of electricity. Again that's much less than the 1000% uranium ore price rise we have seen in about the last 7 years. ( thus the kWh nuclear power generation potentially becoming extremely ore price sensitive ).

I don't doubt nuclear will have a place in the market, though investing new billions of dollars of capital in nuclear infrastructure ( for plants designed to last 30 to 40 years ) might be fraught with financial risk in future, if these less favourable scenarios play themselves out. This especially the case when we have renewable energy markets evolving rapidly and their energy systems are much more rapid to the market, thus able to progressively take greater advantage of technological improvements, in a market that is becoming more dynamic and risky with more energy competitors taking a share of the pie.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Our electricity prices have about zero influence from the availability of uranium, even with the increase in recent demand worldwide.

Not sure how you come to that conclusion ? when as I understand uranium ore costs represent around 20% of the nuclear kWh cost.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Far more influence is from gas prices (availability, and perception of availability of gas; lack storage and/or past lack of storage capacity of gas).

Yes as indicated energy prices rises influence each other in the free market and tend to push up prices for competing energy sources. Also global market prices can influence local prices for such commodities, partly due to the competitive nature of the open global market place for resources, some of which are imported. Alleged lack of competition in the UK energy market seems to me an unlikely cause of recent electricity price rises.

[font=Arial][font=Arial][font=Arial]At the end of the day, fossil and nuclear fuel prices have no chance of falling unless there is a cheaper alternative and even then for them it will be a struggle with the power generation price being fuel price sensitive and although less so for nuclear today, that picture could change significantly within 10 years, being about the time it can take to plan and build a nuclear power station. On the other hand renewables like solar and wind are expected to fall in price over the next 10 years and from there on become cheaper than fossil fuels and nuclear generated power. Thus as much as nuclear might have a role to play, there are constraining factors going forward, particularly on a global scale. Such factors are less constraining upon the global growth of the renewable energy sector, particularly solar and wind, which is far more scalable and more rapidly deployable and decommissioning is a ride in the park, compared to nuclear. Going forward, the financial risks for nuclear investment seem to increase, where as they seem to reduce for solar and wind energy and some other emerging renewables.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

I The question of waste is a serious issue and one that will progressively get worse over time.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/nuclear-waste-containers-likely-to-fail-warns-devastating-report-907200.html

So the nuclear waste (which is a solid), is encased in glass (which is noted for it's lack of degradation and again, is solid), and is surrounded by a stabliser, and in turn is held in a stainless steel container, and in turn is surrounded in the chamber by clay. You're suggesting that because there is a risk of a steel shell failing in the middle of that, that we should not use nuclear energy?

Even if we continued to use outdated containers (which they won't now, some countries use titanium), and 40% of said steel containers failed, how exactly would the waste get into the environment?

And even if it did somehow get past all the barriers placed in front of it, and reached beyond the clay lining, where would go? Into the ground water? Well by the time this improbable leachate has found itself dissolved into the ground water, it would take so long to reach any meaningful destination (place for it to impact on society or wildlife) that by the time it got there, it would have likely decayed to a level well below the ore level of radioactivity.

For example, in Nevada, the groundwater travels at about 0.03inches per day, and note that it doesn't generally travel vertically upwards, it follows rock formations, so predictions of where and when it will appear are possible.

But it gets better, because even if said waste escaped, the rocks would filter out much of it, and let it decay over millenia.

Further, it is entirely possible that we might want to reprocess much of said long before it is sealed up deep underground, by which time we will no doubt have improved said weak point in the containment issue.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Your efficiency argument does not stand up when speaking about diminishing ore at rising prices and higher cost of ore recovery against growing demand for energy. It has not stood up with oil and it wont stand up with nuclear. Cars are more efficient but we have more of them. Oil recovery and refinery is more efficient, yet look at where the world is today with oil.

Yes, please look at oil. You'll see that despite decades of predictions of peak oil we still haven't hit it. The demand for oil has increased enormously, and we still aren't at peak oil. Go figure.

Exploration and extraction techniques have been driven by demands, and the same will apply with uranium.

Renewable energy prices are far less sensitive to price rises of mined resources, because the renewable energy plants core fuel is free. Thus such price rises may impact on up front capital just as with conventional power plants, but no impact on the fuel resource that you get with fossil and nuclear fuel. Renewable energy technology is also evolving more rapidly than other energy industries. I'm not suggesting nuclear wont play a role, however its long term role will be limited and unlikely ever to be major on a global scale. Renewables however in the longer term, perhaps say in 50 years and beyond seem more likely to play a much more significant role in sustainable energy provision well into the future for a very long time and some may say near indefinitely.

So why are large wind turbines getting more expensive? Demand is increasing, and the energy cost to produce them is increasing. Sorry, can't link you a ref for that, as I heard it at work.

While it will be good to see more wind turbines and solar panels etc where appropriate, we must not be seduced by their renewability. They still have a finite life, they still have an energy cost, and they still have an impact. And they're still expensive.

A ton of uranium only has so much energy so returns on trying to improve technology begin to diminish eventually. However the costs keep rising as uranium ore deposits take more effort to extract and the quality of large quantities of ore at affordable recovery decline over time. l beyond that time, the sun will essentially cost the same, as will the wind, the tides and waves. Renewable energy technology will have evolved along with nuclear, however due to the many constraints on mined fuel resources, I expect their cost will be significantly higher. A classic real world example is that you can't lock in the kwh price of nuclear energy for the consumer, however consumers are being given the option to lock in kwh prices for solar energy with grid connect.

A classic miundertanding of the situation.
A ton of uranium may have a finite amount of energy available from it, but we still haven't realised that potential. There are still great strides to be made in the fuel cycle efficiency issue.

Meanwhile, renewables continue to be expensive.

Of course nothing is without impact, but the future costs of the nuclear industry I expect will constrain its expansion.

Well as we've discussed before, there are limitations to all technologies, and demand/availability will likely be one limiting factor for nuclear energy, but that is no reason not to expand current use. There is still a great deal of scope for expansion.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

So the nuclear waste (which is a solid), is encased in glass (which is noted for it's lack of degradation and again, is solid), and is surrounded by a stabliser, and in turn is held in a stainless steel container, and in turn is surrounded in the chamber by clay. You're suggesting that because there is a risk of a steel shell failing in the middle of that, that we should not use nuclear energy?

Even if we continued to use outdated containers (which they won't now, some countries use titanium), and 40% of said steel containers failed, how exactly would the waste get into the environment?

And even if it did somehow get past all the barriers placed in front of it, and reached beyond the clay lining, where would go? Into the ground water? Well by the time this improbable leachate has found itself dissolved into the ground water, it would take so long to reach any meaningful destination (place for it to impact on society or wildlife) that by the time it got there, it would have likely decayed to a level well below the ore level of radioactivity.

For example, in Nevada, the groundwater travels at about 0.03inches per day, and note that it doesn't generally travel vertically upwards, it follows rock formations, so predictions of where and when it will appear are possible.

But it gets better, because even if said waste escaped, the rocks would filter out much of it, and let it decay over millenia.

Further, it is entirely possible that we might want to reprocess much of said long before it is sealed up deep underground, by which time we will no doubt have improved said weak point in the containment issue.

No I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm merely suggesting that the question of waste is a serious issue and one that I expect will progressively get worse over time, if the use of nuclear energy increases over time. Nuclear waste management is always a serious issue, that has to be taken seriously and is likely to be increasingly costly over time. Nuclear is simply not suitable for many nations and increasing environmental issues and environmental regulation, seem likely to add further cost pressures to nuclear energy and fossil fuels and their commercial viability and safety compared to renewables over the long term.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Yes, please look at oil. You'll see that despite decades of predictions of peak oil we still haven't hit it. The demand for oil has increased enormously, and we still aren't at peak oil. Go figure.

Go figure, you are missing the point. Long term oil and fossils will be more expensive. Renewables will become cheaper.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Exploration and extraction techniques have been driven by demands, and the same will apply with uranium.

They wont compete with renewables long term, 2020 and beyond.

Originally Posted by Wobs

So why are large wind turbines getting more expensive? Demand is increasing, and the energy cost to produce them is increasing. Sorry, can't link you a ref for that, as I heard it at work.

Again missing the point. Industry demand fluctuations are normal in a growth phase. Prices fluctuate more than mature technologies. Long term renewables will be cheaper.

Originally Posted by Wobs

While it will be good to see more wind turbines and solar panels etc where appropriate, we must not be seduced by their renewability. They still have a finite life, they still have an energy cost, and they still have an impact. And they're still expensive.

Of course, old arguments not game changers.

Originally Posted by Wobs

A classic miundertanding of the situation.
A ton of uranium may have a finite amount of energy available from it, but we still haven't realised that potential. There are still great strides to be made in the fuel cycle efficiency issue.

Again fossils and nuclear simply wont compete long term and will be too costly for many countries.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Meanwhile, renewables continue to be expensive.

Obviously at present. Not so beyond 2020 when costing carbon and environmental management costs. Again long term, the energy industry recognises that renewables costs will fall and stabalize. Fossils and nuclear will increase.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Well as we've discussed before, there are limitations to all technologies, and demand/availability will likely be one limiting factor for nuclear energy, but that is no reason not to expand current use. There is still a great deal of scope for expansion.

Obviously, although market factors will be a key reason why nuclear and fossil fuel energy use will be more limited in the long term. The longer term futrue is renewables simply becuase they will ultimately be cheaper.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

I very much doubt that is true on a full life cycle basis that includes nuclear power plant decommissioning costs.

It is known for many sites that are being decommissioned, but I've said before, energy for future decommissioning will be lower, as it will be designed into the system beforehand.

In September's edition of TCE (Chemical Engineering magaine), it looks at different energy sources, including nuclear, coal, and renewables. The following is quoted:

CO2 output from electricity generation by g/kWh:

Conventional coal 1000 g/kWh
Combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) 500 g/kWh
Photovoltaic 58 g/kWh
Nulcear (life cycle) 5 g/kWh
Wind 5 g/kWh
Hydro (run of river) <5 g/kWh


Or another study gives:
The numbers vary for energy costs of all technologies. Much depends upon where the study originates, but wind and nuclear tend to be comparable in terms of energy cost.

For example:
g/kWh CO2 Japan
coal 975
gas thermal 608
gas combined cycle 519
solar photovoltaic 53
wind 29
nuclear 22
hydro 11

Sweden
Coal 980
gas thermal 1170 (peak load reserve)
gas combined cycle 450
solar photovoltaic 50
wind 5.5
nuclear 6
hydro 3

Finland
Coal 894
gas thermal
gas combined cycle 472
solar photovoltaic 95
wind 14
nuclear 10 - 26
hydro -

Energy Analysis of Power Systems: WNA

Given whether or not decommissioning is included is not a major consideration given how much the numbers vary, and energy costs are falling for new nuclear plants anyway.

Some further discussion, this time from the Government:

"Nuclear power generation has a relatively small carbon
footprint (~5gCO2eq/kWh) (Fig 2). Since there is no
combustion, (heat is generated by fission of uranium or
plutonium), operational CO2 emissions account for <1%
of the total. Most emissions occur during uranium mining,
enrichment and fuel fabrication. Decommissioning
accounts for 35% of the lifetime CO2 emissions, and
includes emissions arising from dismantling the nuclear
plant and the construction and maintenance of waste
storage facilities.12 The most energy intensive phase of
the nuclear cycle is uranium extraction, which accounts
for 40% of the total CO2 emissions. Some commentators
have suggested that if global nuclear generation capacity
increases, higher grade uranium ore deposits would be
depleted, requiring use of lower grade ores. This has
raised concerns that the carbon footprint of nuclear
generation may increase in the future.

Future nuclear footprint & global uranium resources
Some analysts are concerned that the future carbon
footprint of nuclear power could increase if lower grade
uranium ore is used, as it would require more energy to
extract and refine to a level usable in a nuclear reactor.
However, a 2006 study by AEA Technology calculated
that for ore grades as low as 0.03%, additional emissions
would only amount to 1.8gCO2eq/kWh. This would raise
the current footprint of UK nuclear power stations from 5
to 6.8gCO2eq/kWh (Fig 3). If lower grades of uranium are
used in the future the footprint of nuclear will increase,
but only to a level comparable with other ‘low carbon’
technologies and will not be as large as the footprints of
fossil fuelled systems."

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268
Which could be what the first numbers refer to.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

No I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm merely suggesting that the question of waste is a serious issue and one that I expect will progressively get worse over time, if the use of nuclear energy increases over time. Nuclear waste management is always a serious issue, that has to be taken seriously and is likely to be increasingly costly over time. Nuclear is simply not suitable for many nations and increasing environmental issues and environmental regulation, seem likely to add further cost pressures to nuclear energy and fossil fuels and their commercial viability and safety compared to renewables over the long term.

It won't get "worse", it will get easier, as we perfect techiques even more efficiently