Category: "Nuclear power"

Supporting Nuclear power, preweb article 2007Public comments for draft ETACC report.ca.gov>

by Ginosar  

 

The US should markedly expand its nuclear-generated electricity to reduce global warming.

 

Dr. Matania Ginosar. November 27, 2007,

 

We have to plan our electrical power needs realistically and devoid of emotionalism. We oppose nuclear power stations mostly because of our misplaced fear. Public misperception is the biggest hindrance to generating electricity by nuclear power, and misunderstanding impacts also many energy professionals. Environmental groups contribute to the problem.

 

I have been on both sides of this issue for decades. As an electrical engineer for 20 years, I supported nuclear power. But I started to oppose it during my doctoral studies of Environmental Science at UCLA. Afterward, when I was the manager of the Solar and Wind Energy programs at the California Energy Commission I continued to oppose nuclear power and worked very hard to advanced alternative energies. I continued to oppose nuclear power until the last few years because of all the concerns surrounding it. I was mistaken; I did not see the total story.

 

It took me a long struggle to realize that I was mistaken to oppose nuclear power. I saw only its potential negatives; I did not study the full global energy picture. I was also overoptimistic about the speed of adoption of energy efficiency and alternative energies. And most important, I mistakenly believed that Global Warming was a future event that would not impact global climate for several generations. Like many environmentalists, I thought we had time to do things according to our dreams without pain: develop alternative energies, incorporate conservation and energy efficiency, take time to minimize our fossil fuels use, eliminate nuclear power. I also did not anticipate the explosion of energy demand in the developing world. I, like many, read about these problems but did not want to accept the global reality.

 

GW is the overwhelming primary issue of our time, and it is time critical. It is now very clear that GW is already here, is causing unstable weather globally with much damage, and will increase its ravage of many areas of our globe. The final report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was quite specific about the coming increased damage to our global climate and the pending severe impacts on most nations, including the US. And that IPCC report was subdued to satisfy the political demand of several large emitting countries. Our sad experience with just one storm, the destruction of New Orleans by Katrina showed us the power of nature to cause untold damage to life and property. We must look at the global energy picture to grasp the increased need for nuclear power, despite its limitations.

 

The most significant advantage of nuclear power is the potential to reduce carbon emissions: “A threefold expansion of [global] nuclear power could contribute significantly to staving off climate change by avoiding one billion to two billion tons of carbon emissions annually” (MIT panel). Twenty percent of the US electricity is produced by nuclear power. The accumulated saving of global warming gases over the last quarter century by this nuclear power is 20 billion tons!

No other technology that is viable currently has the potential to reduce GW gases so significantly in the same time frame. We do not have the time to wait in order to avoid some of the most damaging aspects of advancing GW!

 

The most serious limitation to nuclear power expansion is negative public perception. The public fear of nuclear power is misplaced. The safety record of the 104 nuclear power stations in the US is very high. In addition, improved design of nuclear power stations and strict government supervision can reduce markedly all limitations:

 

 

The main limitations and mitigations are listed below:

 

  1. The danger of nuclear radiation from plant accident:

The only significant nuclear accidents have been the Three Miles Island in the US, which did not emit any nuclear material and the Chernobyl in the previous USSR. The damage from Chernobyl was on a large scale, it was due mainly to lack of a containment building above the nuclear plant which is mandatory on all nuclear power stations in the West.

The new fail-safe system to power down runaway reactor is superior to existing safety measures and does not require external machinery.

Also, control technology has advanced markedly in the last thirty years with the advance in electronics and will increase the safety margin of new plants. We can easily have redundancy of necessary controls which were not practical in the past. In addition, new nuclear plants can be placed far from population centers and use high voltage DC lines to transfer the power with low losses.

 

  1. Inadequate nuclear waste disposal:

Although we still do not have a final solution to nuclear waste storage, all the commercial nuclear waste is stored safely at each nuclear station site. It occupies extremely small space and operated safely for the last fifty years. In addition, a new technology has developed that extract many times the energy from the nuclear material thus reducing the waste by a major factor.

 

  1. Nuclear weapon proliferation:

Nuclear weapon proliferation is not affected by increased use of nuclear power in the US. Three-quarter of the nuclear plants are operating outside of the US. Nations develop nuclear power if we want it or not.

 

  1. Impact of terrorism:

New underground design reduces the potential for terrorist attack on a nuclear installation. Heavier steel reinforced concrete overall critical plant equipment will increase safety. We should use National Guard to protect our national energy centers to decrease national vulnerability.

 

There are 440 nuclear power stations globally, 104 in the US. Nuclear power now supplies 16% of global electric energy thus reducing markedly CO2 emissions. Global nuclear power continues to expand, a fact beyond U.S. control; eighteen of the 27 nuclear power plants now under construction are in Asia. The US cannot dictate how much nuclear power will spread around the world, but if we cooperate with global nuclear power development, and help create global safety standards, we will increase the global safety and most importantly, help reduce GW progress.

 

Here are some additional realities to consider:

  1. Steady base power is mandatory for a functioning society. It should be over 50% of power mix and is currently supplied by coal, natural gas, nuclear and large hydro. We must drastically reduce GW gases from fossil fuels by nuclear power. Our hydropower is in danger; GW is expected to increase weather extremities, therefore reduce the availability of our hydropower. We should concentrate on reducing our energy demands. In addition, alternative energies should be incorporated into the power mix according to their effectiveness and ability to reduce GW. They are inherently limited by nature, for example, sun is only at daytime, wind is not steady. Alternative energies cannot provide reliable base power. Corn Ethanol is not environmentally desirable. It will take time to develop and install practical technology for mass use of biomass.

 

  1. R&D on CO2 elimination from coal should accelerate but it may take decades to prove and incorporate. Also the technologies may be unreliable, take immense space, and hard to control because of it will be widely distributed, and if the CO2 later escape it can cause critical acceleration of GW.

 

  1. China is adding two GigaWatt size coal plants a week. We can not influence them to reduce their immense CO2 emission, now higher than the U.S., when we in the US are pushing rapid approval of coal power plants to bypass impending limitation on CO2 emissions and carbon tax.

 

  1. The American public will continue to demand more electricity and would conserve only in face of extreme events. California population continues to increase too.

 

  1. Nuclear power generates by far the least GW gases of all alternative energies except wind energy.

 

  1. Large-scale electrical power cannot be supplied reliably and economically from small distributed sources, such as “Solar photoelectric on every roof.” Buyers of these small systems are amateurs and as such subjected to price manipulation and unprofessional installation and repairs. These produce very little electricity at the highest cost. Central solar-thermal plants show considerably more promise for daytime solar power. Centralized power sources are bought, installed and operated by professionals that have both financial and technical acumen and therefore can generate the most cost-effective, reliable energy.

 

Conclusion:

Nuclear power should replace much of the coal and natural gas power plants in the coming years because:

It will reduce significantly generation of GW gases.

It will reduce our dependence on foreign natural gas. Additional natural gas must be imported.

Retain more of our energy cost in the US, thus helping our economy

 

Dr. Matania Ginosar

Environmental Scientist

 

  1. Env. (UCLA)

B.S. M.S. Elect Engr (U of W)

Teaching Assistant MIT

MS Mgt. (UCLA)

 

Carmichael, CA 95608

November 27, 2007,

 

A Note on Nuclear Power

by Ginosar  


For many years I have been in favor of nuclear power to reduce the catastrophic greenhouse gases endangering our small and finite Earth. Before my understanding of the high level of danger from Climate Change I was against nuclear power.

 

Nevertheless, there are always dangers with such an extreme concentration of energy.
Here are few ideas we should consider:

 

Nuclear power is an extremely complex technology, using extreme heat, and the radiation weakens the metals used in the process, just a few of the problems. Mistakes are not tolerable - but they will happen. Nuclear must be treated with the realization that it can melt and contaminate if, if we do not accept that it is always dangerous to the immediate area.

 

Again, we must treat it as a dangerous technology that must have many safeguards around it.

 

We are not infallible, we must have humility and not assume that we have or can have all the answers. The future is unpredictable.

 

Therefore, we must build nuclear power stations with the realization that unforeseen major problems are possible, even likley, and that we could not have the entire safeguard needed and the knowledge in advance what can go wrong.

 

But we may be able to bracket the danger. First, unlike the Japanese Fukushima concentration of plants to cut costs, build only one plant in one location. If it fails it will not propagate to nearby nuclear stations. Also, installing them in areas with minimum population, further from the ocean, and major water supplies- which is obviously in conflict with the need to cool the plants.

 

Amazing, to date few people were killed by nuclear power, and many thousand were killed by coal.

 

And the damage to the environment? Coal is a destroyer of nature on massive scale.
Go to coal extractions zones and look at the trailing, the unusable rivers and lands near them.

Matania
3/2016

 

Joseph Romm vs. Bill Gates

by Ginosar  

Dr. Joseph Romm, on his widely popular and educational blog Climate Progress questioned today many of Bill Gates views on energy and global warming. With all due respect to Dr. Romm, I think he is not seeing the full meaning of Bill Gates points. Here are some of the comments I wrote today on his blog:

 

Listen to Bill Gates!

I have been an environmental scientist for several decades and made significant contributions to the commercialization of wind energy when I was the manager of the solar office and the wind energy program for the California Energy Commission. I tried to look at reality and not mislead myself by wishful thinking. Bill Gates is a wise man and we must listen to him; he has a lot of logical things to say we do not wish to listen to because they are against our dreams. But facts are facts, even if we ignore them.

 

Many of the points Bill Gates discussed are valid:
First, he did not say efficiency is useless, but that it is limited. I have been advocating energy efficiency and conservation strongly for half a century. Almost no progress was achieved to date. It is not sexy like PV and people do not want to use conservation. Only strict national mandatory laws stronger than California may make a difference. It is not that the efficiency and conservation are not important, they are critically desirable and important, it is the difficulty in spreading them fast and widely to make a difference.
Read: Conservation can cut 30 times more CO2 per dollar, on my blog.

 

Bill Gates is correct on PV. First he is correct that unless the technology can be widely used in China and India it is essentially useless. PV is too expensive by a significant factor to be use on a large scale in these critical countries. No matter how much we cut GHG these two countries will continue to pass us with GHG by increasing amounts. They are the key to cutting GHG!

 

The PV global industry is in the order of $20 billion a year! This is a huge industry, not in infancy with starting pain. Why does it need more government support? Only to maintain and increase the profit of the PV industry. The cost of the panels went down a little, but it is not passing on to the consumer. The system price has to drop by ten to one according to Dr. Steven Chu to be significant. Not this expensive PV technology! Panels are less than 35% of system cost!
Without government support PV would have died a long time ago, as it should since it has made less than negligible contribution to reducing GHG. Also, too many supporters are dreaming about a world covered with PV panels and do not do other, more important things such as conservation and efficiency. Current PV technology inherently can't do it. Environmentalists often give Germany as a champion on PV we should emulate. Wrong! Germany spent over $70 B on PV by last year and got less than one half a percent of its electricity from that huge investment. At the same time wind produce 7% of their electricity, but worst of all, Germany has been increasing their dependence on coal power by considerably larger percentage that all the green technologies combined. Let's look at facts as they are, rather as we wish them to be.
Using this money for conservation and efficiency would have reduced GHG by 20 times or more.

 

The basis fact is that flat panel silicon technology demands very highly refined silicon which demands a lot of electricity to refined which is produced by coal power plants in Germany and China. We have also the several years of energy payback to consider.
It will take too long to demonstrate all the sensible points Bill Gates made. Let's listen to him and review carefully what we are proposing.

 

BTW, yes, nuclear power is more promising BECAUSE little innovations and improvement were made to date. There are so many new improvements that could be introduced. Without nuclear our green technologies are too erratic and even the promising wind energy may be degraded since future weather patterns would be changing and be less predictable with increasing GW.

Read www.ginosaronglobalwarming.org to understand why PV is not any part of the answer with current technology. R&D is critical to find new more practical solar technologies of converting sun energy to electricity.

Matania



Some thoughts on the severe Japanese Earthquake

by Ginosar  

The nuclear problems in Japan are serious, and far from resolved, but the media, for its own interest of gathering viewers and readers, is blowing up this nuclear tragedy above justification. The public is fearful of nuclear power because they still feel it is similar to a nuclear explosion. It is not. Nuclear explosion can not occur in nuclear power stations. The explosions at the nuclear plants are pressure explosions from either high pressure steam, or other gases created in the aftermath of the loss of cooling waters. The danger is from release of radiation material.

 

Here is some background:
Japan was very sensible in developing nuclear power since they have no energy sources of their own. They produced 30% of their electricity from nuclear power, the rest mostly coal. Japan is the largest coal importer in the world and depends on the Australians to sell it to them, and the US to secure the oceans. In addition, all their oil come from the unstable Middle East which Iran can stop at will by controlling the flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf.
In addition, much of Japan's economy depends on both raw material inputs and energy inputs from not always a stable world.

 

Looking at all of these, the Japanese wanted some energy security by producing some of their own electric power. True the nuclear material comes from abroad but you can store several years' supplies in Japan itself, thus approaching some measure of control of their electricity.
With all of these considerations you can not fault the Japanese for relying also on nuclear power.
They would have done better if they designed and built their nuclear safety backup systems to be more self-sufficient and less easily destroyed by a Tsunami. The magnitude of this earthquake was also beyond expectation being one of the largest in recorded history. More recent nuclear plants have higher level of backup safety systems than the Japanese may have. New nuclear plants will incorporate the lesson of this tragedy. The damage to Japan would be much larger from its economic slow down due to this earthquake/tsunami than from these unfortunate nuclear accidents.

 

There are now over 400 nuclear plants in the world. China and India will increase their reliance on nuclear power to satisfy the increase demand of energy for their impoverished population.
We in the US will be one of the few large nations that want to reduce our nuclear power. And it is a mistake. We will simply increase the amount of CO2 over the globe in the process. Nuclear power is expensive and could be dangerous if not built properly, but its possible danger is lower than the certain danger of global warming.

 

Think about the total global picture. Think about the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gases. Try to subdue the raw emotions regarding nuclear power to assess the positive global impact of nuclear power. Coal is dangerous too, but we do not see it so vividly. It kills invisibly, over long periods of time, in non dramatic situations via its poisonous byproducts and destruction of the environment.

Think how many thousands of people have died from this earthquake and its tsunamis? The amount suffering from the nuclear release would be considerably smaller than the total suffering. Almost half a million people, again, half a million people! died from the tsunamis after the 2004 Sumatra earthquake. Hundred of thousands died in Haiti without nuclear power.

 

Again, we need to look at it in global terms; the green alternatives we want are not real yet, at least not for the foreseeable future. We must reduce our energy consumption and waste. But we are doing nearly nothing in energy conservation and efficiency - the most cost-effective and easily available approaches that are domestic both in material and labor.



NUCLEAR POWER IS SUPERIOR TO COAL

by Ginosar  

Part II of: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOUNDING GOOD AND DOING GOOD

In all our discussions we must be firmly remember that GHG emissions are increasing the danger of catastrophic climate changes and are driven to a large percentage by electricity generation from coal power plants. And in the drive to electrify some of our transportation, more electricity would be needed.

 

Let' compare the direction of electricity generation in the three countries we discussed earlier:

 

Germany plans to eliminate their nuclear plants by 2020 and increased its dependence on Coal, now 50%, but hopes for eventual use of CCS to reduce its massive GHG. This is a hope rather than concrete path.

 

The US (50% of electricity from coal) has no plans to replace its aging nuclear plants (20% of electrify) due to high costs, lack of public and governmental support. Most important is the opposition from unaware public which is wrongly influenced by the mistaken, emotional driven policy of most environmental organizations. It would be difficult to overcome the misperception of an emotional society that has great difficulties accepting facts it does not like. Also our political system is polarized, unable to face reality, and to work for the common good. In the nuclear power case, the Democrats are the stumbling block.

We will have to pay premium above the price of coal for power from non polluting sources. There are several promising ways to cut the cost and increase the safety further of nuclear power plants. We are not doing adequate R&D in this crucial area. Emotionalism should not govern our national policy.

 

China is installing nuclear power stations as fast as it possibly can TO REDUCE THEIR DEPENDENCE ON COAL. Nuclear power is much more expansive than coal, why else are they doing it?

Eleven nuclear plants are operating now and they are planning to add ten new plants each year for the coming decades, possibly some 20% of the power of their new coal plants.

"Today, China's nuclear plants can produce about nine gigawatts supplying about 3 percent of the country's electricity. Three years ago, the government set a goal of increasing that capacity more than fourfold by 2020.

The government will soon announce a further increase in its targets, to 70 gigawatts of capacity by 2020 and 400 gigawatts by 2050, said Jiang Kejun, an energy policy director at the National Development and Reform Commission, the main planning agency.

Electrical demand is growing so rapidly in China that even if the industry manages to meet the ambitious 2020 target, nuclear stations will still generate only 9.7 percent of the country's power, by the government's projections."

www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/business/global/16chinanuke.html

 

Concluding comments

Nuclear power has the potential to be a reliable, solid source of base power. They have demonstrated that for the last three decades in the US. They improved their availability to some 92%. That is, they have been on line producing electricity 92% of the time.

Nuclear is one of several non emitting energy sources we should use. However, even if it was totally safe, even if it was economical now, we can not rely on more than a portion of our power from it (20 - 40%?) because it takes to much time and money to build them.

The most critical and the first thing to do is cut our energy waste and cut our energy consumption.

Every kWh we cut reduces three kWh of input energy because most current thermal power plants are typically 33% efficient. And old coal plants have notoriously low efficiency - some 145 coal power plants are operating now that were constructed before 1950!

Congress allowed these old plants to operate under a "grandfather" agreement, escaping even basic air pollution regulations.