Nuclear stations yield less energy than they cost to build? 1

[gwolf]

In the UK at the moment there are strong mutterings about building more nuclear power stations. I feel this may be intrinsically sensible given that we already have about a dozen very radioactive sites anyway, some with active plants, some not.

However, someone told me that if you evaluate all of the energy (not monetary costs) required to build, maintain, and decomission a nuclear power station, you end up with a net loss. The point being that if you were trying to use nuclear power to avoid using oil, you might be wasting your time.

I have been told that for wind-turbines, the energy payback time is very low, of the order of 2-5 years with a machine life of about 25 years. Solar cells are worse, maybe 5 years to pay back the energy to produce them and 10 years life. etc.

Does anyone have any information on the energy balance on nuclear power stations, and on any other forms of energy like renewables?

 

[gwolf]

I at last found a paper illustrating the point:

http://www.oprit.rug.nl/deenen/

Anyone care to shoot this down?

 

[QCE]

I'm not so sure sounds like BS to me. I do have a related story. My friend wrote a paper at university on "how much energy is used to recycle paper. Collect, transport, reprocessing, etc and concluded that it was a waste of energy to recycle paper. Interesting point. I'm not sure. I still recycle my paper but I compost a lot of it also.

 

[GregLocock]

If it were a free market then you wouldn't have to worry, the market would decide whether a nuke was worth building.

I haven't had time to read the paper, but let's just say I'm prepared to read it, the idea of doing a whole of life energy balance is a very sensible one, for all power generating technologies.

In particular I'd like to see the same methodology applied to wind generators, I find it amazing that they are made from aluminium.



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[QCE]

I don't think the generator is made from aluminum. Maybe the turbine. I think usually the blades are made of carbon fiber, epoxy and fiberglass. I'm not sure which aluminum part you are talking about actually.

I would also like to see one for a wind generator. I don't understand how it can be said that a power generating system that needs no fuel can be less cost effective then one that needs a fuel supply.

Sorry gwolf but I don't actually have the time to look into this. I think it would take to much time but I will be watching to see if anyone takes you up on it.

 

[TheTick]

I read the authors' CV and chapter 2. I skipped the greenhouse gas blather of chapter 1, as I am more interested in the aspect of energy invested vs. energy extracted.

I think these gentlemen have some credibility as persons able to comprehend and explain the technology involved. They seem capable as technology analysts, but could stand to buttress their credibility as industry analysts.

If their sources and numbers can be trusted, I think they are on to something. As a student in the US Navy nuclear power school, actually had a similar thought: "By the time U₂₃₅ is mined, refined, used, and discarded, is it worth the effort?

The answer for the US Navy was simple: we need it, and there's no other way to keep a submarine on station under water for months at a time. However, the Navy's goals do not include net energy production, greenhouse gas control, or profit.


I quickly came to believe that current nuclear technology is not a sound economic venture. However, I believe it is an invaluable ecumenical exercise. It's something we had to try in order to learn some important lessons along the way.

I could be the world's greatest underachiever, if I could just learn to apply myself.

http://www.EsoxRepublic.com

-SolidWorks API VB programming help

 

[GregLocock]

I think they are on rather dodgy ground by bundling in the energy costs of dismantling the plant and disposal of the spent fuel with no discount rate. I can see the intellectual purity of the argument, but the real world doesn't work like that, and frankly to say " well it should work that way" sounds a bit naive.

I was just thinking about my free market observation above. Maybe in the USA the the market has spoken, and that's why you have no new nukes. ! That is, society has bundled in /all/ the costs (financial, social, environmental) associated with nuclear power, and decided agin it.



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[GregLocock]

What version of acrobat are people using to read those documents? I'm using 6.0 and there's enough weird formatting in Chpater 1 to make nonsense of the argument.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[rb1957]

i have similar doubts (about the energy efficiency) with fuel cells. certainly they are less polluting at the "business" end (powering the car), but what about the energy cost involved in making them in the first place ?

 

[gwolf]

I found some more recent numbers for wind turbines and PV cells. For modern PV cells, the energy payback time is "a few years" and the cell life up to 30 years. For wind the payback is an astonishing 3-5 months and machine life - well as good as you can make it, say 25 years?

I still reckon Hydro is the best. The energy still being generated from the Grand Coulee dam's most recent (early 1970's) turbine replacement is just awesome.

 

[QCE]

I would agree that hydro is probably the best but it is limited to the number of sites available and of course the environmental impact of developing those sites. We have had very little new large scale hydro projects in the developed countries since the 1970's. I don't see that changing. However Africa and China are booming!

 

[StressGuy]

The problem with free market economics, at least in practice, is that most CEO's (and consumers, for that matter) can't see beyond the next quarter. Expecting the "market" to evaluate the economic sense of a concept that takes 20 years to evaluate is a tall order in a world where most goods from cars to electronics are considered obsolete within four years.

Now, I do think it is important that these kinds of analysis be done for all the energy sources that we are considering using. I just don't trust the "free market" as the tool to determine the answer.

Nukes are unpopular in the U.S. because of three mile island and "The China Syndrome". I doubt very many in the U.S. who oppose nuclear energy do so because they think it is a net energy loser.

Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas

"All the world is a Spring"

All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.

 

[bandraoi]

The problem is with trying to apply free market economics to the energy situation.

Firstly oil, pretty much the number one choice for energy, is not supplied by companies and countries operating on free market practices.

Secondly the whole price is not applied to most forms of energy. The cost of fossil fuel to the consumer does not account for the environmental damage it will cause, particularly in low tax economies such as the US.

 

[BillPSU]

I am aware of Wolf Creek power plant in Kansas and found that after 20 years of operation it is producing electricity at 1.44 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Decommisioning and waste disposal costs are still unknown and we all know what a can of worms politically that is. No matter what anybody says someone will disagree.

My source follows:

http://www.wcnoc.com/news_view.cfm?id=152

 

[swertel]

I just had an NSPE meeting that talked about the use of hydrogen, wind, and solar power. Very interesting, especially his comparison to oil usage. Below is the website of the keynote speaker.

http://www.etaengineering.com/

I have no affiliation with this company other than stated above. He is not a direct retailer, although it appears that way. This company does the math to determine your needs, files the paperwork, and acts as general contractor to get you alt fuel system built.

Most important of this sight, though, is the links to the left that have lots of info and links to non-profit organizations about alt fuels.

--Scott

For some pleasure reading, try FAQ731-376

 

[epoisses]

Any document that reaches the inevitable conclusion that a high number of people presumed intelligent must really be complete idiots is highly suspect. I have not gone through the cals but I invite the authors to reconcile their findings with the financial records of energy companies that have been running nuclear plants for years... at a loss?? We'll see. I'd also like to see a similar calc for a refinery.

IMHO "it costs more energy than it delivers" is a highly subjective discussion that depends strongly on where you put the system boundaries. Given the inherent loss as heat, anything you do "costs" more energy than it delivers. But it may convert one form of energy into another, more useful one.

 

[moltenmetal]

gwolf: three nuclear plants have been supplying over 40% of the electrical supply needs of the province of Ontario, Canada for about forty years. There is NO WAY that the energy required to mine the uranium, construct the plants and dispose of them and their waste at the end of their lifecycle could be even 1/10th, much less equal to, the energy they've generated over those years.

Plant decommissioning and waste disposal aren't technically infeasible, they're politically infeasible. How do you assign a cost for that?

You can argue about the payback on the HUGE capital investment for a nuclear plant, or the societal risk/benefit ratio of nuclear energy (particularly if the plants are constructed or operated by private for-profit companies operating under an accident insurance exemption, such that the cost of the risk is borne by the public NOT the for-profit entity), or about acceptable means for the waste disposal from the plant- but the operating cost per kilowatt-hour for these plants is far lower than any fueled alternative, full stop. And if they ARE operated safely, the environmental impact of these plants is far lower than any of the fueled alternatives.

 

[epoisses]

80% in France, not sure if 40 years but probably 20+

By the way you save half the cost for safety/environmental contingencies if you locate your plant close to the border as many countries do. ;-)

 

[JTreglio]

It must be kept in mind that water-moderated reactors are inherently unstable. Too much water, and the neutron population grows too fast (in reactor terms, the reactor goes prompt critical and blows up); too little water, and the reactor melts down. Back in the eighties I worked for General Atomic, which had developed an inherently-stable alternative to the light water reactor, the high temperature gas reactor or HTGR. HTGR's use graphite as moderator and helium gas as coolant. General Atomic had plans to make them commercially, but unfortunately entered the market about the time it crashed. It didn't help that their first commercial unit didn't work all that well. Anyway, design work has continued on a newer version, the pebble-bed reactor, that is both inherently safe and easy to refuel. I mention this because I think the public opposition that prevents re-starting a US nuclear program could be overcome if the newer, inherently-safe, technology were to be used.

Jim Treglio
Molecular Metallurgy, Inc.