From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Old nukes, new nukes. (was Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal)
Date: 30 Sep 92 11:03:17 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Sep29.061133.4767@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.153944.4481@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>It's true that an
>>absolute worst case nuclear accident involving sudden breach of primary
>>and secondary containment followed by a fire for dispersal would have
>>a regional effect worse than any *single* coal plant accident, but coal
>>plants *don't need accidents* to do severe harm to the environment, they
>>do it *routinely*. 
>
>Ah, and that focuses in on the nub of it:  Would the effect of that
>hypothetical nuclear accident on the lives of the locals be worse
>than the aggregate from the equivalent coal plant?
>
>I don't care much if my family has its genes destroyed by a nuclear
>accident or by too much coal soot ingestion, it's still screwed.
>I care SOMEWHAT if a bunch of folks all die at once, but if they
>are going to have a substantially equal probability of dying from
>cancer in both cases, then the two time distributions won't be 
>that much different (in that both of them are spread out over time).
>
>So what does that scenario entail?  Massive prompt death, or a 
>statistical increase in cancer deaths on a par with that from 
>the extant coal?
>
>If, in fact, their is not massive prompt death scenario, then the 
>coal vs. nuke case simplifies to probable cancers over a generation
>or two (modulo a small question about genetic screwups ...).

Chernobyl caused the prompt deaths of 30 and somewhere between 200 and
a 1,000 in the following weeks from radiation poisoning depending on
who you believe. Estimates of long term increase in cancers varies from
10,000 to over 100,000, again depending on who you believe. Non-acute
radiation effects can take up to twenty years to show up. Accidents
in the coal industry routinely claim 30 to 50 prompt deaths, with
ocasional excursions into the several hundred range in mine accidents.
Coal trucks and trains routinely claim hundreds each year. And power
plant steam explosions claim a few more. Meanwhile, a 1,000 MW coal
plant puts enough toxics in the air to cause 10,000 excess cancers
each year downwind of the plant. That's from a Pennsylvania study. 

>>While it's not urgent to increase *net* generating capacity in the
>>US or Europe in the next few years, it's essential to replace aging
>>plant on an ongoing basis over the next few decades. 
>
>A VERY good point.  Perhaps we should offer a vastly simplified 
>construction permit process for new plant that will replace an
>old plant (on the presumption that anything new is better than
>the old stuff...)?  I, for one, don't want to be in the position of
>forcing the retention of poor old plant due to a desire not to build
>better new plant, even if I don't particulary want MORE nuclear ...

Amen to that. Our old coal plants are really dirty. The faster we 
can get them off line the better.

>>*And* the third
>>world is rightfully demanding access to electrical power. 
>
>They, at least, have the chance to avoid some of what we have gone
>through.  They can build passive solar from the start.  They can 
>use highly efficient refridgeration from the start.  They can use
>CFs from the start. etc.  Since they have to choose between building
>new plant or avoiding the cost by using high efficiency, the tradeoff
>in capital allocation should be easier for them to make.

Not all the third world consists of barefoot natives playing in the
jungle. Many have large urban populations in existing housing. Cairo
is a good example of the problem. It's like 19th century Manhattan
with some residents rarely seeing the sun. Passive structures and
low tech solar aren't in the cards for the urban masses. There's
also a capital problem. Poor people may *have* the $.79 for an
incandesent light bulb, but not have the $20 for a compact fluorescent.
While it's true that the more expensive bulb will more than pay for
itself over time, these people can't get in the game. Cheap electrical
appliances are synonymous with low efficiency. Creative financing would
be required to get them in use.

>>Solar 
>>and indirect solar are significantly higher cost sources of electricity
>>than coal or nuclear. 
>
>Uh, lets put some numbers on this, OK?  Solar is about 8 cents per kW-hr
>when done like Luz did it as solar thermal.  This is about double
>nuke or coal.  (maybe more, maybe less, depending on your local nuke).

Luz was the cheapest solar electric system so far developed. It was only
as cheap as it was because it generated 25% of it's energy with natural
gas. That was the maximum amount of gas they could use and still get
the solar tax break. 

>If you include storage for night time use, this can go up to about 16
>cents per kW-hr.  Higher, yes.  'Significantly' is a rather subjective
>term, though ...  That is still less than some time-of-day use 
>charges and not far off what alot of folks pay for power at home
>commercially.

But busbar power and residential power are separated by distribution
costs and profit. The use of solar at that busbar price still means
residential rates two to four times their present amount. Since the
cost of energy is built into the price of everything we use, the 
multiplier through the economy is the equivalent of at least a 400%
increase in general inflation. That's significant.

>...
>>It *is*
>>the current best alternative to nuclear however. If we pin our hopes
>>on a clean and cost effective replacement for natural gas generation
>>being developed in the next 50 years, we may be alright, but that's
>>a mighty big if on which to gamble the future of industrial civilization. 
>
>Uh, not if Scientific American can be believed.  There was an article
>some months back (year or two?) on combined cycle scrubbed coal gas.
>
>It asserted that the technologies were proven and all that remained were
>some teething pains in scaling the prototypes up to major scale plants.
>(or I could be mis-remembering ... it has been a while ...)

This doesn't address all the environmental problems of coal. It still
has to be mined, either in dangerous subsurface mines or in huge open
pits. Leachate still runs into the regional water supplies. The ash
still has to be disposed of. And the CO2 issue isn't addressed at all.
We've got plenty of coal, and scrubbed coal gas does address acid rain
concerns, but it's not a cure all.

>>We have better uses for natural gas than generating electricity. 
>
>Such as?  Alcohol synthesis?  CNG cars?

It's a major chemical feedstock.

>>There 
>>aren't many better uses for nuclear power than generating electricity.
>
>And process heat from HTGR, to make, of course, alcohol motor fuel ...
>
>E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.energy