From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Old nukes, new nukes. (was Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal)
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:11:33 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

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 ...).

>>Since there appears no pressing need for immediate construction of
>>new generating capacity, my belief is that it pays to be cautious here.
>>I'd rather spend money on solar, conservation, insulation, natural
>>gas, fancy pollution control equipment .... 

Me too.  Which is part of why I have CFs and a new 'fridge.  That, and
the $50/month saved on my utility bill ...

>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 ...

>*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.

>I don't want
>to see any more coal plants built. And I don't want to see the busbar
>price of electricity increase dramatically. Conservation and insulation
>are fine, they *slow* the rate of increase for new *net* capacity in
>already industrialized nations, but they don't address the issues of 
>replacing aging plant or supplying capacity to emerging nations. 

Well, yes and no ...  I've cut my electricity usage in half (and then some).
That reduces the need to build new plant to replace the old plant that
I was using.  If ENOUGH people do what I did ... (I know, if pigs had 
wings ...)

Also, as noted above, the emerging nations can use those technologies
to dramatically reduce the capital spent on new plant built on our
model.  For example, where there is no extant grid, solar has an
easier time being justified.  There is even a standard package that
was designed for dropping into the outback that consists of a solar
panel set, a 'fridge, some lights and some other stuff.  It's all
skid mounted for easy delivery.  Cheaper than hauling in diesel and
cheaper than planting all those grid poles ...

>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).

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.

I'd LOVE to have a home sized LUZ style plant to run my AC ...

>Their use would raise busbar prices sharply.

Given that they arrive at peak use, this 'sharp' rise is about 2 cents
per kW-hr ... or less ...

>Natural gas is only a short term solution, 

about 30 years isn't it?  Kinda long 'short term' ...

...
>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 ...)

>We have better uses for natural gas than generating electricity. 

Such as?  Alcohol synthesis?  CNG cars?

>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

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.