Nuclear Power is not Renewable Energy Round 2
Calloway Nuclear Power Station Fulton, Missouri
This is not a new subject for me I wrote a piece called Nuclear Power is Not Renewable Energy, last year, check the archives October 16, 2008, it’s there.
Now the Nuclear Power industry is actually challenging Solar and Wind power, they are claiming that they are far more ‘green’, than is the traditionaly accepted renewables, solar and wind. This is almost criminal and I cannot see where this information has it’s basis in fact.
I would like to reprint part of my post from October 16, 2008, in order to reinforce my thoughts, (I have done research!) there are a number of underlying problems that I don’t touch
I suscribe to Power Engineering, “the magazine of power generation”, (self described motto), most of it’s subscribers work in the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries, they often have heated discussions on this topic. I used to work with these guys, I know the mind set. They actually did a poll in which they asked the question, “is nuclear power a renewable energy resource”, the majority said, “yes it is”, I was not all that surprised. This is giving a knee jerk opinion because you pay your mortgage by working in these industries. You would like to believe that you’re doing good rather than destroying your environment. These are not ‘bad’ men, simply ill informed. They don’t spend a lot of time researching the topic, for the most part. I’m not saying, no one does, just that, most don’t. This is a subject that begs research, and there is a lot of information out there in this electronic age.
Please take a little time to read part of my post from October 16, 2008, the information still applies. This has to do with the problem of bringing the nuclear power plants in operation up to speed. I said this in regard to the costs associated with bringing our aging nuclear ‘fleet’ up to modern standards
The owners of some plants want to replace low pressure steam paths with higher pressure steam flow equipment. This theoretically could result in higher output. The emphasis on theoretically is mine. I have worked in the nuclear power industry as an engineer and one thing is certain, and that is nothing is certain. It is hoped that this solution will address reliability issues with these existing steam turbines.
The retrofit that most are opting for would include installing new low pressure rotors, rotating and stationary blades, inner casings and blade carriers. The scope of this type of retrofit would be large and costly. They would have to install or replace: high efficiency, integrally shrouded, reaction type blading for their front stages; longer last stage rotating blades to reduce the energy content of the steam leaving the turbine, thereby increasing turbine output; provide consistent and predictable vibration characteristics, snubbers at three quarter height will need to interconnect the last stage rotating blades and the second to last stage blades will need to be linked by integral tip shrouding; provide reduced stage leakage due to better sealing and reaction characteristics over the length of the blade; and select materials to provide erosion corrosion characteristics.
I at the time emphasized that I didn’t want to confuse anyone by using a lot of technical jargon to indicate that just updating a small portion of that which is huge, is a large almost impossible task. I said that owners of utilities would better serve the public by investing in a new power grid, not endless repairs of our aging nuclear power stations.
The current effort to paint themselves green is an effort to get the go-ahead to build new plants. We are already paying dearly for the plants already in operation, by our rising costs for electricity. The supporters of this notion are for the most part, people engaged in the nuclear power industry. I once made a good living as a design engineer in this industry. So I understand, I just don’t approve of this line of thinking.
Renewable energy by it’s very name is energy that can be obtained in a fairly passive manner. If you have to mine it, process it, or burn it, then it isn’t renewable. Even the uranium required for nuclear power is not renewable and it is not forever. The sun and the wind will be with us as long as man exists, for exist we will not if we don’t have these sources. Solar power is from renewable sources, wind turbines spin because of a renewable source of energy. The sun and wind are virtually omnipotent, uranium is not.
I won’t repeat the problems of nuclear waste, only to say that nothing has changed. We still have no idea as to what to do with the waste or how to solve the problem that one of the components of nuclear waste is weapon’s grade plutonium. I am researching this situation further, some strides have been made by the French, however there are still problems associated with nuclear power and the reactors required to operate these systems.
I wanted to say this because I believe to seriously give the nuclear power industry free rein, would harm mankind and our environment in the long run. Any thoughts? Make a comment, we’ll print it and we will answer any questions put to us, see you around the galaxy…
Tags: Add new tag, electricity, nuclear power, renewable energy, solar power, sustainable design, wind turbine
September 29th, 2009 at 5:10 am
I think the green debate has changed. It’s shifted… think how everything now is carbonised.
Carbon footprints, carbon credits, carbon neutral.
And if you look at how the government speaks, like the UK’s Department for Energy and Climate Change’s Low Carbon Transition Plan 09, you can clearly see that carbon is a more workable idea than green.
If you take things along those lines, which the nuclear industry does, I think anyone can see the point of the industry’s argument. Which is that we need it as part of the energy mix - not to, as you say, give it free reign.
The industry claims this. That a nuclear pellet the size of a finger tip has the same energy as burning 140,000 tonnes of coal. As well, the lifetime carbon emissions of a nuclear power station are less than a wind turbine.
Ask yourselves, if we want to sustain our quality of life and the planet, is it necessary to listen to this argument?
September 29th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
I have to disagree with your assertion that nuclear energy is NOT a renewable energy source. If we fairly apply the criteria by which other energy sources receive the RENEWABLE designation, then nuclear energy also must be considered renewable. To do otherwise demonstrates a lack of intellectual fairness.
Nuclear energy is renewable because it is (1) capable of being naturally replenished, and (2) it is virtually inexhaustible.
I provided a recent analysis on this topic here:
http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=671
October 6th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Interesting to see an engineer facing up to the contradictions inherent in the pro-nuclear case.
Usually, engineers are the people most in favour of nuclear power, and most likely to dismiss questions of waste, environmental issues - as “soft science”, presumably beneath their “hard” science dignity. And especially, nuclear physicists seem to have this tunnel vision and ability to cloud our thinking with terms like “low carbon”, “clean”, “renewable” - as applied to nuclear.
It puts me in mind of the Pope and the College of Cardinals. They have invested their whole lives in the service of God. To them, it is just unthinkable to question their belief.
And, so unkind of sceptics to put their jobs at risk.
October 6th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
[...] Nuclear Power is not Renewable Energy Round 2 | Techdiplomacy [...]
October 19th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
To Christina Macpherson,
thankyou for recognizing that I am a traitor to my kind by offering the view that nuclear power is not renewable. I have the ire of my comtemporaries to contend with in this matter. The post was directed to people of your ilk, that can see past the BS and effectively denouce the idea that nuclear power is cleaner than solar or wind power. Please keep reading and if you look in my archives you’ll find the first post that offers the notion that nuclear power is not renewable. Hence the round 2 in the title of this post. Hopefully, I’ll see you around the galaxy…
October 21st, 2009 at 12:15 pm
To John Wheeler,
I am simply stating truths based on research and extensive experience in the power generation sector. I looked at the post that you listed in your reply and I did not see anything that hasn’t been said by nuclear proponents for some time now. “Intellectual Fairness”? Interesting turn of phrase, however this is not a child’s game where must demonstrate “fairness” of any sort to an industry that is as dangerous to our way of life as any enemy we have, real or imagined. The piece actually tried compare man made ‘fast’ breeder reactors to phenomenon found in nature. The real truth is far more insidious. Nuclear power is not renewable energy, uranium is not in endless supply, and not one nuclear process seen in our aging nuclear power plant ‘fleet’ is natural or renewable. In so far as generating fewer CO2 emissions as compared to a wind turbine, the idea is absurd. I have experience and education in nuclear power as well as other sources of power, renewable or otherwise. Everything you read here is based on research and fact. We need to change our point of view, the fact that we have this flirtation with this dangerous process of generating power, doesn’t make our decisions in the past regarding nuclear power good. I would like to see a day in which we knew enough about the process to make it viable, clean and safe. The truth is, we don’t and we are wasting time and money better spent on actual renewable sources of energy. If you would like a primer of sorts on renewable energy sources click here and you will be directed to the proper location. Your comments are welcome, whether we agree or not.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
nuclear wind power…
An interesting post by a bloger made me ……