Science and Helping the World

[brimstoneSalad]

You meant 900 here too, right?

Nope, he means 9,000.

9,000 years supplying all electricity. But only 900 years supplying all energy by replacing others (we use a lot of gas, for example, to cook and heat water, and in transportation).

That's a very conservative estimate, though.

You may want to remind her that fissile material is recyclable in breeder reactors, and that uranium is also available from ocean water and less concentrated geological sources, and given that, estimates put the available energy well beyond a human timescale. Longer, at least, than human civilization has existed so far.

A credible estimate from a pro-nuclear source is a lot lower than nine-hundred (which doesn't seem to be well beyond the human timescale... at least I hope not).

That's not taking into account recycling fuel, and other Uranium sources. Fuel recycling isn't some hypothetical far off technology. Breeder reactors have been around for a long time.

Oh, however, it also says:
Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself. Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.

Ah, wow, that's interesting.

Multiply those together.

60,000 (seawater) * 150 (breeder) = 9,000,000 years
Because our energy consumption will increase, and because it needs to account for all human energy, that number would be much lower, under a million years.
In that kind of timescale, however, geological forces may release enough uranium into the ocean to keep the system going.

That's also only considering naturally occurring or bred uranium.
Thorium can also be bred into Uranium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

We can probably multiply that enormous number by four, based on the prevalence of Thorium.

If we can't figure out fusion in four million years, we might be out of luck.

Keep in mind, when he says "economical" it just means it would cost a little more to mine and produce the power, so it wouldn't be competitive with things like coal and gas. It's still very cheap, since the fuel is a very small part of the cost, and breeder reactors and fuel reprocessing as an industry aren't that expensive.

[EquALLity]

That's not taking into account recycling fuel, and other Uranium sources. Fuel recycling isn't some hypothetical far off technology. Breeder reactors have been around for a long time.

I don't really know anything about that, so it isn't something I'd bring up to her. I don't think it's necessary anyway, though.

Multiply those together.

60,000 (seawater) * 150 (breeder) = 9,000,000 years
Because our energy consumption will increase, and because it needs to account for all human energy, that number would be much lower, under a million years.
In that kind of timescale, however, geological forces may release enough uranium into the ocean to keep the system going.

Where did you get the 150 from?

That's also only considering naturally occurring or bred uranium.
Thorium can also be bred into Uranium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-b ... lear_power

We can probably multiply that enormous number by four, based on the prevalence of Thorium.

If we can't figure out fusion in four million years, we might be out of luck.

What are you basing the four on? How common is Thorium?

Keep in mind, when he says "economical" it just means it would cost a little more to mine and produce the power, so it wouldn't be competitive with things like coal and gas. It's still very cheap, since the fuel is a very small part of the cost, and breeder reactors and fuel reprocessing as an industry aren't that expensive.

Speaking of this, does nuclear energy cost more than coal/gas?

What about solar energy? Is it true that a solar panel saves you a lot of money in the long run?

[brimstoneSalad]

Where did you get the 150 from?

30,000 years / 200 years.

What are you basing the four on? How common is Thorium?

Three times as common. 3 (Thorium) + 1 (Uranium) = 4.

Speaking of this, does nuclear energy cost more than coal/gas?

A tiny bit, currently. Or, depending on the situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#France

That's because of all of the ridiculous and unnecessary safety measures/insurance costs, and the fact that coal and gas are massively subsidized by the fact that they (unlike Nuclear) they don't have to pay for or clean up their pollution. If coal and gas had to scrub and capture and store their carbon indefinitely (which would only be fair), they would be significantly more expensive.

In a fair comparison of true cost, the only thing that really beats nuclear is hydroelectric or geothermal (which aren't available everywhere and can't be easily scaled).

What about solar energy? Is it true that a solar panel saves you a lot of money in the long run?

If you put solar panels on your house in a sunny location, thanks to government subsidies and selling the power back to the grid, it will save YOU a little money in the long run. There are even payment programs you can do to install panels where the payment equals about what your power bill savings will be.
That's kind of like saying using food stamps will save a lot of money in the long run, so everybody on Earth should just use food stamps and then we'd have no more food problems.

If everybody put solar panels on their houses, that money is ultimately coming from taxes, and then if you try to sell the power back (since it's in surplus during the day) it will be nearly worthless, but at night you'll still be paying out the ass for power... unless you have batteries, which are expensive in themselves as a substitution for grid power.

As an isolated system, you would definitely save money with solar if you lived in a sunny area and made an effort to primarily use power during the day where it's generated, and turn the lights/etc. out at night.

[EquALLity]

^Thanks for the info.

I think I'm going to study 'renewable energy' in a way so that I can study many different forms of renewable energy (including nuclear).

I think I'd be more interested in that than bio-engineering (or genetic engineering), and I probably won't actually be able to afford a lab for genetic modification ever, so I don't really see that as a benefit.

I wonder if there's a way I can incorporate stuff about the meat industry and climate change.

Also-
"Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself. Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies."

What exactly is going on there? Do 'fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors', reactors that generate more fuel then they consume, exist? How would we make those?

Or do they exist, and they aren't that common? What exactly is the technological advancement that is being referred to here?

[brimstoneSalad]

I think I'd be more interested in that than bio-engineering (or genetic engineering), and I probably won't actually be able to afford a lab for genetic modification ever, so I don't really see that as a benefit.

Whatever you'll be more interested in is also likely to be what you're better at. You should start by learning about electricity. Does your school have classes in electrical engineering or something?

I wonder if there's a way I can incorporate stuff about the meat industry and climate change.

You'll probably have the opportunity to bring that up, and encourage people to reduce meat consumption, try meatless Monday, etc. But it's unlikely you'd be able to make it much of a study topic.

What exactly is going on there? Do 'fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors', reactors that generate more fuel then they consume, exist? How would we make those?

It's just a kind of breeder reactor. They exist, although I'm not sure if there are currently any commercial versions.

There's an illustration and an explanation in this article:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/30/fast-breeder-reactors-nuclear-waste-nightmare
quite a bit more detail in the wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

[EquALLity]

Whatever you'll be more interested in is also likely to be what you're better at. You should start by learning about electricity. Does your school have classes in electrical engineering or something?

Hm, I don't think so. Why is electricity relevant to this?

You'll probably have the opportunity to bring that up, and encourage people to reduce meat consumption, try meatless Monday, etc. But it's unlikely you'd be able to make it much of a study topic.

Aw, that's too bad.

It's just a kind of breeder reactor. They exist, although I'm not sure if there are currently any commercial versions.

There's an illustration and an explanation in this article:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -nightmare
quite a bit more detail in the wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

Ah, thanks for the info. So if they already exist, what is the technological advancement being suggested here?:

"Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself. Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies."

Is it just saying we should replace light-water reactors (apparently the most common reactor) with the fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors?

[brimstoneSalad]

Hm, I don't think so. Why is electricity relevant to this?

You need an innate understanding of power. Volts, amps, watts, resistance, capacitance, etc.

Ah, thanks for the info. So if they already exist, what is the technological advancement being suggested here?:

It has more to do with the process of fuel refinement on a commercial scale; we actually have a very good idea of what that looks like. Also relevant for seawater extraction; it can be done, but has not been done commercially, so we would have to see what the costs look like (something we're less certain about).

[EquALLity]

You need an innate understanding of power. Volts, amps, watts, resistance, capacitance, etc.

Oh, hm. I'm not sure if I could study that, because I think you're supposed to study one topic, and that seems distinct from renewable energy... Hm. Maybe I should just do some research to get a basic understanding of things.

It has more to do with the process of fuel refinement on a commercial scale; we actually have a very good idea of what that looks like. Also relevant for seawater extraction; it can be done, but has not been done commercially, so we would have to see what the costs look like (something we're less certain about).

Are you saying the advancement being proposed is just using these types of reactors on a larger scale?

[brimstoneSalad]

Oh, hm. I'm not sure if I could study that, because I think you're supposed to study one topic, and that seems distinct from renewable energy... Hm. Maybe I should just do some research to get a basic understanding of things.

You need to understand Energy before you can really understand renewable energy. You'll also need to study chemistry a little.

Are you saying the advancement being proposed is just using these types of reactors on a larger scale?

Basically, but saying it like that doesn't really represent the issue well. Methods have to be developed to make the process economical. E.g. large machines need to be built and tested to do this stuff in big batches autonomously.

It's kind of like the problem of designing a tofu making machine; we know how the process works. You soak the beans, cook the beans, grind them up in water, strain it, mix the soy milk with a coagulant, heat it, press the water out, remove the tofu from the press. Doing it all manually is tedious but quite easy, but making a machine to do all of those things without human interaction is a bit of an engineering challenge. Watch a few episodes of "how it's made" to get a sense of some of the clever automation industry uses. It's about designing those systems. There's no question that we can, but depending on the efficiency, we'll be looking at different costs.

[EquALLity]

I just finished watching Pandora's Promise.

The background radiation stuff was pretty striking- there is a beach in Brazil with soil that's more radioactive than some parts of Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Hiroshima (the background radiation detectors just detect all radiation, right?), which are areas used to prove how allegedly dangerous nuclear energy is.
And the Chernobyl plant, which is used as an especially 'dangerous' example, was a certain type of reactor only used by the Soviet Union and that didn't have real safety precautions. So nothing like that would happen today, and not a lot of people died to justify the hype anyway.

But, of course, a certain level of radiation is harmful to your health and can cause cancer. So I don't understand why the increased levels of background radiation aren't correlated at all with higher levels of cancer risk. I guess the radiation levels everywhere are so low that it is insignificant and studies don't show a correlation because of the very low numbers?

Another especially interesting part was the part about nuclear waste. About 70,000 tons of nuclear waste exist in the US, which might sound like a high number without any context, but coal plants produce billions of tons of waste (albeit it isn't radioactive, but still). But the most important part relating to that is that all of the nuclear waste in the United States could fit into a single football field. Wow.

The stuff about France was also really important- the average person in France produces about half the amount of CO2 per year as Germany, because its energy is 80% nuclear based.
The average American produces about twice the amount of CO2 than Germany does, however, and America is much more reliant on nuclear energy than Germany is (which the documentary should mention). So nuclear isn't necessarily the only solution here (going back to this later).
Interestingly, the average citizen in China produces less CO2 than the average person in France per year.
That's pretty amazing given how much coal China is using in relation to the rest of the world.

The part about how the US is buying technology from Russia intended for nukes to use for nuclear plants is also pretty nice. However, the idea that nuclear energy contributes to nuclear weapons in the first place because they both involve the same knowledge/technology doesn't make sense anyway. The information exists; it's not like it's going to disappear if we stop using nuclear plants.

Also not sure what this means-
"If you want to stabilize emissions at some reasonable level, almost all of that energy has to be clean energy. You've got to not only create a clean energy infrastructure to replace the fossil fuel infrastructure we have, but we have to create yet another one, or maybe two of them, between now and 2050 or 2100, in order to reduce our emissions to stabilize the climate. And that is just nothing that anybody has really been talking about or dealing with over the last twenty years."

Even though I don't have a problem with nuclear energy, and I think it's definitely important in combating climate change (it's really amazing that a pound of uranium [which is apparently the size of a fingertip o_O] can produce as much energy as about 5,000 barrels of oil), I think that solar energy and wind energy (and possibly other forms of renewable energy also, but those two seem to be the most advanced and helpful ones at the moment) can also be a part of the solution. Like the documentary mentioned, intermittency is an issue, but there are potential solutions. One example is energy storage.

The Stanford report focuses on this combination of renewable energy and storage infrastructure. Even with the addition of grid-scale storage, they found, there is enough surplus wind power in the United States today to support 72 hours of energy storage.
Solar energy, which enjoys a slimmer margin of surplus, could sustain about 24 hours of backup energy storage, they found.
"Our analysis shows that today's wind industry, even with a large amount of grid-scale storage, is energetically sustainable," said Michael Dale, a research associate at Stanford and lead author of the report, in the release. "We found that the solar industry can also achieve sustainable storage capacity by reducing the amount of energy that goes into making solar photovoltaics."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... d-storage/

One interesting thing that solar energy could do to combat intermittency is to have solar panels in outer space. Solar panels on Earth don’t work very well at night, when clouds pass by, and during certain atmospheres and seasons. In fact, only about 30% of solar radiation actually makes it to the ground of Earth. However, in space, there is nothing blocking the sun’s rays from reaching a solar panel.
Of course, that'd be really expensive.

One idea in the documentary was that renewables besides nuclear energy must be supplemented by natural gas (due to that we haven't really solved the issue of intermittency, even though there are theoretical solutions), but natural gas is a lot better than coal. The number of deaths from coal in comparison to other forms of energy is pretty amazing. I figured oil and coal were just about the same evil, but coal is way worse (at least in the short term).

Natural gas is better than coal, but no CO2 pollution (nuclear energy) is of course better than natural gas.

Even so, nuclear energy is so controversial that developing other technologies that generate energy from solar rays and wind seems like a good idea in addition to building more power plants (especially wind energy, because that is the energy source that causes the least deaths per year). Only five new nuclear reactors are currently under construction, and some of the existing reactors are in danger of shutting down.
Until we have all the nuclear power plants built that could sustain the world, we should build more wind turbines and solar panels. And at that point, nuclear energy will be able to supplement solar and wind instead of natural gas, so they'll be perfectly environmentally friendly resources.