Re: I'm hearing bad things about breeder reactors

From: william mook (william.mook_at_mokindustries.com)
Date: 06/14/04 

Date: 14 Jun 2004 05:45:10 -0700

dezakin@usa.net (Dez Akin) wrote in message news:<dd43b4da.0406132118.24579ed0@posting.google.com>...
> longmuirg@aol.com (LongmuirG) wrote in message news:<20040613182255.20430.00001066@mb-m07.aol.com>...
> > Dez Akin wrote:
> > >I'm suggesting that
> > >if getting uranium from seawater is inexpensive enough such that LWRs
> > >are still less expensive to run than fast neutron breeder reactors,
> > >that pretty much kills them economically for power production for a
> > >long time. I'm not suggesting that such is the case (in fact I highly
> > >doubt it), just playing devils advocate here.
> >
> > Mr. Akin -- Is your view of uranium supply based on the current rate of use
> > only?
> >
> > Currently, something on the order of 6% of global power comes from nuclear
> > (versus about 90% from fossil), and the cost of uranium is a trivial part of
> > the cost of nuclear power. The issue I have seen discussed elsewhere relates
> > to the possibility that (following some unplesantness in the oil & gas
> > markets), we might have to greatly expand the use of nuclear power -- and
> > thereby increase the demand for uranium (over time) by an order of magnitude or
> > more.
> >
> > Under those circumstances, the issue might become one of the very limited
> > availability of U235 -- requiring rapid adoption of breeders to use the
> > two-orders-of-magnitude more plentiful U238.
> >
> > Since you have obviously studied this subject in detail, would you like to set
> > me straight.
>
> Well, there is essentially unlimited uranium at ten times todays spot
> price, not just from seawater, but from the vast reserves of lower
> grade ores that are exploitable when price justifies it; At least for
> the purpose of this discussion as I refuse to speculate on our energy
> demands more than several hundred years in the future.
>
> So the question becomes are breeders more competitive than once
> through LWR's at ten times the fuel cost. I'm guessing that they will
> be, but I don't think its for certain. The liquid metal fast neutron
> breeders are known to be more expensive at todays fuel price, the
> molten salt breeders might be viable after the research and
> development costs are sunk... but its possible that uranium will
> allways be too cheap to justify breeders on fuel costs alone.
>
> My guess is that eventually some breeders will be more cost
> competitive with once through reactors and uranium prices will go up.
> But some disruptive technology could very well show up that relegates
> the whole nuclear industry to more niche applications such as naval or
> space power requirements. William Mook's cheap solar concentrators
> with cheap VMJ power cells would do it if his claims are close to
> real. Even if he's wrong, that doesn't prevent some other disruptive
> technology from showing up and throwing the whole trend assesment out
> the window.

At our present stage of development its not the cost of nuclear fuel
or its availability that is the issue. Its the total fuel cycle
capital cost of nuclear power. We're at about $5 per watt and
translates to something like $0.06 per kWh for enegy. Add in the
capital cost to make chemical fuels and the rate such fuel can be made
per dollar, and you end up - without counting fuel costs - with a
gallon of synthetic gas thats 10x more costly than today's gasoline
extracted from the present terrestrial reserves.

The challenge for any engineer, be they nuclear power plant designers
or solar power plant designers - is to achieve power at a capital cost
of $0.35 per watt or less for terrestrial solar and $1.40 per watt or
less for nuclear or space solar. This is not the cost we need to
achieve for any particular component - such as the cost of electricity
generation. This is the cost per watt we need to achieve for the
whole fuel cycle we're contemplating.

Lee Reynolds, CEO of Exxon Mobil stated on the 7th of June this year
that there are no alternatives to fossil fuels and we must live with
this hard fact. Of course, if you owned 28 billion barrels of oil in
the ground, what would you advise?

Those without vision will always suggest doing what we are already
doing. Those without vision will always see problems in taking risks.
 That's why those without vision will always lead us into an untenable
morass.

In some ways its easy to see how a wild-eyed innovator might be wrong.
 In some ways its hard to see how a staid director of a vast
infrastructure commanding vast resources can be wrong. But the
unstated faith of nearly everyone in the energy business is that new
energy sources will be discovered. The reality is that we have
discovered all available energy sources of the type we're using. The
reality is we will discover no new energy sources. The reality is we
must take formerly uneconomic sources and make them less expensive
than today's sources. That's the only way our industrial economy will
progress and the only way advances can be made.

Since 1996 I have been thinking about and working on reducing the
costs associated with capturing usefully solar energy. The central
figure I've sought to reduce is $/watt. Any power generating
technology, including nuclear, may benefit from reduction of this
central figure.

I agree with the idea that solar power is ideally suited for use on
Earth, while nuclear power is ideally suited for use beyond Earth.
While travel beyond earth is at present a rare occurance - it need not
always remain so. It awaits low-cost power as well as low-cost
rockets.

Finally, politics and safety are intimately linked. If the Earth is
divided into camps that kill one another and seek each other's
destruction - broad advance remains impossible. That's because broad
advancement requires broad appreciation of facts and the spread of
knowledge. Such knowledge is dangerous in a world divided against
itself. A house divided cannot stand. And depsite the temporary
benefits such conflicts may seem to have, their longer term costs are
huge.

I guess what I'm saying is I cannot imagine life on Earth progressing
very far down the nuclear path if its filled with ultra-national
zealots seeking each other's head. That world ends in nuclear
conflagration. A single event has dramatically increased the costs
and risks associated with something as simple as air travel. The
costs of nuclear energy in a world possessing people who are willing
to use that nuclear energy to destroy cities is too high a risk to
take. This means we've got to do the hard work of figuring out each
other's motivation and addressing that motivation. In a world where
technical advance is commonplace - ability will eventually come even
to the weak. So, if we are to have a world that advances we must
figure out how to address the motivation of those who are most opposed
to us. This doesn't mean we need to accept them. It merely means we
must deal effectively with their motivations. Getting along is one
way. Getting over is another. No one is expert at this since up to
now, our national security rested on restricting ability - not
motivation. 9/11 is a failure of that - and a quite predictable
failure in retrospect. But hindsight is always 20/20 - despite Graham
Rudman.

The 20th century has shown us our limitations. Perhaps the 21st
century will show us our strengths.

Schumpeter shows us that its impossible to tax our way to prosperity.

Arrow shows us that its impossible to make rational collective
decisions.

Freud shows us that the rational mind is not in charge.

Goedel shows us that logic is incomplete.

So, we continue to over tax ourselves to do irrational emotional
things that are illogical. Whether its wiring the world for nuclear
annihilation with thousands of nuclear weapons at the ready, or
whether its committing a generation of youth to a pointless Jihad
against what is and what is coming - both are the result of the
limitations above.

Its easy for one outside a culture to see that culture's insanity -
its not so easy if you're living it. This is a strength not a
weakness. But to take advantage of it requires something we lack - I
don't know what it is, if I did I'd tell you. But this strength
exists - if we can figure out how to take advantage of it. I am sure
others are out there too. We're just blind to it.

Getting more power per dollar is an important measure of power plant
performance. Engineers should reduce this cost in order to make the
world richer. Getting more dollars out of an hour's time and
attention is an important measure of human economic performance.
Engineers should reduce this cost in order to make the world richer.
But a materially richer world can only benefit humanity if we know
what makes us happier. What's that metric? If even a minority of
people believe happiness is the destruction of others or the
destruction of what is - if even a minority of people feel threatened
to the point they will take lives to protect themselves from the
threat - increasing the world's material wealth will increase the
world's turmoil. And given the existence of nuclear weapons - such a
world will face a nuclear conflagration. With the fall of the Soviet
Union we may never face, as we have imagined we might, a single night
of terror and death. But, it is still not beyond the realm of
possibility that the entire world becomes a large, more horrific
Beruit. So, we must come up with some sort of measure for human
happiness and how to buy that happiness with dollars somehow.

Can you buy happiness? Surely if people are hungry - removing that
hunger should induce happiness. Plainly if people are threatened -
removing that threat should induce happiness. Obviously if people are
ill, or people are naked, or people are ignorant - providing medicine,
clothing, and education should increase happiness. Food, security,
medicine, clothing, education - are all things that can be bought with
dollars. So, its not beyond the realm of possibility that increasing
wealth can in some sense buy a happier world. The psychology of
advance is more complex than just increasing the profits of nations.
Scientists and engineers must address seriously motivation. This is
what Einstein said back in 1942. Its something we have ignored since
then, and continue to ignore at our peril.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: This months popular science - hydrogen powered hyper jet
    ... fuel and petro-based ag-chems vs. ethanol yield. ... However the nuclear plant has an economic lifespan of less than 40 years. ... Nuclear power plants are not vulnerable to ... Nuclear power plants in a "war" situation are very attractive targets. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Why We Need The Solar-Hydrogen Economy Now
    ... chemical engineer and nuclear engineer. ... Today's energy systems did not arise ... Fuel combustion from automobiles and power plants is the primary source ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Why We Need The Solar-Hydrogen Economy Now
    ... chemical engineer and nuclear engineer. ... Today's energy systems did not arise ... Fuel combustion from automobiles and power plants is the primary source ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
    ... > radioactivity and nuclear power generation. ... Only a minuscule amount of the power from a nuclear reactor comes ... Spent nuclear fuel is far from inert and contains many 'hot' ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Thorium Power Ltd. nearing goal of commercial reactor that doesnt produce bomb fuel
    ... Thorium Power Ltd. says it's nearing its goal-a commercial reactor that ... is that its waste can be made into bomb fuel. ... Current nuclear reactors are powered by a mix of two isotopes of uranium ... In about three years we'll have larger-scale development of reactors. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)