Nuclear will survive, because it has to: ANU professor
Japan relies on nuclear power for about 30% of its electricity. It has few natural resources and imports large quantities of coal, gas and oil at an ever increasing cost. Some Japanese people are not in favor of nuclear power, but when the dust settles the nation might not have any real choice, writes Professor George Dracoulis.
Losing four old reactors at Fukushima that were due for replacement is not the end of the world, and certainly not when you consider the huge loss of life and enormous damage wreaked by this months earthquake and tsunami.
Japans reactors
Japan built its 55 nuclear reactors over a period of decades (the damaged reactors in Fukushima are some of the worlds oldest still in regular operation, based on early commercial designs).
Nineteen began operation in the 1970s (Fukushima-Daichi-1 dates from 1971); fifteen began life in the 1980s; thirteen in the 1990s; and five in the noughties.
Of course, one might question the logic of building reactors in earthquake zones, but in the end the primary reactor structures in Fukushima were not directly damaged; nor have they been damaged in previous quakes.
One could also ask what would have happened to other sorts of power stations (particularly dispersed ones such as wind farms or solar cell arrays) in such an event. My guess is that they all would have been swept away.
Some context
All thermal power stations are based on similar principles: they produce heat by burning something (coal or gas for example) and convert the generated heat to electricity.
The big advantage of using nuclear reactions such as fission is that one fission produces about 100 million times more energy that you get from burning a single carbon atom.
Coal-fired power stations have to burn a lot of material (about three million tonnes a year) to generate electricity for a city of a million people, and about 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide are released to the atmosphere in the process.
Nuclear reactors, by comparison, consume only one tonne of the fissile uranium isotope, U-235, to deliver the same.
Some numbers
There are currently 441 large nuclear power reactors in 35 countries, 120 of which date from the 1970s and early 1980s.
Collectively the 400-odd reactors supply about 15% of the worlds electricity (the average in OECD countries being more than 22%). So far they have racked up more than 14,000 reactor-years of operation.
The United States has the greatest number operating, with 103 units providing 20% of its electricity supply; this is followed by France with 57 (producing nearly 80% of its supply) and Japan, with 54 (providing about 30%).
With a lifespan of approximately 35 to 40 years, some have pointed to the fact a nuclear station decommissioning peak will occur from 2020 to 2030, and that this will present technological and environmental challenges. In my opinion these challenges will be met.
Provided by Australian National University
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
30 comments
-
Research team claims to have found evidence Lake Cheko is impact crater for Tunguska Event,
18 comments
-
Need a rigid insulation material???
2 hours ago
-
magnets or EMF in car bumpers to protect from fender bender
19 hours ago
-
length of wire in a coil of known dimensions?
May 25, 2012
-
India Engineering Powerhouse
May 25, 2012
-
electromagnet core dereference between hard and soft iron
May 25, 2012
-
Measuring water pressure in an open tank
May 24, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - General Engineering
More news stories
SpotterRF debuts Radar Backpack Kit (w/ Video)
(Phys.org) -- SpotterRF has announced a special radar backpack kit designed to enhance situational awareness for soldiers on the ground. The company says its special radar is designed for warfighters as part ...
Probability of contamination from severe nuclear reactor accidents is higher than expected: study
Catastrophic nuclear accidents such as the core meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima are more likely to happen than previously assumed. Based on the operating hours of all civil nuclear reactors and the number ...
Technology / Energy & Green Tech
May 22, 2012 |
3.6 / 5 (21) |
53
|
Delphi gasoline-injection engine technique rivals hybrid's edge
(Phys.org) -- Running a diesel like engine on gasoline is something Delphi is doing in notable fashion. They claim they are on to a promising way to enjoy an engine that gives the vehicle owner high efficiency ...
HyperSolar shows dirty water no barrier to power world
(Phys.org) -- The Santa Barbara, California, company, HyperSolar, is set to transparently share the ups and downs of its research experiences toward the companys ultimate vision, successfully producing ...
Tesla to launch electric sedan in US on June 22
Tesla Motors said Tuesday it would begin deliveries of "the world's first premium electric sedan" on June 22, slightly ahead of schedule.
Technology / Energy & Green Tech
May 22, 2012 |
4.5 / 5 (11) |
18
Dell tablet leak: 10.1-inch display, two-battery choice
(Phys.org) -- Headline after headline talks about vendors tablets in the wings as likely number-one contenders for the iPad. Such claims have justifiably been taken with a grain of salt, considering ...
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update)
SpaceX's Dragon cargo vessel smells like a new car, said astronauts at the International Space Station after opening the hatches Saturday following the spacecraft's landmark mission to the orbiting lab.
Keep food safety in mind this memorial day weekend
(HealthDay) -- Picnics, parades and cookouts are as much a part of Memorial Day weekend as tributes to the United States' war veterans.
Thousands of shellfish found dead in Peru
Thousands of crustaceans were found dead off the coast of Lima following the mystery mass death of dolphins and pelicans, the Peruvian Navy said Friday.
Astronomers seize last chance in lifetime for Venus Transit
Astronomers are gearing for one the rarest events in the Solar System: an alignment of Earth, Venus and the Sun that will not be seen for another 105 years.
Mar 29, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, consists of six boiling water reactors and contributed 5.0 gigawatts of Japan's nuclear capacity. At least four of the six seem to be toast.
Japan has an estimated 23.5 gigawatts in geothermal potential. That's known 'wet' geothermal. It does not count geothermal yet to be discovered or enhanced/hot rock geothermal potential.
Nuclear levelized cost $113.9 - almost certainly to rise with new safety regulations added. (And add in the cost of cleaning up the current mess.)
Geothermal levelized cost $101.7 - possibly cheaper with economies of scale
IER 2009 numbers - http://www.instit...ologies/
Nuclear takes roughly 10 years to construct and bring on line
Geothermal takes under two years.
Danger - geothermal has the onsite danger of any pressurized steam operation. Nuclear, 'nuff said...
Mar 29, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Given the track record, that would mean 1 core melt every week.
Good luck with that.
Mar 30, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
At present popoulation of 300mln , USA uses 103 units for 20% of electricity. So abt 500 units for 100% coverage for 300mln Americans.
For your imaginary population of 15bln , multiply by 50 and you get 25000 reactors. Thats WAY OFF the figure of 200,000 you pulled out of thin air. Also the world population will at most reach 10bn in 50 years and start falling from then on.
The world has FAR MORE risk from an war over Oil which will soon go nuclear weapons free. Instead of that I would rather live under minute nuclear reactor meltdown risk but free of war.
A combination of Space solar and nuclear can make us Carbon and oil free in a matter of 2 decades.
Mar 30, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Regardless. People are silly.
Coal has been killing people and the environment at a considerable pace, yet people get upset about nuclear energy because nobody cares to do the research and look at the numbers.
The numbers say that before Chernobyl we had working fast neutron reactor prototypes and a closed loop fuel cycle that solved nearly every complaint brought against the reactor designs of the 1950's.
So what did we do? Shut down that program and hold up construction of new more modern reactors so that we couldn't decommission the ones we had that are most like Chernobyl.
The coal burning industry must be laughing it's ass off right now.
Mar 30, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Waist of energy is the main problem all over the world.
The second problem is the greediness of people. Hence costs are hindering alternatives. - Costs that are calculated wrong, taking not into account future problems of some solutions like nuclear power: What about the unsolved problem of storage of the nuclear fuel rods, etc.
Mar 30, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 30, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Come on, LuckyExplorer, stop being lazy and so some homework, it's not like there are that many issues of this importance. I'll help, read this:
http://www.pbs.or...ill.html
Important point: No storage of "spent" fuel rods. Rather, they are recycled until the remaining 99% of energy is extracted.
As for Helium-3, FAIL, do some research, crunch some numbers, let go the magical thinking. Not only is the neutron free fusion an unattainable ideal reaction, the temperatures involved are much higher than what we need for "regular" fusion that we haven't been able to achieve. The easy part would be sending a space shuttle to the moon, which isn't going to happen either.
Mar 31, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Japan, between solar and geothermal, throw in some wave and wind power, could replace nuclear in a short time. It's the political will that's needed, and some flexibility of thought, something which the good professor seems to sorely lack.
Mar 31, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
And what happens when you run out of places to drill for geothermal, run out of coastline for wave, and run out of practical room/places for wind as civilization advances and our power needs continue to rise as we become a more and more technically capable civilization? Strap mini-generators to the abdomens of flies and chase them around?
Apr 01, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Only if you expend less energy in chasing them than you gain...
Apr 01, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Moron, you obviously know nothing about technology. Dont discuss on topics you dont know anything about.
Apr 01, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
And you know nothing about debate. Don't try to pass off logical fallacy and ad-hom as an argument.
Come back when you actually have something to contribute...
Apr 01, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Unlike ethanol then...
Apr 01, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
They'll be buying power from other countries or using polluting alternatives. You can't just remove a huge amount of base load power and replace it with nothing. Current renewable technologies couldn't fulfill this role in Germany.
Given the proximity to France I'll say much of the purchased power will be generated by nuclear anyways.
Apr 01, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
What did you contribute? Strawman nonsense.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Apr 01, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
No I pointed out the limits of every technology listed that's supposed to "save" us from using an ACTUALLY practical source that won't run out as civilization continues to advance.
Apr 03, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
If we did floating arrays of parabolic trough mirror power plants in the ocean over a large enough area, we can even have a net global cooling effect and a reduction in oceanic heat content, which would reduce hurricanes and other severe weather.
Apr 03, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Nah. Even with most reactors shut down we are still exporting energy. And at the rate alternative energy production is increasing we can get rid of the others within 6 years (or 10 - which was the original plan of the previous socialist-green government until Merkel upped that to 27)
Japan is ideally placed to use wave, wind (on or off shore) and geothermal. They could probably go all green without even bothering to add solar to the mix.
No, because the energy you grab will be converted (upon being used) into heat. Basic physics. You'd just have transferred the heat conversion from point A to point B (though that in itself might be useful to keep ocean circulatory systems going). Only reduction would be through reflection into space.
Apr 08, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
With power in such surplus that you're exporting power even with most of your reactors shut down then energy exports must be a large source of income for your country. Would your country not be losing serious amounts of income from the sale of the power as well as being hit economically by the losses of the workers at these large industrial facilities?
Regardless of what direction the country decides to take with respect to power generation, the knee-jerk reaction from the Japan earthquake should raise concerns about the willingness of your leaders to make major decisions based on limited information.
Apr 08, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Replacing the reactors with other types of power plants would create jobs there. (seriously: doing stupid stuff just to keep jobs alive is a very bad rationale for anything)
And the income is only for the power companies (who pay next to no taxes like all large copanies everywhere). So no real loss for the country there.
Apr 11, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
As for sending space shuttles to the moon, obviously your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking, because I wrote, 'two space shuttle load equivalents', to give a picture of how little would be required to provide all the U.S. energy needs for a year. There was no suggestion that I was promoting the idea of sending space shuttles to the moon. I am well aware of the limitations of shuttle technology.
Apr 11, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Apr 12, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Not really. Maybe for the first little while, but once the reactors are permanently defueled and in a shut down state then primary cooling is no longer required which means a lot of systems will be powered down and in a state to begin decommissioning.
I'd be concerned about the transition period. Until the new power plants/windmills/solar panels/etc. are built and commissioned, the current power plants shouldn't be shut down. My point mainly has to do with the alarmist reaction of the government to shut everything down, not the decision of the government to change from nuclear to something else. I'm a nuclear supporter, but if you can supply your base load then by all means change.
Apr 13, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Which is the point. The original plan by the previous govrenment (before Merkel and her puppeteers got their dirty hands on it) was to shut down the last reactor and switch over to alternative energy sources by 2021. This plan was realistic. With moderate added investment we could do it 2 years earlier. Seems reasonable to me.