Disqus - Latest Comments for RodAdams

Re: Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry—and Why It Stopped | Ecocentric | TIME.com

RodAdams — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 03:21:11 -0000

The Sierra Club policies that benefit natural gas are not limited to the well publicized and admitted efforts to fight coal. They also include the Sierra Club's long running efforts to raise as many questions as possible about the increased use of nuclear energy. In nearly every market, the current alternative to using nuclear energy is to burn more natural gas. In other words, when supported environmentalists fight nuclear energy it increases profits for natural gas suppliers.

The world's oil and gas industry was a huge beneficiary of the worldwide overreaction to Fukushima. Their sales to Japan and Germany are up by tens of billions of dollars per year, but those additional sales are also driving up prices for all of their other customers. I call it overreaction because the tsunami killed 20,000 people and physically destroyed the infrastructure along a 70 mile stretch of coastline; the nuclear plants suffered destruction from the wave without killing or even injuring a single person from the released radiation.

Think hard now - what did groups like Sierra do in reaction to that natural disaster? Did they focus on the 20,000 people killed by the tidal wave or the ZERO killed by the radiation released from the three melted plants? Did they wring their hands about the negative environmental effects of increased burning and dumping of dangerous fossil fuel wastes or do they continue to try to scare people about radiation levels that have not hurt anyone and that are within normal variations in background around the globe?

Have they encouraged the rapid restoration and expanded operations of undamaged, emission-free nuclear power stations or the continued effort to shut even more of those valuable machines down so that their output can be replaced by burning even more fossil fuel?

Follow the money, folks. Petroleum pushers want as much of your money as they can grab. They will not hesitate to work hard with anyone else who will fight their competitors using any devious arguments they can imagine.

Re: Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry—and Why It Stopped | Ecocentric | TIME.com

RodAdams — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 03:02:17 -0000

Actually, I think one can best understand the issue if they realize that the goal of hydrocarbon extractors is to limit the availability of useful energy to a quantity slightly below the demand. That situation supercharges profitability by encouraging higher prices and political support for desperation measures that can be sold as efforts to solve the problems.

That means that some hydrocarbon extractors will support arguments and technologies that sound like they are striving to protect the planet when what they really are is veiled efforts to limit supply. The more powerful and politically astute extractors will also encourage stupid expenditures on things like geothermal and offshore wind that just happen to lead to massive revenues for technologies like off shore service vessels, drilling rigs, and seismic mapping that the extractors already own.

Follow the money. Behind many "Environmental" arguments you will find greedy fossil fuel salesmen funneling support designed to limit energy supplies. Nothing worries investors in energy company stocks more than "oversupply" that drives both prices and profits down while making life slightly easier for all customers.

Re: http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/836144503

RodAdams — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:26:36 -0000

David:

I know that you have a great deal of nuclear knowledge, so I was quite surprised to read the following statement indicating that you might have been dozing during your basic thermo coursework:

"As a safety precaution, the pressure of the condensing steam inside the main condenser was kept lower than the pressure of the sea water flowing through the metal cooling tubes. Consequently, if a tube ruptured, outside water would leak into the plant rather than having radioactively contaminated water leak out."

Are you not aware that the steam side of all condensers since Watt's major improvement in steam plant efficiency have operated at a vacuum?

http://www.ideafinder.com/h...

No matter what the heat source is for the Rankine Cycle, the steam is ALWAYS at a lower pressure than the cooling water in the tubes.

Re: Going Green, Going Nuclear | The Harvard Crimson

RodAdams — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 01:44:51 -0000

@disgruntledalum - First I should disclose that I am the founder of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. and would love to be building lots of new, modern, emission free power sources to meet the desires and needs of a growing customer base that wants "more power". Our designs are not "tremendous industrial facilities", and neither are those of some of the other companies in the small, modular nuclear reactor business. Unfortunately, my own company has not been anywhere near as successful at attracting capital as Hyperion, NuScale, B&W, Toshiba, or Areva.

I guess I understand the general desire to conserve energy, especially when you have been told your whole life that the only reliable sources have pretty significant financial and ecological consequences. My experience has been different - I once ran the department that operated a moderately sized nuclear power plant on board a 9,000 ton submarine. That plant had a fuel source that could fit under my office desk, but it lasted for more than 15 years while providing all of the propulsion, electricity, fresh water and even fresh air needed to support 150 people in the ocean depths.

I know that you have been taught - perhaps by the people who like making money selling fossil fuel - that nuclear energy is expensive, but the fact is that the commercial nuclear fuel in use today has an "all in" cost that is roughly the equivalent of purchasing oil for $2.90 per barrel. No wonder the coal, oil and gas guys - and their friends in the establishment nuclear industry - do not want you to hear that.

Bottom line - I think abundant, low cost, low emission energy is a huge boon to humans. We have so much work to do to make the world a better place for the 6 billion people who already live here, and there is a clear relationship between abundant energy and the ability to get that work accomplished.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.

Re: Going Green, Going Nuclear | The Harvard Crimson

RodAdams — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 04:55:52 -0000

Karin - nice piece. Your comment about the economics and marginal cost comparisons reminded me of an article published back in 2005 titled "Too Cheap to Meter: It's Now True". http://www.atomicinsights.c...

The operational mode of the nuclear plants in the US is one where they could make just as reliable a profit by simply selling monthly fixed price contracts like the cell phone and internet companies do without even bothering to measure actual usage. Of course, the wire going to the customer would limit the rate of consumption to something that the plant could handle, but the plants cost as much to OWN as they do to OWN and OPERATE.

By most standards, that makes operating them and selling the power produced essentially free. What customers are really paying for is the capacity, just like they do for those other "all you can eat" products like cell phone and internet services.

Re: A Real Debate on Nuclear Energy

RodAdams — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:49:44 -0000

A more marketing friendly way to phrase "expensive" is that nuclear plants are an incredible job generator - many of the "costs" of the plant go directly into the local economy in the form of wages paid to the people who are building the facility!

Once the facility is built, the cost of the plant is invested capital. Most locales have property tax structures that capture part of that capital value every year and turn it into schools, roads, community centers, and arts facilities.

Re: Udall supports proposed Xcel nuclear plant for Colorado

RodAdams — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:03:54 -0000

One comment in the article is completely disproved by reality. The largest nuclear station in the United States, the three unit Palo Verde station, is located in the desert near Phoenix, AZ. It uses recycled waste water from the city systems as the cooling medium.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cnea...

Re: 25 Percent of U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Are Leaking Radioactive Chemicals

RodAdams — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 05:15:24 -0000

It is time to add a little math to the discussion. The highest level of tritium in any report that I have read with regards to Vermont Yankee puts the concentration at a scary sounding 70,000 picocuries per liter. However, it is important to note that a picocurie is 1 x 10^-12 curies. Stated another way, a picocurie is to a curie as a penny is to $10 billion.

A curie is not an unusually large quantity of tritium; it has a mass of just 0.1 milligrams. I have a bottle of aspirin in my medicine cabinet with small tablets that have a mass of 385 milligrams; isolating 0.1 milligrams would require me to break that tablet up into 3,850 pieces.

Putting that all together, 70,000 picocuries/lliter means that in a water mass of 1000 grams, 0.000000000007 grams of it is tritium, a weak beta emitter whose health effects are described in the following way by the EPA on their tritium web site:

"As with all ionizing radiation, exposure to tritium increases the risk of developing cancer. However, because it emits very low energy radiation and leaves the body relatively quickly, for a given amount of activity ingested, tritium is one of the least dangerous radionuclides. Since tritium is almost always found as water, it goes directly into soft tissues and organs. The associated dose to these tissues are generally uniform and dependent on the tissues' water content."

So, tell me again why I should be concerned or why the operators at Vermont Yankee should waste any time or money on this issue?

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast

Re: Will The New Decade Bring the US New Nuclear Energy?

RodAdams — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 01:47:14 -0000

Even if you do not ignore the carbon dioxide emitted during the fuel cycle, including that required to mine, mill, enrich and fabricate fuel rods, nuclear fission energy plants produce about as much CO2 per unit of energy produced as wind turbines.

There is a range of values depending on several choices or technologies used during the fuel cycle and construction projects, but nuclear energy produces between 3 and 40 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour while wind produces between 7 and 22 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour. For comparison, burning natural gas in efficient combined cycle plants produces 398 to 469 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour and coal produces between 834 to 1026 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

http://atomicinsights.blogs...

Re: Will COSCO Save the Planet - With Nuclear Merchant Ships?

RodAdams — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:58:29 -0000

elgatoso - nice to see an Atomic Insights reader here.

Re: Will COSCO Save the Planet - With Nuclear Merchant Ships?

RodAdams — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:52:39 -0000

Anon_JO - interesting link. Notice how much of the concern relates to bow and hull shape not being optimal for fuel efficiency. Perhaps that is one of the reasons that the Russian nuclear icebreakers do pretty well in open water; they have large, powerful engines where fuel consumption is not a terribly large concern. At current oil prices and commercial nuclear fuel prices, the cost per unit of energy is about 1/40th for nuclear compared to oil.

Re: Will COSCO Save the Planet - With Nuclear Merchant Ships?

RodAdams — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:34:40 -0000

Galrahn - I am sure that the CEO of COSCO is well aware of the need to make a profit, but he is also well aware of the fact that about 40% of the cost of moving stuff is the cost of fuel and that is at current oil prices. What happens when the cost of fuel doubles? That is not far fetched - oil prices peaked at $147 in 2008 compared to their relatively low price of about $80 now.

As noted above, commercial nuclear fuel is about 1/40th the cost of $120 per barrel oil, but most ships burn distillate, which costs quite a bit more per unit.

There is a reason that only oil exporting countries, islands and ships burn oil - that stuff is terribly expensive for a power generator. Commercial ships are essentially baseload plants - they go to full power and stay there for their entire voyage.

Re: Will COSCO Save the Planet - With Nuclear Merchant Ships?

RodAdams — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:29:47 -0000

The big pollution issues for ships are SOX, NOX and small particles. Because ships often burn high sulfur oil, they represent about 1000 times more SOX emissions than all of the vehicles on the road.

Re: Will COSCO Save the Planet - With Nuclear Merchant Ships?

RodAdams — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:28:11 -0000

Historian7 - you are missing an important part of the argument - the cost to operate, which includes the cost of purchasing fuel.

Nuclear fuel is extremely inexpensive compared to oil. Commercial plants in the US pay a total fuel cost - including uranium, enrichment, fabrication, storage, transport, disposal - of 50 cents per million BTU. You can convert oil into the same units by dividing the price per barrel by about 6. (Actually 5.8, but 6 is close enough by radcon math.) We programmed for a fuel cost of about $120 per barrel in 2011. That means that oil costs about 40 times as much as nuclear fuel per unit of energy!

Re: Will COSCO Save the Planet - With Nuclear Merchant Ships?

RodAdams — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:21:10 -0000

The more accurate studies of the CO2 emission level from the complete nuclear fuel cycle give it about the same level as wind turbines - 3-40 grams per kilowatt hour compared to 2-22 grams for wind. Nuclear has a larger range due to the variations in enrichment requirements and the power source used for the enrichment plants (in France, the enrichment plant is powered by nuclear plants.)

http://atomicinsights.blogs...

Re: Will COSCO Save the Planet - With Nuclear Merchant Ships?

RodAdams — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:15:03 -0000

The NS Savannah "failed" in the market for several reasons, at least one of which has been overcome by events already and many of which can be overcome by design.

- She was laid up in 1971. At that time, oil cost about $2 per barrel. Her differential subsidy cost compared to other American flag vessels of the same size was about $2 million per year. In late 1973, the price of oil shot up to $12 per barrel and the fuel cost increase for an oil burning ship with the same size and speed of Savannah increased by $2 million per year.

- She was a show boat designed more for looks and luxury than for cargo capacity. She had a dance floor, a large banquet facility, a swimming pool and about 100 luxury accommodations for all of the dignitaries that she took on sample voyages before her cargo service. None of that space could generate revenue once her show boat days were ended.

- Her cranes were designed and located for looks and lines, not for efficient cargo handling.

- Her holds were bulk freight and not well shaped for maximum volume - they were shaped to keep the lines looking like a yacht.

- She was a one of a kind, so spare parts costs were high. She also had to support a complete shore maintenance infrastructure on her own since Rickover refused to allow "his" yards to work on her.

All in all, NS Savannah was a learning experience, not a failure. Unfortunately, learning requires actual study, not merely repeating what you might have heard.

http://www.atomicinsights.c...

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

Re: Will COSCO Save the Planet - With Nuclear Merchant Ships?

RodAdams — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:05:44 -0000

Anon_JO - I am curious as to why you claim that icebreakers are not seaworthy? The Russian icebreakers are used in service as cruise liners in both the Arctic and Antarctic.

http://www.cruisingholidays...

I have read travel logs from journeys on these vessels; none of them indicated any sea worthiness issues.

Re: DOE to Study Expansion of Nuclear Infrastructure in the US

RodAdams — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:00:45 -0000

Galrahn - I think you left out the most interesting part of the Poneman quote from the NT Times article. Here is the paragraph that followed the quote that you inserted:

"That could end up making carbon-free electricity available to more people in the world. And there are ways you can design [those] reactors that could create additional protection against [nuclear] proliferation." The Navy's experience with smaller shipboard reactors would be very valuable, he added.

I have been beating this drum for a while; the US has a real value proposition in its nuclear propulsion plant manufacturing and operational experience. We are recognized around the world as the very best in this field; all we need to do is to prove that we can operate efficiently and economically.

Here is a reminder for those who will jump in with an argument about HEU - the NS Savannah, built in the late 1950s, used 4.5% enriched fuel in its propulsion reactor core. Sure, the stuff we use has some longevity advantages, but commercial power plants manage to do a refueling operation in about 28 days because they are designed to make that process reasonably simple.

Re: Converting Coal Plants for Clear Displacement of Pollution and CO2

RodAdams — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 03:37:51 -0000

I am a big fan of Jim Holm's suggestions that we can replace the boiler heat sources in many of those older coal plants with nuclear steam supply systems. That would enable a profitable reuse of many of the site characteristics and improvements that have enabled the coal fired plants to operate including relatively large areas, access to transportation infrastructure, transmission and distribution infrastructure, cooling water, and an installed steam plant.

Though it has its challenges, one nice thing about steam plant technology is its durability. The thick walled piping, heavy duty valves and pumps, and turbines that spin in a controlled chemistry environment designed to limit corrosion and erosion means that steam plants work fine, last a long time. These are not the parts of the old coal plants that need costly investments - it is the fuel handling, ash control and mercury emissions controls that are the real challenge. Replacing that heat system with nuclear heat is an attractive concept.

The 105 MW HTR-PM's that the Chinese are currently building seem just about perfect for the job. Maybe they have a plant to eventually convert some or most of those new coal plants that they have constructed over the past 10-15 years into emission free steam plant using nuclear heat.

Re: Latest on Four Small Nuclear Reactors

RodAdams — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:23:43 -0000

You wrote:
"The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was created as an independent agency by Congress in 1974 to enable the nation to safely use radioactive materials for beneficial civilian purposes while ensuring that people and the environment are protected."

Actually, that is not entirely true. The Atomic Energy Commission, the predecessor agency of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was established by the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 for the purpose stated above. By 1974, pressure by the coal industry forced the splitting of the AEC into two separate branches - one that retained responsibility for nuclear weapons development and control along with some nuclear energy research, development and education programs and then a separate agency - the NRC - whose stated purpose is regulation of nuclear energy applications with a sole focus on public safety - generally understood to be a responsibility without regard to cost and without regard to the risk of energy systems that must be employed when nuclear energy is slowed or stopped due to expressed concerns about safety.

Like Dan, I believe that the NRC is full of extremely competent people who are clearly doing the best that they can to succeed in their narrowly defined mission within the constraints of the budgets that they are given by Congress and the Administration. However, like many legally focused organizations, the leaders at the NRC take a very constrained view of their charter and do not believe that they have been given any legislative responsibility to enable nuclear energy to succeed. They will not stop it if they can get answers that satisfy all of their questions, but they also will not hesitate to pull on the virtual stop cord that they have been given in order to be 110% sure that there will never be any risk - however tiny - to the public.

Re: Nuclear power: Wave of the past or future?

RodAdams — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:08:44 -0000

Peter A:

Mining, enrichment, and reprocessing are all activities that are powered by electricity. That is the output of a nuclear power plant, so those are pretty easy to provide without fossil fuels. Transportation is a bit more challenging to provide directly with fission, but there is very little transportation involved in moving the concentrated nuclear fuels around the fuel cycle. For example, a large nuclear plant might require three truckloads of new fuel every 18 months, with the potential in newer designs to reduce that fuel demand.

Now let me turn the question around - what do you propose to use as the closed-loop clean energy system?

Re: Atomkraft? Nein danke! 50.000 people protest against nuclear energy in Germany

RodAdams — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:30:13 -0000

Simon - the facts do not back up your assertions. Even your links are to documents that talk about the cost of future plants - which is a topic ripe for endless discussion because no one knows how much they might cost. That a debate topic where anyone is allowed to assert almost anything, after all, it is about the future.

When it comes to a discussion about keeping 17 well built, well operated EXISTING nuclear plants running until they are at the end of their useful lives, the discussion about cost is something entirely different. According to page 39 of a book titled "Risks and benefits of nuclear energy" (available on Google Books with a very complex link) here are the costs of various forms of electricity in Germany in 2003 in euro cents per kilowatt-hour:
Lignite - 3.3
Hard coal - 3.0
Oil - 3.1
Gas - 3.6
Nuclear - 2.1
Hydro - 7
Wind - 7
Solar PB - 60 (that is right, sixty cents per kilowatt hour!)

These costs come from actual accounting data on real plants. They are not figments of someone's imagination or predictions of the future.

My reason for introducing Schroeder's betrayal into the discussion is that it should cause one to question why he was so adamant about shutting down those already constructed plants. Causing a market demand for Russian natural gas at a time when he might have been negotiating in private for a lucrative private position after "serving" as Chancellor just might be a logical explanation for his actions, especially when you find out just how greedy he was for personal wealth and status symbols.

Say what you will about future nuclear plants; it is hard to assert that the existing ones are expensive to run or cause greenhouse gas emission. Heck, there are some places where governments have threatened to slap a windfall profits tax on nuclear electricity generators because they are so profitable when selling electricity in a competitive market whose price is set by natural gas or in a market where coal plants have to purchase emissions credits.

Re: Atomkraft? Nein danke! 50.000 people protest against nuclear energy in Germany

RodAdams — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 04:19:44 -0000

There is something that critical thinkers should know about Gerhard Schroeder, the Social Democratic chancellor who negotiated the deal to shut down Germany's 17 emission free nuclear power plants well before the end of their useful life.

Within one month after he lost in his reelection bid to Ms. Merkel, he accepted a high level position with Gazprom, the Russian natural gas monopoly, with the responsibility of directing the completion of a gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea directly from Russia to Germany. http://bit.ly/ss8Qo

The gas that the pipeline will carry will be used as part of the replacement power generation capacity. So will the biofuels produced by the farmers who led the protests in Berlin. Both gas and biofuels would have a smaller market at a lower price if the nuclear plants were kept in service.

The dispute is not just about illogical fear of the potential consequences of a nuclear plant accident, it is also about a logical - if slightly immoral - desire to make money by selling goods that would not be needed if the useful plants were not prematurely removed from service. People motivated by greed are apparently is winning the hearts and minds of Germans, even though the result will be that they will pay higher prices for dirtier electricity than they would if the plants kept running.

Re: The Harvard Crimson :: Opinion :: Old King Coal

RodAdams — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 02:39:22 -0000

The often repeated mantra that coal is "cheap" is based on a set of assumptions and conditions. One of those assumptions is that coal will continue to be able to be extracted and burned without additional costs related to capturing and properly storing ALL of the residue produced when it is burned. That includes not only CO2, but also the fly ash you mention, the scrubber chemicals, and the mine tailings.

If the actions required to capture and properly store the residues are ever invented, they could be costed out and implemented. IF that ever occurs, burning coal will be almost as clean as fissioning uranium, plutonium and thorium and it will be FAR more costly.

Even with the "disadvantage" of having to pay all of the costs required to capture and store all of its residue, fission competes very favorably with "cheap" coal; in 2008 the average production cost for coal fired power plants in the US was more than 45% higher than the average production cost for nuclear plants in the US (2.75 for coal versus 1.87 for nuclear - source Nuclear Energy Institute computation based on FERC form 1 filings for regulated utilities.)

The uncomfortable truth for people who care about the cleanliness of the environment but who fear atomic energy is that coal and nuclear are the only real choices available for reliable, affordable electricity. Coal has 50% of the market, nuclear has 21%. However, "King Coal" had a 100 year head start. Over the past 50 years, it has used its position as a market leader to build coalitions with politicians, "environmental" non-profits, and other fossil fuel pushers to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) to press down enthusiasm for its upstart competition.

It is fighting a losing battle, technologically speaking. Politics, however, can be a strange thing.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast

Re: Udall reasserts controversial pro-nuclear position

RodAdams — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:15:16 -0000

The numbers run on TreeHugger seem damning, but only in isolation. According to the provided numbers, Canada produces approximately 575,000 tons of uranium mine tailings each year along with about 13 million tons of waste rock (what some miners would call overburden). Most of that material does not get moved more than a few dozen miles from the mine to the mill. The only part of the extracted material that moves very far is the 9,000 tons or so of uranium.

However, let's add some comparative numbers. Canada produces approximately 20% of the world's uranium supply. The world's 435 nuclear power plants supply 2000 terrawatt hours of electricity each year, roughly equivalent to the amount of electricity supplied by burning coal in the US. In order to produce that much electricity with coal, the US mines 1,200,000,000 tons of coal and probably at least that much overburden. That coal can travel hundreds to thousands of miles to the power plants from the mines. US electrical power plants burning coal release roughly 3,800,000,000 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.

To produce the same quantity of electricity as Canadian uranium does, you would need to extract and move more than 240,000,000 tons of coal instead of extracting, and then milling 575,000 tons of rock to provide 9,000 tons of uranium ore.

Compared to that waste stream and material movement, mining uranium is a bargain from an environmental and resource consumption point of view.