Mailing Lists

Jonathan wrote:

"When one includes the downstream costs of nuclear power, one quickly  
finds that nuclear power remains the most expensive form of energy  
production that we have."

I am not sure where you sourced your information. The lifecycle cost  
of any energy production system is a complex topic whose final answers  
depend greatly on the input assumptions. However, the following table  
from the Nuclear Energy Institute provides at least a hint that your  
blanket statement is incorrect.

Total production costs at US electricity generation plants as of 2008  
(cents per kilowatt hour):

Nuclear - 1.87	
Coal	- 2.75
Gas	- 8.09
Petroleum - 17.26

(Shortened URL where the workbook can be found - http://bit.ly/6zOUJf)

In at least some military applications, particularly ship propulsion  
and forward base power production, nuclear would be competing against  
petroleum - which the commercial power market computes to have been 10  
times as expensive in 2008.

 From an energy density, reliability, and capacity for independent  
operations point of view, it is very difficult to quantify the value  
of being able to pack several decades worth of fuel into a space and  
weight that is less than the engines plus fuel tanks of a petroleum  
power plant that can only operate for a few days at full power. The  
economic comparison studies that the Navy has performed over the past  
several years at Congressional direction have not even attempted to  
quantify the operational value; they have been limited to a pure  
economic construct.

If you believe, like I do, that it is a bad idea to continue dumping  
fossil fuel waste without any concern into the environment, you find  
another value in the use of atomic fission.

There is no other fossil alternative with technological potential that  
even remote approaches the proven capabilities of atomic fission.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

On Nov 20, 2009, at 4:08 PM, Czarnecki, Jonathan (Jon) (CIV) wrote:

> Item about nuclear power energy per unit is true….as long as one  
> doesn’t look at life cycle costs.  When one includes the downstream  
> costs of nuclear power, one quickly finds that nuclear power remains  
> the most expensive form of energy production that we have.
>
> That said, there are circumstances – or operating environments –  
> where nukes are quite appropriate because they fit the environment  
> and the consumer needs so well, like subs.
>
> So, we must pay attention to two ideas: net energy ratios and  
> fitness of technology, or appropriate technology.  These two ideas  
> are very powerful when focused on the issue of energy production and  
> consumption.
>
> From: nwc_onlinediscussion-bounces at osiris.usnwc.edu  
> [mailto:nwc_onlinediscussion-bounces at osiris.usnwc.edu] On Behalf Of  
> John Dickmann
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:20 AM
> To: 'NWC Online Discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NWC_OnlineDiscussion] Navy track record is  
> encouraging, but...
>
> Bull,
>
> “…there's nothing out there with as much energy per unit weight/ 
> volume as a gallon of gasoline … The transition from wind to coal to  
> oil to gas turbines made sense because of the energy gains. What we  
> really need is another transition like that. Will that happen? Well,  
> who could have predicted the last century's worth of change.”
>
> 1.        I don’t think it is true:  nuclear power has more energy  
> per unit weight/volume than gasoline.  I’m pretty certain of that.
> 2.       The Navy made this transition several years decades ago,  
> but backed away from it for all except carriers and submarines.
>
> Despite Admiral Bowman’s caveats regarding ability to leverage  
> nuclear power, I will argue that the Navy doesn’t need another  
> transition like from coal to oil to gas focused on alternative  
> energies, unless you know of an alternative energy (as the term is  
> commonly used) source that beats gas as much as nuclear already  
> does.  We need to expand on the energy transition that has already  
> been made.
>
> Best,
> John
>
> From: nwc_onlinediscussion-bounces at osiris.usnwc.edu  
> [mailto:nwc_onlinediscussion-bounces at osiris.usnwc.edu] On Behalf Of  
> Bosch, Donald W., NAVWARCOL
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:02 AM
> To: nwc_onlinediscussion at osiris.usnwc.edu
> Subject: [NWC_OnlineDiscussion] Navy track record is encouraging,  
> but...
>
> Re: Transitioning between technologies. Salient point.
>
> I was working in Navy environmental programs when they started the  
> HazMin program at Pt. Mugu in the early 90's. Yeh, I know - that  
> dates me. Everybody was buying their own stuff and throwing it in  
> yellow flam lockers. You couldn't buy a can of spray paint from  
> Supply, only a dozen. Use one can - a couple spritzes - and then  
> throw the can back in the locker. Inventory your stuff once a week.  
> Get your OSHA training. After six months, throw the whole case of  
> paint in the hazwaste bucket because it was now expired. More work/ 
> risks related to hazardous waste compliance in the next office over.
>
> It took an installation commander with the guts to use his authority  
> to break the old paradigm. He sent his folks out with a truck to  
> collect it all up and put it in a single warehouse. He turned a  
> couple folks into hazmat custodians, and made a CPO the officer in  
> charge. Mechanics were issued paints, coatings, and lubes for the  
> day and returned them when they were finished. Miraculously (heh)  
> the based saved a million bucks in a hurry. More here:
>
> http://205.153.241.230/P2_Opportunity_Handbook/2_1_A_3.html
>
> The program is now DOD wide, and has saved hundreds of millions in  
> both hazmat procurement and waste disposal costs.
>
> Then there is the "extended" savings of fewer requirements for  
> regulation by EPA (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Resource  
> Conservation and Recovery Act, OSHA, etc) and a half-dozen executive  
> orders. It's important to note that when you lower your  
> environmental footprint you also lower your regulatory burden. I  
> imagine that will be true of greenhouse gas emissions as well!
>
> The supply and procurement chain adapted to this in a huge way.  
> Logisticians started buying non-hazardous cleaning substitutes, and  
> set up recycling contracts to replace waste disposal. People  
> building ships and airplanes started incorporating materials that  
> were either pre-coated (powder coating, etc), or didn't need  
> painting. I think most importantly, Navy tiger teams (NAVFAC's ECE  
> Team and NAVSEA's Pollution Prevention Team for ex) traveled around  
> picking up and sharing lessons learned. Huge improvements.
>
> How does that apply? Like Amory Lovins shared with us back in  
> September here at the College, a simple reduction in energy use  
> through lighter or more fuel efficient vehicles has an enormous  
> effect. That's what the Secretary is noting - saving one gallon of  
> gas a mile in a piece of rolling stock isn't saving 3 or 4 bucks.  
> It's saving the cost of all the people, ships and equipment it takes  
> to get it to the guy whose foot it on the accelerator.
>
> Final thought on this thought - the lowest hanging fruit is making  
> base facilities more energy efficient. NWC's recent program to link  
> up with URI in this effort is an outstanding start. Again, my hunch  
> is the 10-15 energy we could save isn't the final number, but grows  
> as you look at infrastructure, energy delivery, and other related  
> costs. More on that project here:
>
> http://www.usnwc.edu/About/News-And-Events/News-1.aspx
>
>
> Anyway, now for the "but..."
>
> John (and John), there are a couple of other realities in  
> alternative energy.
>
> First, heard a great lecture a couple years ago by ADM Skip Bowman  
> here at the Pell Center, speaking on National Security and Climate  
> Change. A lot of what he said is captured here at CNA's site:
>
> http://securityandclimate.cna.org/mab/
>
> Even though he's the lobbyist in chief for the nuke industry, he  
> noted that renewables and nuclear would have a difficult time  
> outpacing fossil fuel use for some time to come. The growth of the  
> grid, for instance, outpaces nuclear power construction so it will  
> never be more than 20%, not to mention the unavailability of nuclear  
> engineers to run all those plants. The best plan is a mix of  
> technologies. Solar in the SW, hydro in NW/Pacific, clean coal tech  
> in the Midwest, nuke where it makes sense (you still need lots of  
> water for nuke power), etc.
>
> Also met Roscoe Bartlett a while back. He reminded me that there's  
> nothing out there with as much energy per unit weight/volume as a  
> gallon of gasoline. Just try pushing your SUV for 10 miles, he said.  
> The transition from wind to coal to oil to gas turbines made sense  
> because of the energy gains. What we really need is another  
> transition like that. Will that happen? Well, who could have  
> predicted the last century's worth of change.
>
> The biggest hurdle in my mind is bureaucracy. Heard yet another  
> great lecture here at NWC by Paul M. Rich at Deepwater Wind (http://www.google.com/search?q=deepwater+wind&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1 
> )
>
> The prob with getting wind power installed here in Rhode Island is  
> not the technology, but more with the state and federal bureaucracy,  
> NEPA, and the issues related to plugging into National Grid's  
> politically charged energy rate structure. And then there are the  
> environmentalists and famous political figures (may he rest in  
> peace) standing in the way of wind and solar because of their own  
> rather selfish NIMBY issues.
>
> Well, that's probably more than two cents. Good discussion starter.  
> I emailed the link to a couple environmental blogs/friends/ 
> listserves to see if they want to participate.
>
> Best regards,
> Bull
>
> Don Bosch
> Institute of Professional Environmental Practice (NE Regional Coord,  
> IPEP #04050013)
> Registered Environmental Manager
>
> US Naval War College
> donald.bosch at usnwc.edu
> _______________________________________________
> NWC_OnlineDiscussion mailing list
> NWC_OnlineDiscussion at osiris.usnwc.edu
> http://osiris.usnwc.edu/mailman/listinfo/nwc_onlinediscussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://osiris.usnwc.edu/pipermail/nwc_onlinediscussion/attachments/20091121/02eb2113/attachment.html