The Republic of Korea (ROK) is what we call "South Korea". The peninsula divided by an artificial border by the international powers in 1953 (Russia and the US). North Korea is a wreck. South Korea seems to be thriving. The actual situation in the ROK is actually far more complex but that is not the focus of this essay, energy is.

The ROK (hereafter simply "Korea") is vasstly expanding it's extremely well run nuclear industry. It is doing this, as the last excerpt below shows, to reduce the amount of money spent on fossil fuel purchases, of which Korea has none, and has to import it all: coal, oil, gas.

The Korea Times ran the following article here: Here are some excerpts:

Luke over at  Physical Insights has an interesting post on replacing all of Australia's coal fired power plants (which account for 91% of their generation and well over half of their CO2 emissions) with nuclear power plants. Australia, as one might surmise, is ideally suited for nuclear energy because 90% of it's people live within 20 to 40% of it's coast...and Australia's coast is the greatest heat sink imaginable for base load power, nuclear included. I urge readers to take a look at this post.

This go me thinking about the US. There are over 500 GWs of coal fired generation capacity in the US today. It provides up to 30% of all CO2 emissions in the US today and, helps kill 30,000 people a year (probably more) due to the immediate threat of sub-PM-10 particulate (10 micron carbon soot that floats around from the stacks at 5  to 1 microns in size and causes cancer, asthma, emphysema, heart disease, you name it).

As promised....

What to do with Spent Nuclear Fuel? (or "waste" in impolite company).

Here is the much promised, never delivered, mostly dreaded "nuclear waste" diary I've ben promising.

The Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) is what most people in the US call "waste", or high level radioactive waste. The US is one of the few countries who, in a fit of paranoia in the 1970s, banned the recycling of such SPF because the government believed that such SNF could fall into the hands of countries seeking such SPF to build bombs with.

Well, I lied again, no spent nuclear fuel diary yet. Really, the "check is in the mail". So, Charles Barton invervened again from his stunningly accurate and devastating critiques of Wind and Solar energy; their inability to fill the energy gap or provide a serious, cheap alternative to coal and natural gas.

So...we have here a "guest diary" from Charle's Nuclear Green web site. Hopefully comments will be many and lively and Charles will, if he feels he needs to, chime in here.

--David Walters

Introduction: The Center for Public Policy Studies is associated with the British Conservative Party, although its positions are not coordinated with the official party views. The Essay, "Wind Chills," by Tony Lodge, ought to be read as a political document, but it should not be dismissed simply because of its ideology. Wind Chills offers a penetrating analysis of the problems associated with wind. I have posted both the press release on Wind Chills and selected passages from the document

So, folks, while I get my act together on doing a diary on the "Spent Nuclear Fuel Controversy: 'Waste' or 'Resource', You Decide", I thought I'd throw this quickie out there to show that the US is not the only place that this discussion about nuclear energy is taking place...and in some cases it's far ahead of us. It can tide us over until we can delve into the meat of the spent nuclear fuel issue. So, I present to you the future, it appears, of the Nuclear Renaissance from the place the Renaissance  actually started: Europe. We can chew this up for a few days, all are welcome, be polite, as usually, and as 'technical' as possible. Links are encouraged. Oh, thanks for the dozens of tips from the last discussion. It was good wasn't it? I think everyone made a positive contribution and perhaps we left with more questions than answers, which in my opinion, is always a good thing.

At the end of April the California Independent System Operator issued it's "2008 Summer Loads and Resources Operations Preparedness Assessment", an extensive overview issued every year in the Spring to acess the load and generation requirements for high, hot, days of summer in the Golden State.

Among other things, it presents a concise (albeit about 30 pages long, but all online), factual, graph-laden report on the issues the CAISO has to deal with in meeting our summer demands. One can learn an awful lot of how a grid function and what are every conceivable issue when maintaining the grid over a large region, especially as it relates to generation, generation sources and capacity factors.

An entire university course could be taught around this document. It would be a multi-disciplinary course, reaching across collage quads to encompass finances, economics, engineering, meteorology, hydrology, and English writing skills.

I thought we'd raise the issue, again, of nuclear, gas, coal and carbon with regards to capacity factors. Capacity factors are basically the nameplate maximum power over a period of time that a given form of generation can perform under optimal conditions.

So, from http://www.eia.doe.gov/... the Energy Information Administration of the DOE we get the following for the year ending 2006:

Coal:                           335,830 MWs or 335 GWs.
Natural Gas:                442,945 MWs or 442 GWs
Nuclear:                      105,585 or 105 GWs
Renewables, excluding hydro but including wind, solar, swamp gas, etc: 26,470 MWs or 26 GWs.

From today's New York Times:

Marco Di Lauro for The New York Times

At a time when the world’s top climate experts agree that carbon emissions must be rapidly reduced to hold down global warming, Italy’s major electricity producer, Enel, is converting its massive power plant here from oil to coal, generally the dirtiest fuel on earth.

Italy’s Civitavecchia power plant is converting from oil to coal.
Over the next five years, Italy will increase its reliance on coal to 33 percent from 14 percent. Power generated by Enel from coal will rise to 50 percent.

And Italy is not alone in its return to coal. Driven by rising demand, record high oil and natural gas prices, concerns over energy security and an aversion to nuclear energy, European countries are expected to put into operation about 50 coal-fired plants over the next five years, plants that will be in use for the next five decades.

The Case for Expanding Pumped Hydroelectric Storage.

The title of this diary is the title of an article from a March 21, 2008 essay by Harry Valentine on Energy Central's "Generation Technologies" Industry Article page. I'm not a big fan of Energy Central. I think they engage in far too much speculative energy writing that is often more fantasy than physical. Valentine, in my not-so-humble opinion is probably the worst of these. His articles border on the sci-fi under titles like:

Transmitting Natural Lighting around the world

Downstream Thermal Energy from Natural Gas Pipelines

Tidal Mega-Power and Hydrogen Production in Northeastern Canada

Micro-hydroelectric Power from Fog Fences

More on why we need the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor:
We discussed yesterday why the LFTR is a totally safe alternative not just for fossil fuels but also in relation to uranium-fueled Light-Water Pressurized Reactors. But let’s review:

1. The LFTR is incredibly stable against nuclear reactivity accidents—the type of accident experienced at Chernobyl.

2. Any increase in temperature results in a decrease in reactivity. Thus, as the liquid fuel temperature increases, reactivity decreases, thus reducing power and restoring the original condition.  This is analogous to a weight on a spring. It is intrinsically safe and stable because of this.

3. The LFTR is also totally safe against a cooling loss accident which is what happened at TMI.

4. It is not possible because the liquid fuel can drain safely into specially designed cisterns. Once removed from the moderator, all fission reactions immediately cease.

The following diary was a paper written by Uri Gat and H.L.Dodds for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. It was posted last week on Nuclear Green, the well written and very active Nuclear Green blog that has propelled discussion on Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors around the nuclear blogospheres for the last few months. Nuclear Green is one of several internet portals for information on Molten Salt Reactors s and LFTRs. The blog is run by Charles Barton.

Nuclear Green is one of several portals for information on the revival of discussions of Molten Salt Reactors and, specifically, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors or LFTRs, a subset of the MSR.

From Reuters

Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency

HOUSTON (Reuters) - A drop in wind
generation late on Tuesday, coupled with colder weather, triggered an
electric emergency that caused the Texas grid operator to cut service
to some large customers, the grid agency said on Wednesday.

Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) said a decline in wind
energy production in west Texas occurred at the same time evening
electric demand was building as colder temperatures moved into the
state.

The grid operator went directly to the second stage of an emergency
plan at 6:41 PM CST (0041 GMT), ERCOT said in a statement.

System operators curtailed power to interruptible customers to shave
1,100 megawatts of demand within 10 minutes, ERCOT said. Interruptible
customers are generally large industrial customers who are paid to
reduce power use when emergencies occur.  

Various Rants on Energy Happenings.

I usually don't rant, but I feel like ranting, for the good, the bad and the ugly:

#The Chinese broke ground on their first ever Generation III Nuclear Power Plant. They expect the new Westinghouse (A JAPANESE COMPANY FOLKS!) AP1000 to come in around $2500/KW installed. It'll be the 1200 MWs model. Of course they have to build tons more to effectively slow down coal production...but this will be worth about 3 coal plants the WON'T build (the Chinese build smaller 400 MWs coal plants it seems, but scads of them).

The US has about 4 AP1000s in the planning stage. Of course it takes the NRC to go almost 3 ½ years to get through all the stupid paper work even AFTER they approved the design AND the site for the plants.

This diary is going to be an outline of US energy generation.

All energy activists...meaning all you opinionated folks here on the Dailykos who think you know something about energy production and consumption and who want to follow up on this by actual political activity: listen up.

The US Department of Energy has issued their reports on electrical generation for the year 2006 after totaling up all the information from utilities, generators, operators and other sources. The issue this report every October. Additionally, they issue tons of other reports you all ought to read. We'll examine some of them here. One of these reports is once called Cost and Performance Characteristics of the New Central Station Electricity Generating Technologies. That's a mouthful. It ought to be. It's the DOE's projection of "Overnight costs" by on dollars-per-Kilowatt installed. Some FASCINATING numbers. This is a report that projects out into the future and is supposed to be a guide for how much it would cost to build a new nuke, wind, solar thermal, hydro or hamster powered electrical generating station.

China: 700 million kW capacity and rising
17 January 2008

China increased its total installed electricity generating capacity by 14.36% in 2007, with similar growth in generation and consumption. Meanwhile preparations are continuing for construction to start in earnest at a new nuclear site in eastern China.

According to statistics released this week, the country's generating capacity grew by over 100 million kW in 2007 to 713.3 million kW. Although the 3.3 trillion kWh generated for the year was up 14.44% on 2006, consumption also increased by a similar percentage to 3.3 trillion kWh. As generation has been sufficient to meet consumption, the country has been able to close a 'large number' of small thermal power plants, according to a China Daily report. China is the world's second largest emitter of energy-related carbon dioxide.

Germany should introduce nuclear tax to fuel competition: Greens

Cologne (Platts)--9Jan2008

Germany should introduce a tax of 2 euro cent/kWh on fuel rods for
nuclear power generation to re-establish the balance between different
generation sources, according to a Green party proposal published by
Suddeutsche Zeitung.

Citing a paper from the opposition party's energy expert Michael Schafer,
the newspaper said the suggested tax would create annual income of Eur 2
billion, increase costs for nuclear generation and with that possibly enforce competition.

The suggestion is based on the trade with emission rights: emitting units
receive a certain, limited, amount of emission allowances for free, which in
effect caps the time they are allowed to generate electricity at competitive prices. When their free rights run out, the operators have to buy rights on the market.

From the Nuclear Energy Institute blog:  

"One of the topics NEI pays close attention to, of course, is the role EIA sees nuclear power playing over the next several decades. According to the report, by 2030, 20 GW of new nuclear capacity are projected to be built as well as 2.7 GW in uprates and 4.5 GW in retirements. Total nuclear capacity in 2030 is projected to increase to 118.8 GW from today's 100.3 GW. This year's nuclear projection is a step up from last year's report which forecasted nuclear will only increase to 112.6 GW by 2030."

Democrats shoot themselves in the head on Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant!

We at Left-Atomics only hope that this idiocy ends at some point, before it's too late. Well, at any rate, more applications for new nuclear plants are being filed with the NRC, and thats a good thing...even if it's not enough to really effect pollution, particulate, CO2, etc. We need a real plan for hundreds of new NPPs. More, along with my promised diary on nuclear 'waste' later...