(asleep at the)
I sincerely hope that you can spare the time to read this. I have never seen such a beautifully simple damnation of the Nuclear Industry. Knowing from critics, who include the City financiers at the attempted float of the industry, and technical bulletins, that the industry has never been profitable-quite the reverse-it has taken this author to detail in logical terms, just how the nuclear industry has either lied or been extremely bad at its mathematics. It might be safest to believe that they lied.
This is merely an extract from the book. The rest is the same, inasmuch as it details all other aspects of nuclear power and condemns it, in the same detailed way. READ IT IF YOU CAN!!
(chapter 9)
p99
How MANY miles OF
travel can you get out of a gallon
of gasoline in your automobile? It's a basic question, the answer to which tells
you how far you can go on a full tank.
How much electrical energy can you get out of a ton of
uranium? This is called the gross yield. Knowing the gross yield, and knowing
the probable tons of uranium which exist, tells you how much energy is available
from nuclear power.
This very question came up in a hearing (May, 1975) of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission in St. Francisville, Louisiana. The U.S.
government expert witness was Mr. John Patterson. Patterson gave the official
answer. He SWORE that nuclear plants deliver 32 million kilowatt hours for each
ton of uranium ore. This was a repetition of testimony which had been sworn by
the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC): 32 was the official gross yield.
Then, the Louisiana attorney general asked a mining
engineer, Mr. Morgan Gurdon Huntington (of Galesville, Maryland) to testify on
behalf of Louisiana. Huntington had copies of the AEC's own data. He compared
the outputs of nuclear plants with the actual tons of uranium which had been
mined to operate these plants. At that time, the AEC readily released that
information to him.
Huntington found that the official gross yield was wildly
exaggerated. Tonnage data and actual energy output of the nuclear plants did
not jibe. Huntington produced proof that one nuclear plant produced less than
8.6 (not 32). Another plant delivered only 6. In the
face of this evidence, Patterson REPUDIATED HIS OWN SWORN TESTIMONY. He admitted
that no nuclear plant did as well as 32, but he wasn't about to tell more.
For decades afterwards, Huntington attempted to get the
latest data from our government. Further data was withheld. Not only did our
government continue to claim the discredited rating, but it was exaggerated
still more wildly by some nuclear promoters. Since 1975, the free flow of honest
reporting has remained stonewalled.
Huntington obtained clearances to obtain updated data of the
type which had been readily released to him before he discovered discrepancies.
No luck! The excuse for the stonewalling was that the security of the U.S. was
threatened. The only real threat was, in fact, the reduced energy security of
this nation. Our energy security was undermined by energy planning based on
disinformation. We went to war with Iraq as a direct result of irresponsible
energy policies.
There was also a chemist, Ron Carstens (Anacortes, Washington).
Carstens was keeping track of 7 nuclear plants. The best of the lot had a gross
yield of only 19. This was considerably lower than the official "32".
One plant produced a yield of 7, which was not too far from Huntington's 6. He
obtained an average of 12.36 for all the plants he was keeping track of. This
was 2.6 times less than the official "32". In view of the
stonewalling, a better correction factor may be larger than 2.6. If that were
the case, a larger correction factor would make the amount of deceit even
larger. In the absence of better information, we have no choice but to use 2.6
as a correction factor.
What does this correction factor of 2.6 mean? Well, suppose
you bought a car which was promised to deliver 25. miles per gallon. A
correction factor of 2.6 would bring the actual milage down to 9.6 miles per
gallon. Just divide 25 by 2.6, and you get 9.6. That's what a correction factor
of 2.6 would do, if we were talking about automobiles instead of talking about
nukes. If you were scammed like that, you'd scream bloody murder.
The official claim of 32 begs for a scream. We were lied to,
under oath. We were lied to, again and again.
John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D. (Committee for Nuclear Responsibility,
San Francisco, CA) is a nuclear pioneer who discovered nuclear processes. He
wrote a meticulous report which clearly
Dr. Gofman summarized a projection of available resources
based on a real life gross yield. He estimated we have a probable fuel supply
which is enough to fuel 140 nuclear plants. This was assuming those plants
operate at full capacity (which they never do). We presently have about 103
nuclear plants, which operate on and off. President George Bush, the elder,
called for tripling the number of our nuclear plants. To fuel 300 nuclear plants
would require a gross yield that was at least as good as the official number.
The implication is plain. There isn't enough uranium for a
greatly expanded nuclear program unless we make a big commitment for the
plutonium breeder reactor. This, however, would pose hideous environmental, and
nuclear weapons proliferation problems. Our own breeder programs, and those of
France, have been economically ruinous. The French nuclear program, which was
big on breeders, accumulated a deficit of $46 billion. They lost money ten years
in a row. The economics of breeders are akin to the economics of recycling
high-level radioactive waste. Every American high-level waste recycling venture
went bust.
Huntington observed that if we were to believe official
figures, then it means that hundreds of thousands of tons of uranium, which have
been consumed, were never consumed. But they were consumed.
If we were to believe official figures, we wouldn't need to
import much uranium. Nobody imports something like uranium if it is as abundant
as was originally claimed. Nuclear promoters used to tell us that nuclear power
eliminates dependence on foreign nations for energy. Remember that? How have
they been giving us this energy independence? Why, by importing uranium, of
course!
A report was issued by our Energy Information
Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels, U.S.
Department of Energy. The report no. DOE/EIA-0477(89) was called
"Domestic Uranium Mining and Milling Industry 1989."
The report stated the following: "Imports of uranium
(as a percent of US requirements) ranged from a low of 26 percent in 1983 to a
high of 52 percent in 1987. Imports were 50.8 percent of requirements in 1988
and 34.7 percent of requirements in 1989. Throughout the 1990s projected imports
are expected to range from 62 to 76 percent of domestic utility
requirements." This is energy independence of foreign nations?
Wildly exaggerated claims about gross yield resulted in
wildly exaggerated claims about net yield.
Fuelled sources of electricity consume energy to prepare the
fuel, to construct and operate the power plant. Also, every energy source has
energy losses. Losses result from inefficiencies at each stage in the
preparation of fuel, the conversion of the energy in the fuel into electricity,
and electrical transmission line losses. If you subtract the energy inputs and
the energy losses from the gross yield, this results in a net yield.
What you get out of an energy source for what you put into
it is the bottom line. Wildly exaggerated claims about gross yield give wildly
exaggerated claims about net yield. Wildly exaggerated claims about nuclear net
yield have been made by the nuclear establishment.
One striking example is the claim that nuclear power has a
net yield of 94%. This claim was boasted in a Nuclear Regulatory Commission
report NUREG-0056. This claim was off the wall. It brazenly violated the basic
Second Law of Thermodynamics. When I looked at the Department of Energy's own
data, I found that this 94% figure shrank very quickly to less than 4%. I'll
waltz you through that in the chapter, "Really How Much Energy From
Nukes?" if you are curious about the number crunching involved. The
calculation is surprisingly simple, as will be explained.
Few people realize that nuclear power consumes enormous
amounts of fossil fuel. One of the largest coal strip mine operations in the
world has supplied coal for coal-fired electric generators. The electricity
generated was consumed in the tortuous process of enriching uranium to make
nuclear fuel. Hundreds of billions of kilowatt hours of electricity have been
consumed in this process alone.
Also, energy will be consumed to cope with radioactive
wastes and to thoroughly decommission nuclear plants after their useful lives
have expired. To do these jobs properly will consume more energy and more money
than anything the industry has been willing to admit.
Since 1945, the problems of radioactive waste disposal have
not been solved. We really can't say how much energy will be consumed to meet
this challenge.
An official government document (Appendix B of President
Jimmy Carter's National Energy Plan, "Net Energy Analysis of Nuclear Power
Production") admits that for every 100 units of electrical power from
nuclear power, 26 units of energy must first be supplied. Most of this energy
comes from burning coal. This is a big guzzling of fossil fuel energy.
Nuclear promoters still boast that nuclear power eliminates
the burning of coal. How do they do it? Why, by burning coal to enrich uranium,
of course. The actual gobbling of energy may be 2.6 times more than this
admitted value, as suggested by the Carsten's data previously mentioned.
In addition, Appendix B admits that for every 1000 Btus
(British Thermal Units) of uranium actually converted into electricity, as much
as 7000 Btus of uranium is first required. This means that an output of 1000
requires an input of 7000. That is another big inefficiency. Most of the
inherent heat energy in the uranium is wasted. A lot of that waste goes into
thermal pollution at the nuclear plant. Much of it goes into nuclear wastes.
These wastes continue to give off heat for eons.
There are losses in uranium tailings. Tailings are mountains
of depleted uranium. This is the debris, left over from the production of fuel.
These exposed piles of tailings give off dangerous radioactive gases which blow
clear across the country. These tailings continue to emit gases for immense
lengths of time. The half life of depleted uranium is 4.3 billion years, the age
of our solar system. These emissions pose a serious pollution problem which has
been white-washed by the industry. In addition, hot radioactive emissions are
routinely emitted at nuclear plants during normal operation (sunshine units of
radioactivity, of course). The industry continues to boast that nuclear power
does not give off any harmful emissions. Those claims themselves are harmful
emissions, because they are bold-faced lies.
Thus, not only are vast amounts of polluting fuels actually
burned to produce nuclear fuel, and a great deal of pollution is caused by the
nuclear fuel cycle, but nuclear power has utterly failed to give us either
energy independence, or a decent efficiency. Nuclear power is about as efficient
as using a chain-saw to cut butter with.
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of the
U.S. Congress, wrote a report, "Net Energy Analysis, Little Progress And
Many Problems." They found that our top energy agency never made a credible
net energy analysis on ANY source of energy. They summarized that, due to the
problems associated with net energy analysis, the results were so unreliable
that this type of analysis has never been used for energy planning. Like
Huntington and Carstens, they also encountered discrepancies. The problems were
problems of dishonesty. What were our policy makers doing all these years
besides ripping us off at the gasoline pump, ripping us off in our utility
bills, and forcing inflation sky high with manipulated energy costs?
It's the net that counts, and there were no credible
official net yield analyses. In the next chapter, I'll waltz you through an
almost ridiculously simple analysis which indicates that nuclear power has never
delivered anything close to what has been claimed as its energy contribution,
when all factors are taken into account.
An updated, honest audit of civilian uranium stocks, using
the power of subpoena is long overdue. Huntington developed a method which can
expose a massive fraud. That method is outlined in the appendix of this book.
An updated, honest audit of civilian uranium stocks by the
General Accounting Office can be authorized by our legislators. Years ago, I
urged the New Jersey Department of Energy to conduct such an audit. It was never
done because it was an embarrassing political issue. This agency was politically
committed to nuclear power.
I met with Bharat Patel, Administrator in the Office of
Technical Assistance in the New Jersey Department of Energy, on July 31, 1978.I
gave him materials which I had researched, and showed him
The following year, I sent Mr. Patel the following letter,
dated July 19, 1979.
On July 31, 1978,1 had the pleasure of meeting you and your
staff of engineers. We discussed the problem of the low efficiency of the
nuclear power fuel cycle, and finding out what happened to the 400,000 tons of
uranium which remain accounted for. Uncovering the facts of this huge
discrepancy would, of course, illuminate the ultimate truths of how much energy
is really obtained from nuclear power compared to how much energy it must
consume to keep it going.
During February (of this year) I received a phone call from
an engineer who said he was working on your Department's own independent
analysis of the net energy yield of nuclear power. He said it was almost
completed, and that I would be receiving a copy of it soon. The copy never
arrived.
I asked him whether he had studied the large stack (I
supplied) of independent data by the distinguished energy consultant E.J.
Hoffman. He said, no, he hadn't looked at it. Neither had he referred to
Hoffman's recently released book, "The Concept of Energy: An Inquiry into
Origins and Applications," published by Ann Arbor Science. The book had
been mentioned during our meeting, because of its updated data on nuclear net
energy. The engineer had not referred to this source either, although he said he
would look it up.
He mentioned that he did refer to official Federal
Department of Energy data, but did not find it necessary to do an independent
audit of civilian uranium stocks. I was floored by the fact that he was
apparently not rigorously checking out the DOE's claims, in view of the fact
that DOE's spokesmen have deliberately misrepresented UNDER OATH, repeatedly,
the actual yield of energy from uranium. Their SWORN testimony was proven false,
and later even repudiated by the very swearee (detailed in my written report,
and verbally presented to you and the staff).
After all these months, is the NJ DOE report completed yet?
Did it rely on data from paid nuclear power advocates, whose credibility is less
than a Confederate Three Dollar Bill printed in
You will recall that using summary numbers published in the
federal DOE's own National Energy Plan, and using other independent verifiable
data (outlined in my report), it was found easy to deduce that the overall
efficiency of the nuclear power fuel cycle was miserably low, a fact which would
affect the economics and wisdom of relying on this inefficient source. Also, it
was evident that the true energy contribution of nuclear power must be much
lower than anything we have been officially told, over and over again in
deliberately deceptive brainwashing propaganda.
It took only three weekends for me to decipher the
weasel-worded contractions of the federal DOE, using the most elementary of
engineering principles.
What gives?
What gave is that Patel sent me a letter which was endorsed
by Energy Commissioner Joel Jacobson. The letter stated that nuclear power gives
a good net energy yield. The letter referred to federal reports which had been
discredited by the General Accounting Office.
This was a dirty-black white-wash. Obviously, an honest,
rigorous analysis was too hot to handle for the NJ Department of Energy.
I made repeated requests to federal officials to authorize
an audit, as did Huntington. These appeals fell on deaf ears. Evidently it was
too hot to handle for them too.
Deceptive assurances about gross yield, net yield, safety,
health effects, economics, weapons proliferation, and sabotage problems caused
an inappropriate preference for nuclear subsidies at the expense of much more
viable alternatives.
If nuclear power is the bargain claimed, it would never have
needed the enormous subsidies it devoured. It would not need a single penny of
continued subsidy, whether they be direct subsidy or hidden subsidy. The fact
is, nuclear power cannot survive without endless multi-billion dollar subsidies.
We must not tolerate dishonesty. We still need a long
overdue audit of civilian uranium stocks by the General Accounting Office, with
the power of subpoena. There is evidence of crime in the nuclear industry
suites.
Really
How Much Energy from Nukes?
this chapter gives the number
crunching that was
promised in the chapter, "The Great Uranium Shell Game." What this
chapter shows is that we never got as much energy from nukes as has been
boasted.
Net energy yield is what you get out of an energy supply compared
to what you must first put into it. 1 read an article by E. J. Hoffman in the Smithsonian.
In this article he wrote that it takes energy to get energy. He concluded
that the net energy yield of nuclear power is extremely low.
My curiosity about this topic was stimulated. I brought this
issue up in public debates. The response I got from nuclear promoters was that
the net energy yield of nuclear power was more than ninety percent. First, I
heard it from an exceptionally arrogant nuclear engineer, Mr. Victor Fricke.
Then, I heard it from the director of the nuclear fusion program at Princeton.
It sounded like malarkey then. That's because it was exactly what it sounded
like, malarkey.
After I wrote a letter to the editor about this topic, I
received a phone call from Theodore Edison. He called me to tell me how much he
liked my letter. I asked him if he was related to Thomas Edison. He told me that
Thomas Edison was his father. He told me he was an environmentally concerned
engineer. He offered to send me copies of his environmental articles. I was
happy to accept.
Then, he asked if I remembered the big black-out of 1965.
This was a black-out which cut out electricity for the entire New York City
metropolitan area, including New Jersey. I said, "I sure did." A lot
of babies were conceived during that black-out. I waited until later.
Then, he asked, "Do you know why the lights came back
on so fast?" I said, "No, tell me." He explained that because of
his Edison family connection, he received reports which are not ordinarily seen
by outsiders. He told me that the electricity was shut down at nuclear
facilities in upstate New York, and this electricity was redirected to our area.
That astounded me. It backed up Hoffman's claim that nuclear facilities consume
lots of energy, and wondered if this held true for nuclear power production. I
wrote to Senator Clifford P. Case and asked for information on how much
electricity was being consumed for nuclear power. Senator Case replied that he
would ask the Atomic Energy Commission for this information, on my behalf.
Prior to this, I had read occasional claims that nuclear
programs were consuming a lot of electricity. Nuclear power promoters always
responded that this electricity was being consumed to make nuclear weapons. They
said that the amount of electricity being consumed for the civilian program was
negligible.
A letter was sent to Senator Case by the Atomic Energy
Commission, dated August 3, 1973. He forwarded that letter to me.
The letter outlined the amount of electricity being consumed
over the years for nuclear power. The letter clearly stated that most of the
electricity, then being consumed, was for nuclear power, not for weapons. The
letter said, "Since 1966, electrical energy used to satisfy national
defense requirements has decreased to a level which is currently insignificant
in comparison with that used to produce nuclear fuel."
The letter stated that by 1972, 116 billion kilowatt hours
of electricity had been consumed to enrich nuclear fuel. This electricity was
produced by coal-fired generators. For the same period of time, only 164 billion
kilowatts of nuclear electricity had been generated. Some of the electricity
consumed was used for stockpiled fuel. Nevertheless, a lot of electricity was
being guzzled, compared to what was being generated. 116 consumed, 164
generated.
Later on, seeking more up-to-date information, I wrote to my
Congressman, Andy Maguire. I received a letter from the Department of Energy's
Information Officer, Jim Alexander. This letter admitted that 41 billion
kilowatt hours of electricity had been consumed for the enrichment process
during 1977. He quickly boasted, however, that the "enriched uranium when
used in nuclear plants can produce 30 times more power than was consumed by the
enrichment plants." This claim was 710 percent higher than another official
Department of Energy (DOE) report, a key report which was itself unduly
optimistic.
This left the question, how much energy do we really get
from this favored source?
This is a question which has been probed by several
scientists, including the eminent E. J. Hoffman. He found that for every 100
units of energy produced by nuclear power, it is first necessary to feed at
least 95 units of energy. His book, The Concept of Energy published by
Ann Arbor Science Publications, Inc., explained why the net yield of nuclear
fission is 3 to 5 percent at best.
Hoffman wrote to me, "I found that the net electrical
yield from the nuclear power fuel cycle was approximately 3 to 5 percent of the
theoretical thermal value of the nuclear fuel, depending on the range of
information available. For coal, by comparison, the net electrical yield at the
most is approximately 30 percent of the thermal value of the coal."
The nuclear establishment responded by issuing a number of
reports on net yield which were laced with confusing, contradictory, and
misleading statements.
As mentioned (in the last chapter), our federal General
Accounting Office was extremely critical of these issued reports. They
encountered many credibility problems.
It is easy to see where the problems come from if one looks
at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's own report NUREG-0056. This report sought
to set the record straight by boasting that the net energy yield of nuclear
power is 94 percent. Furthermore, they claimed that the energy yield from
nuclear power was the same as the net yield from coal-fired electricity. But,
coal delivers a 30 percent net yield at best. And, if one looks very closely at
the DOE's own data, the 94 percent claim shrinks very quickly to 4 percent,
which agreed with Hoffman's estimate.
The NRC's 94 percent was based on several assumptions which
were stated in their report. For example, they assumed that a nuclear plant
operates at 80% of its capacity.
At that time, it was common for nuclear plants to operate at
only 55 percent of their capacity, or much less. The Salem I nuclear plant
operated at only 46 percent of its capacity from 1977 to 1978, with over 39
unscheduled shutdowns by the second year of operation. It remained shut down
during most of 1979. The Three Mile Island II plant remains shut down, and will
never produce electricity again. Thus, it operates at zero percent capacity. The
same can be said of the Humboldt plant which was closed, because it was not
built to withstand potential earthquakes from a nearby earthquake fault.
Indian Point I, NY, was closed because the designers forgot
to install an emergency core cooling system. The Browns Ferry nuke was closed
for more than a year because of an accidental fire, which was started by the
flame from a tiny candle. Indian Point II was closed seven months just to repair
a broken cooling pipe.
Since the late seventies, there were other plants which were
shut down permanently, and there have been frequent interruptions in power.
Indian Point III was built to assure that we would never have a blackout for
metropolitan NYC. However, after it was built, there was a blackout which hit
our area anyway.
It happened one evening when I was at community social event
at the Paramus, NJ pool. A community party was held, with special entertainment.
A belly dancer entertained us in the refreshment pavilion. She undulated with
such verve that a particular gyration did it. The lights went out. She
overwhelmed Indian Point. Undoubtedly, it wasn't the first thing she
overwhelmed.
The NRC's 94 percent ignored the relative efficiencies of
many processes in the nuclear fuel cycle. In so doing, they left out consideration
of one of the largest sources of energy waste.
As mentioned in the chapter, "The Great Uranium Shell
Game," when I was in engineering school, I was taught what every mechanical
engineering student is taught. I was warned that some day, someone would come
along and claim a miraculously high efficiency for a power plant. All you have
to do to see if he is a liar is to compute the Carnot efficiency. In real life,
actual efficiencies never come close to the Carnot efficiency. The Carnot Cycle,
introduced by
the French physicist Nicolas Carnot represents the cycle of an ideal turbine
operating at maximum thermal efficiency. The equation is shown below.
Energy ideally extracted from turbine
Carnot
efficiency = -----------------------------------------------------———---------------
Energy supplied to the turbine
All you need to know is the absolute temperature of the
steam entering the turbine (973 degrees Rankine for the Salem I nuke) and the
absolute temperature of the steam exhausted from the turbine (552 degrees
Rankine for the Salem I nuke). The extremely simple computation results in a
Carnot efficiency of 43%.
temp, in - temp, lost
973 – 552
Carnot efficiency =
---------------------------
= -------------------
= 43%
temperature in
973
This means that for every 100 units of heat energy supplied,
no more than 43 units of energy can be converted into electricity, even under
the most impossibly ideal conditions. 43% is much less than 94%, and this is
just one stage in the extremely complex nuclear fuel cycle.
Net yield depends on a still more fundamental question. How
much electricity can be extracted from a ton of uranium? For each ton, energy
must be consumed at each stage of the fuel cycle and energy losses will also be
sustained. As discussed, the gross yield (or what you get out of each ton),
minus energy inputs, gives the net yield.
As mentioned in the last chapter, use of an unduly
optimistic gross yield will result in erroneous conclusions on net yield. Dr.
Hans Bethe claimed a gross yield of 70 million kilowatt hours per ton of uranium
in the August, 1975 issue of Mining Engineering.
A much lower gross yield was cited by Mr. Saul Strauch, a
DOE spokesman. He wrote to me (August 17, 1977) and affirmed that each ton of
uranium would deliver not less than 30 million kilowatt hours of nuclear
electricity, but no more than 32. Here we go again. This was another repetition
of that phony 32 number (discussed in the last chapter). In the last chapter, it
was shown that correction factor of more than 2.5 was in order.
The DOE letter proceeded to claim that nuclear power had the
same net yield as coal. But, coal doesn't have the electrical energy guzzling of
nuclear power. The letter tried to prove its point by demonstrating how net
energy yield can be easily calculated using official summary numbers which were
given in Appendix B of Net Energy Analysis of Nuclear Power Production, a
copy of which was supplied. When I saw the calculation, I was amazed at its
simplicity. However, in addition to reliance on a phoney gross yield, I saw a
glaring algebraic mistake. Making a correction and adding what had been left
out, it was easy to deduce a net yield of 4%, using very elementary principles.
The DOE method showed me the way.
Except for the way water is boiled, a nuclear plant is much
like any conventional fossil fuel plant. For a coal-fired plant, coal is the
source of heat to boil water. For nuclear power, nuclear fission is the source
of heat to boil water. Water is boiled to make steam. The steam is fed to a
turbine. The steam drives a generator. The generator generates electricity.
A basic law of physics is called the Law of Conservation of
Energy. This law explains that we can neither create energy nor destroy it. We
can merely convert from one form of energy into another. In generating
electricity we make a conversion from the heat energy of the fuel into
electrical energy.
The heat of nuclear water boiling comes from the fissioning
of the uranium U235 atom. Less than 0.7% of the uranium extracted from uranium
ore is U235. To initiate sufficient fissioning, the concentration of U235 must
be increased to 3%. This is more than 4 times its natural condition. This is
done in the enrichment process, which consumes lots of energy, as mentioned.
It wouldn't make sense if most of the heat energy locked in
uranium went into thermal pollution, instead of being converted into electrical
energy. The mission of any energy source is to minimize conversion losses.
The more stages in a fuel cycle, for any source of energy,
the more conversion losses, and the more energy is needed. Consider coal-fired
electricity.
The fuel cycle for coal is relatively simple. You mine the
coal, burn the coal, and dispose the ashes. The ashes can be used to make
by-products. This gives a net yield of 30% at best, according to E. J. Hoffman.
This agrees with the DOE estimate.
However, if we introduce one extra step in the coal cycle,
the net yield decreases greatly. Suppose we convert the coal to a gas before it
is burned. This is called coal gasification. According to E. J. Hoffman,
introduction of that one extra step can slash the net yield by more than half.
It could give a net yield of only 12%. He knew that because he invented coal
gasification processes. In sharp contrast, the nuclear fuel cycle is
extraordinarily complex.
1. The uranium ore must be mined.
2. The trace amounts of U235 must be concentrated in the
enrichment process.
3. The ore must be converted to a gas to enrich it.
4. The gas must be converted back to a solid.
5. Solidified enriched uranium must be fabricated to make
fuel pellets.
Every step of the way, energy is consumed and losses occur.
After the fuel is used in a nuclear reactor, intensely radioactive wastes are
formed.
6. The wastes must be processed.
7. The wastes must be kept isolated from the environment for
hundreds of thousands of years or more.
8. The nuclear plants and related process equipment must be
processed and isolated from the environment because they also become intensely
radioactive.
9. These items must also be isolated from the environment
for hundreds of thousands of years or more.
Referring again to Appendix B, it is explained that for a
coal plant, 3000 BTUs (British Thermal Units) of heat is necessary for every
1000 BTUs of electrical output. Thus, a coal plant has a conversion efficiency
of 33%.
Output
1000
Coal
conversion efficiency = ——————— = ——————— = 33%
input
3000
There is nothing controversial about this rating. Note the
fact that most of the heat energy in the coal never went to producing
electricity. Only 1/3 was converted into electricity. 2/3 became
waste heat.
Notice that the actual typical efficiency of the coal plant
is considerably lower than the impossibly ideal Carnot efficiency calculated
previously. This is to be expected.
A nuclear plant has the same 3000 BTU heat loss at the
plant, since both coal and nuclear plants have similar inlet and outlet
temperatures at the turbine. But remember, we must look at the entire fuel
cycle. The DOE report explains that for nuclear power, an additional 4000 BTUs
of heat energy is required for each 1000 BTU's of output. The report clearly
states on page 111, "According to two 1975 studies (Development Sciences,
Inc., and Oregon), 6,000 to 7,000 BTUs of resource base must be available in
order to have the 3,000 BTUs energy input to the reactor. This additional resource
base is necessary to allow for uranium not recovered during mining or lost
during the processing, and the fissionable U235 left in the tails during the
enrichment process. However, all of the 3,000 to 4000 BTUs are not irrevocably
lost or consumed; much of the energy may be utilized in the future if the
economics of processing these resources become attractive." The fact
is, these "resources" have become a major source of radioactive
pollution, and these "resources" have not been economic to
utilize. If they were utilized, additional energy inputs would be required. To
keep the record straight, in terms of what we realistically get, we must take
into account this extra loss, even though nuclear folks like to ignore it.
Thus, for nukes, the thermal conversion from fuel into
electricity, as revealed by the DOE official summary report is 14%. This is
much lower than the conversion efficiency for coal.
Output
1000
Nuclear
conversion efficiency = ————— =
—————— = 14%
input
3000 + 4000
This is a very low efficiency to start with: 86% of nuclear
energy is lost in thermal pollution, using official DOE data.
Next, we must consider the energy which must be directly
consumed to keep nuclear power going. Again, we can refer to page 111 of
Appendix B. The numbers appear to greatly understate the
Nuclear
output
output
consumption =
---------100
= ---------------------------
= -----------------------
efficiency
input output
+ consumption
100 + 26
Nuclear consumption efficiency = 79%
Remember the fundamental energy conservation law which says
we can neither create energy nor destroy it. Therefore, the total input must be
the same as the output plus the energy which must be added. It takes energy to
get energy. The energy added includes the energy required to mine the uranium,
prepare the nuclear fuel, construct the power plant, operate the equipment, and
for transportation. Applying this inescapable fact reduces the yield of
nuclear power to 11%.
79% of 14% = 11%.
Note that all efficiencies must be combined to obtain an
overall efficiency.
Next, we must consider the energy which is lost when
electricity is transmitted from the power plant to your electric back-scratcher.
This energy loss, would bring the overall yield down to 10%, assuming only a 1%
loss in transmission. This is an optimistic estimate since transmission losses
may be extraordinarily larger.
This leaves us with a yield of 10%. This must be too
optimistic, because it was based on wildly exaggerated claims about how much
energy we get out of a ton of uranium. This 10% estimate, as shown by Carstens,
Huntington, and Gofman, is at least 2 1/2 times too optimistic.
In view of the persistent stonewalling, a correction factor
of at least 2 1/2 is
richly deserved. This correction factor leaves us with an overall net yield of
4%, which is close to E. J Hoffman's estimate.
10% divided by 2 1/2 equals
4%.
This 4% does not include the energy inputs for decommissioning
nuclear plants after their useful life has expired. When nukes were first sold
to utilities, it was claimed that nukes would remain operational for 40 years.
Actually, the nukes which have been closed had an average life span of 15 years.
The intense neutron bombardment inside a reactor damages all materials, as
well as living tissue. Because of dismal performance, there were no new U.S.
orders for nukes after 1978.
Decommissioning plants will consume a great deal of energy.
This would reduce the 4% figure further, but there is no hard data available to
figure how much of a reduction it would be.
This 4% does not include coping with radioactive wastes.
This will also consume lots of energy. This would also reduce the 4% figure
further, but there is no hard data available to estimate how much lower the 4%
would tumble.
Every reactor ordered since 1974 was cancelled, according to
the Safe Energy Communication Council.
This has not stopped the industry from renewed efforts to
foist a new herd of white elephants on our nation, a nation which remains
"asleep at the Geiger counter."
When American utilities stopped buying, we sold nukes to foreign
nations. Many foreign nations wanted nukes so that they could build nuclear
weapons. India built an atom bomb from her so-called peaceful program. Israel
destroyed an Iraqi reactor because they knew that international safeguards
against nuclear weapons proliferation are a farce.
Nuclear plants are inefficient, but they are atom bomb
making machines. We subsidize the building of foreign bomb making machines. We
do this to bail out our ailing nuclear industry.
American firms dominate the export market. We give foreign
customers low interest loans, loan guarantees, subsidies for nuclear fuel
enrichment, Price Anderson protection, and we tell them that they must return
nuclear wastes to us. The American taxpayer pays for disposal. Do you think
foreign nations really care about efficiency when they can strut like a world
power, with a hornet's nests of nuclear weapons?
This was still not enough to bail out the nuclear industry.
Ah, but the same corporations who build nuclear plants also build military
Perhaps he actually believed the propaganda he spouted. Dr.
Helen Caldicott was granted a personal interview with him, in the White House.
She noted that he had the attention span of a small child.
He was such a grandfatherly communicator of malarkey, it
launched his political career. He took care of his nuclear buddies. He greatly
increased military spending. He greatly intensified the nuclear arms race. All
the while, the Soviets were much weaker than portrayed by nuclear hucksters. The
collapse of the Soviet Union was surely hastened by their own nuclear follies,
which featured their Chernobyl disaster.
It was ironic that Reagan strongly backed nuclear plants.
Our plants completely undermined our national security, despite the trillions he
lavished on the Pentagon.
All of these subsidies were whopping expenditures of
capital.
Utilities keep reminding us that energy costs money. Energy
is a raw material of wealth and capital. The inverse is equally true. Capital is
a raw material for producing energy.
The huge extra capital outlays directly and peripherally
associated with nuclear power is another factor which is not included in that 4%
estimate. Including them would also make the 4% estimate smaller.
In view of the simplicity of the arithmetic required to
deduce this shocking state of affairs, it is impossible to believe that our top
energy officials have been unaware of this scam. No matter how you massage
official data, the plain results are shocking.
Mr. Huntington's relatively simple accounting method for making
an intelligent audit of civilian stocks, by a committee unencumbered by
conflicts of interest, is in our urgent national interest.
You may quibble about whether I should have used the correction
factor I did. In that case, you should be the first to demand an independent
audit.
Until better, honest, data becomes available, nuclear net
yield is probably much lower than 4%, considering what was left out of this 4%
estimate.
We need a rigorous assessment of exactly what the net yield
of nuclear power is.
The public, and our policy makers, have a right to know
exactly how far below standards nuclear power really falls. Otherwise it is like
using taxpayer's money to sell automobiles which deliver only a fraction of the
mileage they are supposed to.
Meanwhile, the Washington Monument, in Washington, D.C.
represents what we have all been given. We have been given the shaft.
membership - climate change - nuclear industry world comment
- alternatives - foe - identity cards