Nuclear power: A solution to our energy problems

[Aegeon]

While there have been very few policies of the current Bush administration which I have approved of, for once it looks like they are about to advocate a very good idea.

Nuclear Energy Plan Would Use Spent Fuel

By Peter Baker and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 26, 2006; Page A01

The Bush administration is preparing a plan to expand civilian nuclear energy at home and abroad while taking spent fuel from foreign countries and reprocessing it, in a break with decades of U.S. policy, according to U.S. and foreign officials briefed on the initiative.

The United States has adamantly opposed reprocessing spent fuel from civilian reactors since the 1970s because it would produce material that could be used in nuclear weapons. But the Bush program, envisioned as a multi-decade effort dubbed the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, would invest research money to develop technologies intended to avoid any such risk, the officials said...

Advocates use the word "recycling" to describe an advanced form of reprocessing that, instead of separating plutonium that can be used in bombs from spent fuel, would produce a mixed-oxide fuel too radioactive for terrorists to handle. Such fuel, called MOX, could be used in special reactors that exist in France but not in the United States.

Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit think tank that studies environmental and security issues, said U.N. nuclear inspectors would not make a distinction between that material or the kind of separated plutonium the world is worried Iran might get.

"We think they are putting a fig leaf on it by calling it proliferation-resistant and saying that it's not really reprocessing, so concerns about proliferation risks won't be valid," he said. "But if we develop something that we call proliferation-resistant and it really isn't, then other countries are going to claim rights to this technology. If it's really proliferation-resistant, would we let Iran have it?"

The fuel proposal is part of a broader push by the president for domestic and global nuclear energy. With worldwide energy demands on the rise and U.S. reliance on foreign oil increasing, Bush has held out nuclear power as a solution that will not affect global warming. "We ought to have more nuclear power in the United States of America," Bush said in a speech last week in Loudoun County. "It's clean, it's renewable, it's safer than it ever was in the past."

In a modern version of the Atoms for Peace program during President Dwight D. Eisenhower's administration, officials said the administration envisions helping developing countries build small nuclear reactors that would produce about 5 to 10 percent of the energy generated by a typical reactor now on line in the United States. Some in Congress believe a global nuclear energy program is aimed at aiding the U.S. effort to build an alliance with India, which is eager for U.S. civilian nuclear technology.

Two senior U.S. officials traveled last week to several countries, including Japan and Russia, to brief them about the initiative. At one session, according to a source who was present, the administration officials said the United States has finally moved on from the Three Mile Island nuclear incident in 1979 that paralyzed the industry for years.

Rather than just provide nuclear fuel to other countries that want to have their own reactors, Bodman suggested, the United States would also take back the fuel once it has been spent. "In the longer term, we see fuel-cycle states offering cradle-to-grave fuel-cycle services, leasing fuel for power reactors and then taking it back for reprocessing and ultimate disposition."

The main purpose for reprocessing spent fuel is to extract the radioactive plutonium within it and use that to fuel a reactor. But the process is considered dangerous, and many countries gave up civilian reprocessing years ago.

Officials briefed on the Bush plan said $250 million -- less than requested by the Energy Department -- will be included in the fiscal 2007 budget in a down payment on what they expect to be billions of dollars of spending. Among other things, it would pay for a pilot plant, possibly at the department's Savannah River facility in South Carolina, to test chemical reprocessing. If the program goes forward as planned, the domestic nuclear industry stands to reap hundreds of millions of dollars.

U.S. officials said they are interested in developing reactors that would not produce spent fuel that could be accessed by recipient countries. One model is a self-contained reactor that cannot be opened, is never refueled and is removed when it runs out of energy. Another, known as a pebble-bed reactor, has been under development in Germany and South Africa and likewise would not have fuel that could be used for weapons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...06/01/25/AR2006012502229_2.html?sub=AR

Its time we start talking about nuclear power again as a solution to our energy needs. For all the hype about Three Mile Island, all the evidence is that an insignificant amount of radiation was released into the enviroment, which has had no detectable effects on the population in the area. While Chernobyl was an ugly nuclear accident, it involved a nuclear power plant which was a deficient design with safety systems way worse than anything in the rest of the world. Most notably, all it needed was a proper concrete containment system and almost all of the radiactive material that got released would have stayed inside the plant. All the nuclear power plants opperating in the US (and virually all if not every country in the world today) have this concrete containment system. In fact, with the modern designs we are talking about building, there is no risk of an accident releasing significant amounts of radiation into the enviroment.

For all the concerns about nuclear power, many people don't seem to have the same concerns about coal power, which currently provides over 50% of the US's energy needs. However coal power plants are by far a worse offender than nuclear power plants are when it comes to releasing radioactive materials into the enviroment.

Using these data, the releases of radioactive materials per typical plant can be calculated for any year. For the year 1982, assuming coal contains uranium and thorium concentrations of 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively, each typical plant released 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons of thorium that year. Total U.S. releases in 1982 (from 154 typical plants) amounted to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971 tons of thorium. These figures account for only 74% of releases from combustion of coal from all sources. Releases in 1982 from worldwide combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

For all the concerns about what to do with radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants, placing it all in a single location designed to be safe is a much better idea than simply breathing it into our lungs all the time. Its also worth noting that nuclear reprocessing can actually eliminate most of that nuclear waste by reusing it as fuel instead. The risks involved with storing all that waste in one place are not anywhere near the consequences of continuing to simply emmit greenhouse effect causing CO2 gases from fossil fuel burning power plants like we are doing currently. Nuclear power represents a way for us to effectively start doing something about this today. Its time to start sensibly talking about nuclear power as an option again and realistically looking at what the consequences are for kneejerk anti-nuclear sentiment.

 

[CSMR]

Nuclear power will only go so far, and it's not that cheap, but yes a good policy.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: CSMR
Nuclear power will only go so far, and it's not that cheap, but yes a good policy.

A point worth noting is it will go alot further if nuclear reprocessing is utilized. That means we're looking at quite a long time before we really are potentially looking at running out of nuclear fuel. You can argue for wind and solar power as minor supliments, (although with solar power you really should only be advocating certain new technologies as being enviromentally friendly) but neither is a good solution as a primary power source because you've got the problem of what to do if its not windy or the sun isn't out at the moment.

A really longterm solution is likely to be fusion power, but we don't know for sure how long it will be until fusion power is commercially viable. In the meantime, switching to nuclear power is something we can do now.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Good luck with nuke power. I'm all for it but if there is anything that the extreme, whacko, environmentalist left hates more than oil, it's nuke power. Until you figure out a way to kill the lawsuits it's a dead issue.

 

[Rainsford]

Nuclear power isn't perfect, but it's a good concept. Combined with research in better "battery" technology (including things like fuel cells), it's possible that nuclear power could provide for a lot of our energy needs, long enough so that we can find some truly long term (or renewable) sources of energy.

 

[BrownTown]

nuclear energy is acutally quite cheap to produce. The startup costs are very high, but once you have the plants in place they produce a continuous stream of cheap power. I'm not sure exactly how long it takes to pay off the initial capital, but over the course of a nuclear plants life it shoudl be much cheaper. The only real problem with nuclear energy is the spent feul. However, personally for me burying it it the ground in te middle of nowhere is good enough. The people that complain about this still have worst case scenarios of radiation leaking into the water supplies of currently uninhabited areas 1000 years from now. Personally, i think that in 1000 years people will have very simple ways to dispose of this radioactive waste, so complaing that you can only store it for that long seems pretty odd (and 1000 years is the ultra conservative prediction, many think several thousand). Also, people fear of radiation is unfounded, as was stated before, coal plants produce more radiation then nuclear plants, and im sure alot mroe people would die of coal explosions, and mine caveins then would die of radiation in any realalistic scenario.

EDIT: also, for peaking power (which nuclear cannot provide), you can always use natural gas, or other expensive, but easily controllable conbustion reactions. Also, you can always use pumped water fascilities for power storage (work pretty much like a battery, you pump water up a hill at night when nobody is using the power, then let it fall threw turbines during the day). TVA has one of these near where i live, and it saves them a whole butt load of $$$. Natural gas turbines are crazy expensive to run, and even at 65% effeciency pumped water fascilities save tons of money by using cheap nuclear power instead of expensive natural gas or oil.

 

[Aisengard]

Advocates use the word "recycling" to describe an advanced form of reprocessing that, instead of separating plutonium that can be used in bombs from spent fuel, would produce a mixed-oxide fuel too radioactive for terrorists to handle. Such fuel, called MOX, could be used in special reactors that exist in France but not in the United States.

If the reprocessing makes material too radioactive for terrorists to handle, how can anyone else handle it?

I guess they're just assuming the terrorists are not as far along in nuclear research as we are? I'd say that's a dangerous assumption.

 

[Zorba]

I think the only way nuclear power could be a good long term solution is if breeder reactors are used. I have read many articles that state the world supply of U-235 would be used up in ~10 years if it were to supply 100% of the US power. I am remembering the numbers from about 4 years ago so they might be off a little but the fact remains that the supply of U-235 is quite finite. I seriously doubt, though, the environmentalist would allow wide spread usage of breeder reactors.

Also, even with breeder reactor you will eventually run out of fissionable fuel, but not nearly as quickly.

Something else fairly interesting I read a long time ago is that the average coal plant releases more radiation in a week than the accident at Three Mile Island, because of radioactive isotopes in the coal. EDIT: Guess I should read the OP's post before adding my two cents

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
If the reprocessing makes material too radioactive for terrorists to handle, how can anyone else handle it?

I guess they're just assuming the terrorists are not as far along in nuclear research as we are? I'd say that's a dangerous assumption.

I think the article phrased things fairly poorly. Its more about the substance not being in a form that can be turned into a nuclear bomb without alot more work. While a state government that makes huge infrastructure investments can pull this off, a terrorist group doing this on their own without people noticing is another story.

While the substance could potentially get turned into a "dirty bomb," the reality is the actual number of deaths from such a weapon would be fairly limited, and the primary effect of such a weapon would be fear due to the current often irrational degree of fear concerning any exposure to something radioactive.

 

[BrownTown]

the supply of uranium os obviouslt not infinite, but currently there is very little money going into looking for new deposits. Im sure the 4 years number is from current mines, im sure with more speculation you could find much more uranium deposits. Also, if you let them reprocess for plutonium you get much more feul. But of course plutonium can make bombs, but comeon, if someone wants a bomb its probably alot easier for them to just steal a Russian one then to steal some plutonium from the US and still have to build the very complex initiator mechanisms.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Aegeon
A point worth noting is it will go alot further if nuclear reprocessing is utilized. That means we're looking at quite a long time before we really are potentially looking at running out of nuclear fuel. You can argue for wind and solar power as minor supliments, (although with solar power you really should only be advocating certain new technologies as being enviromentally friendly) but neither is a good solution as a primary power source because you've got the problem of what to do if its not windy or the sun isn't out at the moment.

A really longterm solution is likely to be fusion power, but we don't know for sure how long it will be until fusion power is commercially viable. In the meantime, switching to nuclear power is something we can do now.

OK, you know more than I do. I think there's more fuel than I thought; I must have misremembered reading something.
Energy generated by solar or wind for example can be stored. I don't know how it is stored or what the efficiency loss is. Or you can use it to make hydrogen for cars etc.. I read that solar is expected to become quite a major source of power.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: Aegeon
A point worth noting is it will go alot further if nuclear reprocessing is utilized. That means we're looking at quite a long time before we really are potentially looking at running out of nuclear fuel. You can argue for wind and solar power as minor supliments, (although with solar power you really should only be advocating certain new technologies as being enviromentally friendly) but neither is a good solution as a primary power source because you've got the problem of what to do if its not windy or the sun isn't out at the moment.

A really longterm solution is likely to be fusion power, but we don't know for sure how long it will be until fusion power is commercially viable. In the meantime, switching to nuclear power is something we can do now.

OK, you know more than I do. I think there's more fuel than I thought; I must have misremembered reading something.
Energy generated by solar or wind for example can be stored. I don't know how it is stored or what the efficiency loss is. Or you can use it to make hydrogen for cars etc.. I read that solar is expected to become quite a major source of power.

When I visited Texas A&M last year they were doing a lot of research on solar power. They told me that the new panels are getting much better. They said that new panels are over 50% efficient where panels just a few years ago were less than 10%. They claimed that new solar plants would have similiar lifetime cost per megawatt-hour as coal plants, in the right location of course.

 

[BrownTown]

solar panels are quite expensive, and i'm sure enviromentalists would hate them since they use toxic chemicals (not that anyone cares since they hate everything). For utilizing solar power I like either using mirrors to concentrate it into a small area, or just growing plants and buring them. Either way its pretty enviromentally friendly and likely cheaper.

 

[jpeyton]

It's also a solution to the dilemma of finding an excuse to invade Iran.

 

[BrownTown]

Iran deffinitely doesn't have enough oil to make invading it worthwhile.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
solar panels are quite expensive, and i'm sure enviromentalists would hate them since they use toxic chemicals (not that anyone cares since they hate everything). For utilizing solar power I like either using mirrors to concentrate it into a small area, or just growing plants and buring them. Either way its pretty enviromentally friendly and likely cheaper.

I completely agree with growing plants and buring them. I read once that hemp would be a great source of renewable energy .

I think solar panels is probably most feasiblein small applications, such as the facsade of buildings, etc. If solar panels were added to buildings their depreciation could be written off a companies taxes, which could help reduce the price to a acceptable level.

 

[BrownTown]

its stupid to say that something is worthwhile just becasue the government lets you write it off your taxes, the fact still remains that the costs are more then the benefits. It just means now us taxpayers have to deal with buying the crappy technology instead of the consumers.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: CSMR
OK, you know more than I do. I think there's more fuel than I thought; I must have misremembered reading something.

Energy generated by solar or wind for example can be stored. I don't know how it is stored or what the efficiency loss is. Or you can use it to make hydrogen for cars etc.. I read that solar is expected to become quite a major source of power.

Basically virtually any storage option that would be effective on a really massive scale costs alot to implement.

The specific issue with the typical solar panels used to produce electricity is all the toxic chemical produced as byproducts of the process. There is currently a prototype that is being built by Southern California Edison which relies on a different process which utilizes mirrors, but since its a protype of new technology, unexpected complications could develop, while nuclear power plant designs are generally well tested already.

The other big issue with both solar and wind power is the amount of space they will take up.

For the new protype producing solar energy.

The first phase of the SoCal Edison project will be to build a 1-megawatt test site using 40 dishes, which should be complete by spring 2007. Construction on the full, 500-megawatt facility is expected to begin in mid-2008, and should take three to four years. Each dish can produce up to 25 kilowatts, and the site will eventually have 20,000 dishes stretching across 4,500 acres of desert.

http://www.wired.com/news/planet/0,2782,69528,00.html

By contrast as an example for nuclear power, the two Catawba nuclear power reactors, which are part of the same complex take up only 391 acres total, but produce 2,258 megawatts of power.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/catawba.html

This means that nuclear power is at least 52 times more efficient than this solar technology is with regards to the amount of energy produced per acre utilized. This number is probably too low since the nuclear source is constant while the solar source isn't as reliable, with the related complications. (Among other things I'm pretty sure the numbers don't account for the drop when its nighttime.)

Wind power is even worse as far as energy produced per acre with the Cerro Gordo Wind Farm for instance uses 2,110 acres to produce up to 42 megawatts of energy, although that's only when the wind is blowing right.
http://www.alliantenergy.com/docs/groups/public/documents/pub/p014405.hcsp

Now only part of that land is actually used for the wind farms related equipment and in this case it also is being used for other purposes, but there still are issues with being near windfarms such as them producing a bunch of noise. You can't concentrate wind turbines too close together in too great a density or they end up stealing each other's wind and you have massive efficiency loses.

Essentially the problem with either wind or solar is if it gets relied upon too heavily, is its going to take up one heck of alot of space and that's going to start to be an issue.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
its stupid to say that something is worthwhile just becasue the government lets you write it off your taxes, the fact still remains that the costs are more then the benefits. It just means now us taxpayers have to deal with buying the crappy technology instead of the consumers.

Don't get me wrong, I think nuclear is pretty much the only truely logical solution for power in the coming decades. All one has to do to determine solar and wind won't solve all of our problems is to look at the power density of the solar and wind energy, it is crap. On average in the US solar energy density is roughly 200W/m^2. That being said, solar energy does have its place. For example, on warning lights and street signs out in the boonies, etc. Every way of producing energy has its pros and cons, but that doesn't mean that they don't have their own niches.

BTW: Companies consider lots of things to be worthwhile just because they can write it off.

 

[Moonbeam]

When we get all our nuclear waste properly disposed of where it won't be a problem for a million years and get all our toxic waste sites clean then we can think about building more nuclear sh!ting pigs.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
When we get all our nuclear waste properly disposed of where it won't be a problem for a million years and get all our toxic waste sites clean then we can think about building more nuclear sh!ting pigs.

space elevator + cannon?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Nuclear power isn't perfect, but it's a good concept. Combined with research in better "battery" technology (including things like fuel cells), it's possible that nuclear power could provide for a lot of our energy needs, long enough so that we can find some truly long term (or renewable) sources of energy.

The problem of nuclear waste will resolve itself when we figure out how to launch orbital vehicles without using chemical rockets. Shove it up to orbit... attach it to a solar sail, and have it float out of the solar system. Bye-bye nuclear trash.

The positive thing about nuclear waste is how relatively little mass has to be disposed of.

 

[K1052]

It is about time we dropped the damn reprocessing ban.

This country has all the tools for much larger energy independence at its disposal. All we have to do is use them.

This is one of the few areas I wholeheartedly support government incentives since I consider stable domestic energy production an issue of national security.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: K1052
It is about time we dropped the damn reprocessing ban.

This country has all the tools for much larger energy independence at its disposal. All we have to do is use them.

This is one of the few areas I wholeheartedly support government incentives since I consider stable domestic energy production an issue of national security.

It's amazing how many power-generating rods can be made out of the weapons-grade materials we no-longer need.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Good luck with nuke power. I'm all for it but if there is anything that the extreme, whacko, environmentalist left hates more than oil, it's nuke power. Until you figure out a way to kill the lawsuits it's a dead issue.

not all lefties hate nuclear power

I'm all for building a ton of nuclear plants. I would prefer fusion plants, but nuclear is good