Welcome Instapundit Readers! You might be interested in this science and science policy interview that Prof. Glenn Reynolds was kind enough to provide us here. And if you appreciate an analytical take on 2nd amendment rights, Gun Rights Examiner Howard Nemerov is an outstanding resource.
I have good news and bad news on energy. First the bad news: even though the US has lots of coal, the idea of “clean coal” is right up there with a ‘little bit’ pregnant. Aside from being a huge and growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, coal is dirty, nasty stuff loaded with toxic heavy metals and dangerous pollutants. Oil and gas are only marginally better, but they’re in limited domestic supply, which means we have to rely on unreliable sources all over the world. Renewables, primarily solar and wind, can definitely be part of the solution, but at current efficiencies and given the laws of physics, they will not be the sole answer anytime soon. The good news is we do have other options worth exploring. Better still the US is uniquely positioned to lead the world in one of them.
We talked a few days ago about the basic physics of nuclear power (See my nuclear power primer). What we didn’t mention was that those atom splitting neutrons come at different velocities and, depending on the nuclear fuel, some velocities work better than others. Nuclear engineers and physicists call that velocity the Neutron Temperature, so now you can already impress your friends with cool jargon! Most existing nuclear power plants, including all the ones operating in the US, are of a type known as a thermal reactor, they use slower neutrons. But there’s another type of nuclear reaction useful for generating power that uses faster neutrons. We'll call those types “fast reactors”. The concerns with existing thermal reactors can be grouped into several categories, and here’s how fast reactors compare side-by-side in each.
1. Thermal reactors use expensive fuel like uranium -- often mined at great cost from unstable countries which puts us in a similar bind as foreign oil -- and produce nuclear waste which remains dangerous for thousands of years. Storage of that waste is either expensive, temporary, or haphazard depending on the nation in question.
Fast reactors could power this country for decades using that same waste as fuel. Fast reactors also happen to be about 100 times more efficient in converting that radioactive mass into electrical energy than thermal reactors, meaning they use relatively less fuel over time. Moreover, the waste from some types of fast reactors decays safely away in a matter of decades, making storage a far less worrisome and way less expensive proposition. And if we include the depleted uranium (DU) left over from the enrichment process, it would be something like 700 years before any more mining would be needed, once the current “thermal” types of reactors have been phased out. At the current price of energy, the existing DU alone is worth trillions in kilowatts and dollars. Nevertheless, for now, the DOE currently plans to mix the existing DU into concrete, making it rather inaccessible for use as fuel. Fast reactors would take care of that waste while providing power in the process.
2. Thermal reactors can melt down and poison the environment. Case in point, Chernobyl.
Let's clear up one misunderstanding: a nuclear power malfunction won't result in a city-sized mushroom cloud, and the type of reactor that caught fire at Chernobyl will never be built again. Nowadays, designs exist that will prevent that from happening even under complete power failures, inner core breaches, or suicide truck bombs for that matter (And keep in mind that a well placed bomb in the wall of a big hydroelectric dam would handily threaten lives and property, too). Chernobyl did not have those new features, plus it was a poorly designed, graphite-moderated reactor. Even then it took egregious human error and utter jaw-dropping negligence to initiate the failure. New generation fast reactors do have those design features. And it should be noted that tens of thousands of people suffer or die every year from the effects of coal, from mining accidents to exposure to toxic substances and pollutants. Nuclear sounds scary, especially for those of us who grew up with the specter of WW3 looming overhead. But even with Chernobyl and other accidents factored in, nuclear power has a far better safety record overall than traditional fuels and power plants.
3. Nuclear power plants can aid in the development of nuclear weapons.
To a degree, yes, although it isn’t quite as simple as that. But the kind of fuel used in and the waste produced by fast reactors doesn’t lend itself any better to weapons grade research or production than thermal reactors. Besides, the nations that would do the most good from a global pollutant standpoint by using fast reactors instead of fossil fuels are the US, China, and India. None of those nations need fast reactors to develop nukes, all three already have plenty of nukes.
4. Replacing a significant portion of our grid using fast reactors would be expensive and take a long time.
Maintaining and defending oil supply lines stretched halfway across the world isn’t exactly cheap. And we’re not necessarily talking about 'replacing' anytime soon; we’re talking about building fast reactors in the future instead of building a bunch more plants that burn coal, oil, and gas. Most importantly, the US is extremely well equipped to improve and innovate when it comes to nuclear power. We invented it, we lead in it. It happens that we have a superior fast reactor design in mind called an Integral Fast Reactor (IFR). The IFR concept has several advantages over other kinds of fast reactors, which are in turn superior to thermal reactors in part for the reasons stated above.
In fact, it makes so much sense to build a prototype fast reactor it was already proposed and funded. But whereas India is already moving ahead with plans to develop fast reactor technology, and the Chinese have purchased two Russian BN-800 fast reactors, the Clinton-Gore administration killed the prototype US IFR in 1994 years before completion. The concept has yet to be seriously revisited, let alone refunded.
As a science writer I spend a great deal of time debunking pseudoscience and misinformation. A lot of those I argue with tend to be conservatives, and our progressive battle cry is often “put aside your biases and look at the facts and the science with an open mind.” That goes both ways folks. The science behind fast reactors is compelling. And consider, we don’t have a bunch of great options for near-term future energy sources, we have mediocre options at best, and according to the world’s foremost expert in climate science, the science of business as usual is not good:
While it’s difficult to say based on present information, I’ve come to conclude that If we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty. – Dr James Hansen, Storms of My Grandchildren pg. 236
As long as the Obama administration is tossing around hundreds of billions in stimulus spending, a substantial portion of which is earmarked for alternative energy, it makes sense to at least build a prototype. We’d learn a great deal from such a project, perhaps enough to build them cheaper, safer, and better. Perhaps not. But at the very least we’d have the technology more fleshed out in case we need it, and need it fast.
Comments
Sir,
Once again you wrote another great article. I think you are right on point about the need for the federal government to fund a new IFR. Funding of a new US IFR will give the tax payers an amazing return on their investment. In fact the return on investment is so great that I can not begin to calculate it other to say that this could guarantee us a clean, safe, cheap, and reliable power source for the next couple of millenniums. How can you put a price tag on that?
I also find the idea of the DOE getting rid of depleted uranium by mixing it with cement outrages. This will be a waste of a potential fuel source. There is no reason why we can’t burry DU safely in a disposal cell and then dig it up when we need it. Remember depleted uranium’s real hazard is when it decays into radon which takes thousands of years to occur. The DOE’s idea of mixing it with cement does not eliminate this future hazard. Since radon is gas it can easily break any type of containment ceme
Thanks for reading JF. Yeah, I just don't see the downside in having a prototype at least presented to the appropriate committees in congress. While the upside has the potential of a superb investment of tax dollars and intellectual resources. The politics would certainly be fascinating. Imagine anti-nuke environmentalists and the fossil fuel industry on the same side, with climatologists, and some informed progressives and conservatives, on the other. Talk about fragile alliances ...
Chernobyl did not melt down. It was not like our power plant reactors. It was designed with a graphite moderator to produce plutonium like the US reactors in Washington and South Carolina. They were in just concrete buildings with no containment chamber. A mistake caused a steam explsion that blew the roof off. Since Chernobyl used graphite for the moderator which was very hot and air came in the roof hole it had a fossil fuel fire sending fission products into the atmosphere. That cannot happen in power plant reactors with steel containment chambers.
<i>Imagine anti-nuke environmentalists and the fossil fuel industry on the same side, with climatologists, and some informed progressives and conservatives, on the other.</i>
We're already at that point, I'm afraid, though the anties usually don't recognize the Faustian bargain they're making with the fossil fuel industries. It's truly ironic that those who profess to be saviors of the environment are often doing their utmost to hamper the only technology that can provide abundant clean energy.
If you'd like to get the big picture, a truly comprehensive global plan for an energy-rich world where not just energy resources but all the resources necessary for a high standard of living could be available to all, check this out:
tinyurl.com/mmll4s
Among other things, this book explains the entire IFR system, including its economics, political history, etc, in plain English for the layman. It's time we got this show on the road.
Tom, thanks, I'll definitely read that. I hope to have a comprehensive piece on the IFR concept specifically on Daily Kos in the next few weeks. You're welcome to email me at darksydothemoon At AOL dot COM if you or anyone else would like to help as an expert source.
Oil and gas are NOT in limited domestic supply, particularly not OIL... it's here, it's ready, it's being KEPT from us by DEMOCRATS and has been for decades!
I agree that nuclear power is the future, but for God's sake what about the PRESENT?!
energy related economic problems we've had, like the flood of $4 gas a summer ago, is absolutely positively blamable on Democrat resistance to domestic drilling, on greenie lefty grounds that are indefensible in the 21st century. Drilling is much cleaner and more responsible than ever, and foreign powers are more determined than ever to keep a leash on us with their oil, as long as we're insanely willing to deny ourselves OUR OWN OIL, which we ARE.
God help this country.
"As a science writer I spend a great deal of time debunking pseudoscience and misinformation. A lot of those I argue with tend to be conservatives..."
Really? I've never met a conservative that was against nuclear power, and I've never met a Lefty that was for nuclear power (we've never met). The conservatives tended to cite real scientific research like your article for proposing more nuclear plants, and the Lefties tended to talk about energy production as being nothing more complex than unicorns running around in a field full of windmills, solar panels and daisies.
The $730 Billion Dollars 'Stimulus' that was blown could have built over 350 of these type of reactors in the United States and put over 5 million people to work building them while making the country energy self sufficient; why didn't that happen with such a bunch of smart people in government? Could it be that the ARABS are paying the politicians and greens off to curtail such an obvious plan, for a couple of billions they make 100's of billions to keep the oil price's up for their product. If you follow the money you'll always come up with the answer.
I am not a scientist, but do agree, that we should promote the use of the resources and technology at hand to solve our energy problems here at home rather than relying on foreign sources. The environmentalist faction in the US has been able to stall progress in this area for years, at the detriment of the US economy and the environment. Let's get that prototype finished, start building those Integral Fast Reactors, and in the meantime, drill-baby-drill, until we can replace the carbon with nuclear.
Diggs, thanks for your comment. I'm a registered indy, but I guess I could be called a lefty, and if so you have now met one that is open to nuclear power. I also write at Daily Kos on topics like creationism, hence the reference to conservatives I argue with. Odds are this piece or something very close to it will be posted there tomorrow. Could be interesting, I imagine you might see some more "lefties" there that both agree and disagree with my view.
A fine article indeed. I hope to drive some readership your way. I also support the re-introduction of IFR technology as a much needed answer to our energy needs here at home.
Keep up the good work.
Well, dang. You could have made your point about IFR and the advantages of fast reactors and their importance to weaning us from unreliable energy sources outside our control ... without the "coal and everything petro is poison" rant, and then ending your post with a quote from radical enviro extremist "Let Copenhagen fail!" Hansen.
It just completely tainted an otherwise valid post.
Makes good sense..and that is exactly why it won't happen!
Over the past 40 years the US had become stricken with "Alice in Wonderland" syndrome. Good is bad, bad is good, ad-nauseum.
Brian: James Hansen is one of the most persuasive advocates for nuclear power in the nation today. If not for him and the expert nuclear engineers and physicists he referred me to, this post would not exist.
Steven, I'd be interested in how well this goes over with the Kos kids. To embrace nuclear power, the Lefties would have to get over to very closely held beliefs, neither of which is true. First, they'd have to realize that wind, solar and any other fantasy energy source they have in mind does not have the energy potential to run even one tenth of the world's economies as they envision it. Solar fields (have you seen the disaster of the solar field at Fort Carson?) and windmill farms would need to cover several thousand times more square meters of ground than a nuclear plant to produce comparable megawatts/BTUs. That's the first belief (or fantasy) they'd have to get rid of...unlimited solar/wind energy from limited space.
Second, they'd have to get rid of the belief that corporations capable of, and desirous of, building and running such nuclear plants, are evil. I'd bet that one alone is going to be raised by every third Kos kommentor.
Good luck.
Diggs, well come over and check the comment thread out, should be up tomorrow afternoon sometime. We've discussed it in comments a bit in the past. I'd have to poll it to know better, and I may poll it sometime over the next few weeks, but my guess is it'll break down roughly 50/50 among Kossacks who have a firm opinion.
Couple things -- when you say gas is 'limited' ... well, I suppose everything is, but I read lately that we have something like a hundred-year supply of the stuff, within our borders, because of developments in recovering from gas shale. Not too terribly limited.
Secondly, as far as wind and solar power -- my understanding is that these can never exceed 20% of the supply, as their unreliability makes it impossible to balance the grid if their contribution is more than 1/5th of the supply.
It's not necessarily true that fossil fuel companies must be against nuclear power. Alberta Canada is Americas single largest foreign supplier of oil. The problem is that the natural gas currently being used to supply the energy needed to process Albertas tar sands will likely run out before the tar sands do. This is why plans are underway to build a major nuclear facility in close proximity to the tar sand deposits. There is an amusing irony in using the energy of tomorrow to squeeze out the last remaining drops of the energy of yesterday. You can easily get the fossil fuel companies on-side by opening the door for them to become the nuclear companies of tomorrow.
As a conservative I take credit for being on the side that has always promoted nuclear power. I take offense at the lying liberals styling themselves as progressive, particularly given that they are the ones defeating all efforts to develop the use nuclear power. I think you'll garner much more support for your (and my) very worthy cause if you'll avoid the arrogant self-promotion of your sick ideology.
Steven, I'd be interested in how well this goes over with the Kos kids. To embrace nuclear power, the Lefties would have to get over to very closely held beliefs, neither of which is true. First, they'd have to realize that wind, solar and any other fantasy energy source they have in mind does not have the energy potential to run even one tenth of the world's economies as they envision it. Solar fields (have you seen the disaster of the solar field at Fort Carson?) and windmill farms would need to cover several thousand times more square meters of ground than a nuclear plant to produce comparable megawatts/BTUs. That's the first belief (or fantasy) they'd have to get rid of...unlimited solar/wind energy from limited space.
Second, they'd have to get rid of the belief that corporations capable of, and desirous of, building and running such nuclear plants, are evil. I'd bet that one alone is going to be raised by every third Kos kommentor.
Good luck.
Hi Steven, regarding point 1, most proven reserves of uranium are in Canada, Australia, and the USA, hardly unstable regions. The largest thorium reserves are in India, which is part of the reason they are pursuing thorium breeder reactors. In general, and indeed tough to swallow for all parties, is the relative risk of nuclear versus coal. Is it better to risk single large accidents like TMI or Chernobyl, or slowly but surely (but indirectly) kill several thousand people yearly with airborne particulate matter and heavy metals in fly ash? I'm for the nuclear option, of course, but it is a very tough sell.
well written, intelligent and fair.
thanks
It would be an interesting political realignment. It could wedge, but it's a double edged ... wedge. Let's call the political aspects the "Atomic Wedgie." Probably some fun stuff to speculate on there. If the DK piece goes up tomorrow, it'll probably be around 9PM I _think_.
Steve: you think Conservatives are blocking the way to nuclear. Interesting...maybe you need to take your blinders off for a second, and read Esquire.com richardson-report on Lamar Alexander 11/17/09
"For some time now, Alexander has been pushing a plan to build a hundred nuclear plants (third-generation plants, unfortunately, but I'll get to that in a moment). Partly this is because he's from Tennessee, the home of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. But he really does seem to be sincere about saving the environment — check out this eloquent and well-informed speech (PDF).
"But actually, all forty of the Republican senators have endorsed Alexander's hundred-nuke idea. "That may not sound like much," he says, "but I can't point to anything else that all forty Republican senators agree on."
And, let's not forget the stupid little bumpkin from Alaska, she's all for nukes (9/04/2008) neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com
now go to Podesta's CAP, searh for Nuclear Energy..Not nuke friendly
"the type of reactor that caught fire at Chernobyl will never be built again. "
It is really a shame that we have progressed so little that this even needs to be said. The Nuke I worked on in the late 60's (Diablo Canyon) and early 70's likely began its design and permitting in the late 50's - long before compters were even in any kind of use. The latest 3-4th generation designs have about as much in common with Chernobyl as an x-box does with a game of Pong. People don't afirm this because it does not fit their agenda, not because they don't understand we have come a long ways since the 70's.
Here's Hansen again:
"Yet even with the the deficiencies of the early generation, the safety record of nuclear power is not matched by any other major industry in the United States. Even wind power there have been 30-some deaths in the making of wind turbines. Nuclear critics, anti-nuclear, have been so effective in the U.S. it has just not been possible here." (Houston Chronicle, Science Guy)
In fact Hansen blames Clinton for stopping research.
The Left is no friend to nuke. Obama still wants "safe" nuke, delay, delay...that's the Left, not conservatives. I'm sure that Lefties will always blame someone else for their mistakes, but lots of people know the truth.
They call themselves "Progressive", they are so regressive, if they had their way we would all be living in green communes, riding bikes to our daily labors.
Diggs - I would like to introduce myself as a liberal who strongly supports nuclear energy. If you visit Daily Kos, you can find work from others like Dave Walters and NNadir. Historically speaking you can also find out how hard Al Gore, Sr, L. Mendel Rivers, Scoop Jackson, and John F. Kennedy worked to support the development of nuclear energy.
On the other hand, "conservatives" often TALK a good game about their support for nuclear energy but DO nothing. During the long dry spell of no new nuclear plant construction, we have had a few years of Ford, eight years of Reagan, four years of Bush I, and eight years of Bush II, but not a single new plant or even a federally funded prototype.
Steve Andrew - thanks for a good article.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Interesting articles Steven! I live in one of those 'unstable countries' which happens to have a huge deposit of uranium in it (southern Australia). BTW when you referenced the "world’s foremost expert in climate science" was that a sly dig, or is that according to himself? ;-)
You reference 'unstable' countries as the source of uranium. The majority of uranium can be found in the USA, Canada and Australia. Hardly 'unstable' countries.
As well, like most right wingers, you take pot shots at the Clinton and now the Obama administrations. But what about the lack of funding from the Republican administrations of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2. They have all starved research and development of future energy technology, instead hoping that private enterprise is going to solve the world's problems.
Jef: thanks for the comments. Although how you got from my piece to concluding that I think -- [deep breath] -- that conservatives are 'blocking nuclear power' is beyond me. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear or misled you in to thinking that.
The writer left much out. There are reactors which are non proliferating. The Liquid Fluorine Thorium Reactor cannot be used to produce bombs. It won't melt down because it is already liquid. It cannot explode because the heat it produces is taken away by helium to Brayden gas generators.
If the reactor overheats, due to sabotage of the gas turbines or power towers, then a plug in the bottom melts, the reactor material flows into a wide tray where the reaction stops. When the problem is corrected, the reactor material is pumped back up into the reactor and it starts working again. This is a far cry from a light water reactor which can take two weeks to restart.
The LFTR's reactor pot is surrounded by a containment shell holding Thorium 232 which effectively grabs neutrons. Protactinium 233 which is produced is removed from the thorium and stored until it becomes Uranium 233 which is fissile. Thus, LFTR burns a non fissile material, Thorium, which is in good supply. US has 200 ye
Thx for the response Steven. At one point I said that I didn't quite understand these sentences (but I prob. deleted because of the character limit):
"As a science writer I spend a great deal of time debunking pseudoscience and misinformation. A lot of those I argue with tend to be conservatives, and our progressive battle cry is often “put aside your biases and look at the facts and the science with an open mind.”
But if I re-frame your sentence, perhaps you were considering your audience to be mostly Libs...therefore (after a gratitous and requisite smear of conservatives) you call for Libs to be more open minded re: nuke energy.
I daresay I agree with you on that last part.
Of course, Climategate has shown that AGW is both bad science and a cheap, tawdry conspiracy. Nonetheless, nuclear power should have a bright future and go a long way towards replacing the dirtier coal and more expensive oil/gas for electricity generation. Oil/hydrocarbons will always beat nuclear as they are energy dense, safe, transportable (in cars, for example), and available in sufficient quantities for a long time.
Question: What is being called a "fast" reactor...is that what used to be called a "fast breeder reactor"? In that reactor more nuclear fuel came out than went in (yes, it's possible in such a one-time-through process, you can't recycle the breeder's fuel) and recycling of uranium ocurred. That technology has been around since, I believe, the 1970s but was politically incorrect just like today's thermal reactors.
I'm one of the "Kos kids" who is 100% behind nuclear power. I support sustainable power generation in any form and from everything that I have read over the last 5 years or so nuclear qualifies as sustainable. Fast breeder reactor technology and thorium as fuel would give us centuries of power. We need pilot plants for the advanced reactors. We need a standard design for new thermal reactors, preferably small and scalable. We need fuel reprocessing. And we need an end to the linear no threshold model!
Vlacalx: The only wrongdoing involved in "Climategate" is the hacking of a university computer system and theft of private emails. Last time I checked those were felonies. "Climategate" has debunked nothing, has not challenged the science behind climate change. It has only shown the cheap and tawdry lengths that climate skeptics are willing to go to deny reality.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!