Nuclear Now! - 10/31/06

“On a cool spring morning a quarter century ago, a place in Pennsylvania called Three Mile Island exploded into the headlines and stopped the US nuclear power industry in its tracks.  What had been billed as the clean, cheap, limitless energy source for a shining future was suddenly too hot to handle.”

Since then we have spent billions of dollars trying to find an alternative energy source in products such as windmills, solar panels, and biofuel.  Light bulbs, air conditioners, and refrigerators are more efficient.  California could be bankrupt we have built so many gas-fired generators.  However, 400 million more tons of coal is taken from the Earth’s crust we light it on fire and send the rest into our atmosphere.  This is compared to what we took from the earth a quarter century ago. 

Burning coal and other fossils fuels is changing our environment with penalties that are not pretty.    Western forest fires, major hurricanes, and melting polar ice sheets are being blamed on this endeavor.  The air has been spoiled with enough heavy metals and other noxious pollutants to cause 15,000 premature deaths annually from coal-burning electric power plants.  Plus, did you know that a coal-fired plant disperses 100 times more radioactive material than a comparable nuclear reactor.  And this releases pollution right into our air instead of a strategically guarded storage site.

There are 6 billion energy-hungry people on this planet and burning hydrocarbons is an option we cannot afford.  NUCLEAR POWER is the most practical alternative.

The risk of burning and using fossil fuels is a great risk compared to that of splitting atoms.  “Radiation containment, waste disposal, and nuclear weapons proliferation are manageable problems in a way that global warming is not.”  Nuclear energy is available now in large quantities contrasting to green energy like wind, water, solar, and biomass.  Nuclear plants are expensive to build at almost $2 billion per one but compare that to the true cost to people and the planet that burns fossil fuels.  Since we have an addiction to gasoline and diesel for transport nuclear is our best bet.

“Some of the world’s most thoughtful greens have discovered the logic of nuclear power, including the Gaia theorist James Lovelock, Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore, and Britain’s Bishop Hugh Montefiore, a longtime board member of Friends of the Earth.  Western Europe is quietly backing away from planned nuclear phase outs.  Finland has ordered a big reactor specifically to meet the terms of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.  China’s new nuke plants-26 by 2005- is part of a desperate effort at smog control.

The United States is even coming out of its state of unconsciousness.  Vice President Cheney’s energy task force made a large name for itself in a series of pro-nuke developments.  More efficient plant designs, streamlined licensing procedures, and the prospect of federal subsidies have helped to heighten the interest in nukes.

There are new plants in development.  They plan on making it through the bureaucratic maze and make formal applications by 2008.  If everything goes as planned the first new reactors since the 1970’s will be online by 2014 hoping to hold on to nuclear’s current 20 percent of the quickly growing US electric power market.

That is definitely not enough.  France obtains their electricity from nukes by 77 percent.  Finding an alternative to hydrocarbon is way past due.  King Coal and Big Oil need to be laid to rest.

Nuclear has scared us to death.  If we can get over this fear we all could be cruising down the highway in a hydrogen powered Hummer.

“The granola crowd likes to talk about conservation and efficiency, and surely substantial gains can be made in those areas.  But energy is not a luxury people can do without, like a gym membership or hair gel.  The developed world built its wealth on cheap power-burning firewood, coal, petroleum, and natural gas, with carbon emissions the inevitable byproduct.”

We can track material progress by what is pumped out of smokestacks.  “An hour of coal generated 100-watt electric light creates 0.05 pounds of atmospheric carbon; a bucket of ice makes 0.3 pounds, an hour’s car ride 5.”  Every month the average American emits almost half a ton of carbon into the atmosphere.  Europe and Japan are a little more economical.  However, anyone who is forest-burning is doing their part.

A study done by MIT anticipates that the worldwide energy demand could triple by 2050.  The Three Gorges Dam located in China could be built every year for the rest of time and still not meet the needs of the growing demand for electricity.  “Even the carbon reductions required by the Kyoto Protocol – which pointedly exempts developing countries like China – will be a drop in the atmospheric sewer.”

What can we do in this carbonizing world?  Everyone turns to renewables.  However, the thought that wind, water, solar, or biomass would save the day is as unbelievable as the idea that nuclear power would be too cheap to meter.  “Jesse Ausubel, director of the human environment program at New York’s Rockefeller University, calls renewable energy sources ‘false gods’ – attractive but powerless.  They’re capital – and land – intensive and solar is not yet remotely cost-competitive.  Despite all the hype, tax breaks, and incentives, the proportion of US electricity production from renewables has actually fallen in the past 15 years, from 11.0 percent to 9.1 percent.”

Without hydropower the decline would be worse.  Hydropower makes up 92 percent of the world’s renewable electricity.  China has been building dams on a grander scale, while the US is under attack.  Environmentalists are trying to protect the wild fish populations.  China has been plagued with great criticism on the Three Gorges project due to the forcible relocation of 1 million people.  Now a larger project on the Nu Jiang River has been suspended. 

Cost is what solar power not a better option.  The price of the photovoltaic cells has dropped but not significantly.  It is still four times more expensive than nuclear and only five times more than the cost of coal. 

The more promising is wind power.  General Electric is even interested in this renewable.  However, it is hard to capture and widely dispersed.  300 more square miles would be required for wind energy to be same as a typical utility plant.  On top of that costly transmission lines would have to be purchased.  Birds of prey have become a problem in California’s Altamont Pass.  Over 1,300 birds of prey have been slaughtered by the turbines.

Biomass is another option.  However, it would take an area the size of ten Iowas to produce the amount of cellulose needed.  Organics would not be a factor here.  But ethanol is clean!

There is also an attraction to natural gas among the fossil fuels.  It only releases a third as much carbon as coal.  That is progress but not if we are looking to cut back carbon levels.  Clean coal is a favorite in Washington.  John Kerry and President Bush both made offers to fund a research on clean coal.  So far a lot of the work has been with reducing acid rain.  They are now trying to burn clean coal however it is still in the lab phase and say it could double or triple generating costs.  There’s also the question of what to do with 1 million tons of extracted carbon year after year.

Around the world nuclear power is booming.  “Belgium derives 58 percent of its electricity from nukes, Sweden 45 percent, South Korea 40, Switzerland 37 percent, Japan 31 percent, Spain 27 percent, and the UK 23 percent.  South Korea has eight more reactors coming, Japan 13, China at least 20.  France, where nukes generate more than three quarters of the country’s electricity, is privatizing a third of its state-owned nuclear energy group, Areva, to deal with the rush of new business.”

1973 was the last time a nuclear plant was ordered to be built in the US, however nuclear is growing here as well.  Generating capacity has increased due to clever engineering and smart management.  When Three Mile Island had made headlines plants were operating at about 60 operating capacity.  It has increased to 90 percent since then.  There are 103 reactors operating in the US.  The increase is equal to the adding of 40 new reactors without invading people’s backyards or polluting the air with more carbon.

Even with atomic power becoming less expensive could it become cost-effective?  A financial nightmare with regulatory delays and billion dollar construction asks this question quite often.  “But increasing experience and efficiency gains have changed all that.  Current operating costs are the lowest ever – 1.82 cents per kilowatt – hour versus 2.13 cents for coal-fired plants and 3.69 cents for natural gas.”  The stock market also affects the outcome.  Nuclear generating companies like Entergy and Exelon have seen their stock more than double.  Exelon  has purchased New Jersey’s Public Service Enterprise Group  which is adding four reactors to its already line up of 17.

This extraordinary achievement proposes that nuclear energy realistically could replace coal with an increase in cost within the US.  This would lead the way to a clean, green future.  Building nuclear plants is the key to this success, along with continual building at a furious pace.  Carbon would stay in the driver’s seat with any less production.

People who thought about building new nuclear plants a decade ago were considered out of touch with reality.  Now, for the first time since the building of Three Mile Island new plants are the reality and are very possible.  “Thanks to improvements in reactor design and increasing encouragement from Washington, DC the nuclear industry is posed for unlikely revival.”

Generation I plants that were built in the 1950’s and 1960’s were based on propulsion units in 1950’s vintage nuclear submarines.  Production came to a stand still in the 1980’s and 1990’s and the major producers – GE, Power Systems, British-owned Westinghouse, France’s Framatome (part of Areva), and Canada’s AECL – moved over to try the British market.  This led to system improvements that could be used in the US after some prototyping.

The latest reactors are a huge enhancement.  The generation III+ is fuel-efficient.  There are passive safety technologies, like gravity-fed emergency cooling compared to pumps.  There are supposed to be more cost-competitive also however no one will know for sure until one is actually built.  The first few may certainly cost more.

In 2002, the US Department of Energy came to an agreement to pick up the tab of the first hurdle - getting from engineering design to working blueprints.  Nuclear Power 2010 is what three groups of utility companies and reactor makers are calling themselves.  The taxpayers could see a bill of $500 million.  However, they will see working reactors rather than promising technology.

Public oversight is what holds us back, even with the newer, better designs.  Three Mile Island wasn’t the only nightmare in nuclear history.  Shoreham in Long Island was shut down before they even sold on electron.  The construction had been completed and when the company applied for its operating license opponents influenced a denial.  People will definitely be skeptical about investing billions into something that might not have a clear path through the network of judges and regulators.

Shoreham wasn’t completely unsuccessful.  “The 1992 Energy Policy Act aims to forestall such debacles by authorizing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue combined construction and operating licenses.  It also allows the NRC to pre-certify specific reactor models and the energy companies to bank preapproved sites.  Utility executives fret that no one has ever road-tested the new process, which still requires public hearings and shelves of supporting documents.  An idle reactor site at Browns Ferry, Alabama, could be an early test case; the Tennessee Valley Authority is exploring options to refurbish it rather than start from scratch.” 

Congress is looking for a new way to provide an enhancement to the nuclear energy industry.  “Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico), chair of the Senate’s energy committee and the patron saint of nuclear power in Washington, has vowed to revive last year’s energy bill, which died in the Senate.  Earlier versions included a 1.85 cent per-kilowatt-hour production tax credit for the first half-dozen nuke plants to come online.  That could add up to as much as $8 billion in federal outlays and should go a long way toward luring Wall Street back into the fray.  As pork goes, the provision is easy to defend.  Nuclear power’s extraordinary startup costs and safety risks make it a special case for government intervention.  And the amount is precisely the same bounty Washington spends annually in tax credits for wind, biomass, and other zero-emission kilo wattage.”

Still ahead in the future are safer plants, more sensible regulation, and even Congress lending a hand.  The only thing that is still absent is a place to put the radioactive waste.  The US companies that produce nuclear power pay the Feds, by law, to dispose of their spent fuel at a rate of a tenth of a cent per kilowatt-hour.  No one wants to build new plants as long as Washington is telling them to pile up!  They were supposed to be sending this waste to the Yucca Mountains in Nevada; however they have been caught up in hearings, debates, and studies while the waste just piles up at about 30 different sites around our country.

“At Yucca Mountain, perfection has been the enemy of adequacy.  It’s fun to discuss what the design life of an underground nuclear waste facility ought to be.  One hundred years?  Two hundred years?  How about 100,000?  A quarter of a million?  Science fiction meets the US government budgeting process. In court!”

However is tossing our waste into a hole in the mountain a good idea anyway?  We might invent better disposal methods; something that could hopefully withstand heat and moisture for the next million years.  We could recycle the nuclear fuel as a source of production of more energy.  However, the answer is simple.  We are not looking for something to last the next million years, perhaps not even the next hundred.  We need somewhere to let this waste cool off and then decide what to do with it.

Interim storage is the name of this approach.  Two dozen reactor sites already have their own interim storage.  A private company has applied with the NRC to open one on the Goshute Indian Reservation in Utah.  Within the Senate, legislation is due to be introduced about a national interim storage system.

Nuclear power is trying to be pushed out front in attempt to take away power from King Coal.  We need a handful of new plants, which would be a great start.  We can kick carbon, maybe not cold turkey, but it is a possibility.  There are four central steps to increase the momentum:

• Regulate carbon emissions:  Nuclear plants must keep accurate records of every radioactive atom of waste.  The coal industry deposits tons of deadly refuse into the atmosphere completely free of charge and the government can put a stop to this.  The companies are not worried about cost.  They have only two interests:  how much and when do we pay.  “A flat out carbon tax is almost certainly a nonstarter in Washington.  But an arrangement in which all energy producers are allowed a limited number of carbon pollution credits to use or sell could pass muster; after all, this kind of cap and trade scheme is already a fact of life for US utilities with a variety of other pollutants.  Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman have been pushing legislation such a system.  This would send a clear message to utility executives that fossil energy’s free pass is over.”

• Recycle nuclear fuel:  Did you know that 95 percent energy is retained in the spent nuclear fuel intended to be dumped in the Yucca Mountain.  Other countries do the rational thing and recycle.  The US does not participate in recycling for reasons that have nothing to do with nuclear power.  Reprocessing of spent fuel is one way to make the key ingredient of a nuclear bomb, enriched uranium.  This process once dubbed the once through process was banned in 1977.  More than a dozen countries today reprocess or enrich uranium.  This includes North Korea and Iran.  Keeping this spent fuel does very little good abroad and real mischief at home.
  
  The Bush Administration has begun to look into different ways to reopen the door for research into the nuclear fuel cycle.  They are trying to make a proposal guaranteed supply of reactor fuel in exchange for a promise not to reprocess spent fuel themselves.  They are trying other proposals also that would incorporate the International Atomic Energy Agency.  The company would collect, reprocess, and distribute fuel to nations around the world, while keeping the makings of bombs out of circulation. 
  
  This would help to maximize resources and minimize the problem of how to dispose of radioactive waste.  This would almost eliminate the majority of the waste from nuclear power production.  Over time, it could also relieve pressure on uranium supplies. 

• Rekindle innovation in nuclear technology:  Nuclear technology has progressed greatly since Three Mile Island.  It is a breeding ground of innovation.  Government funded research is intended at designing advanced reactors similar to those being built in China and South Africa with high temperature, gas cooled plants, and fast-breeder reactors that will use uranium 60 times more efficiently than today’s reactors.  Still nuclear suffers from being “born under a mushroom cloud and raised by your local electric company.”  It could be needed to regulate nuclear R & D.  Research is a good thing, but more smart buyers’ drives quality up and down. 
  
  ;“In fact, the possibility of a nuclear gold rush – not just a modest rebirth – depends on economics as much as technology.  The generation IV pebble-bed reactors being developed in China and South Africa get attention for their meltdown-proof designs.  But it’s their low capital cost and potential for fast, modular construction that could blow the game open, as surely as the PC did for computing.  As long as investments come in $2 billion increments, purchase orders will be few and far between.  At $300 million a pop for safe, clean energy, watch the flood gates open around the world. 

• Replace gasoline with hydrogen:  Moving on from petroleum seems as important to the planet’s future as doing away with coal.  The catch to this is that it takes energy to remove hydrogen from substances like methane and water.  Where can we get this?
  
  Natural gas is the most common energy source for manufacturing hydrogen, followed by oil.  Renewables could handle this in limited quantities.  Nuclear reactors produce both electricity and very high temperatures, which is exactly what we need to generate hydrogen most efficiently.  The green future is seeing nuclear energy as potential for liberating us from coal and oil. 

If global warming is taken seriously one must take nuclear power seriously.  There are many factors to the pie in a clean emissions free sky; clean coal, solar powered roof tiles, and wind farms in North Dakota are just the beginning.  That is just a shot.  Zero-carbon reactors are available now and we know how to build them.  Our current electrical grids are compatible with them.  Environmentalists fighting these realities might wind up just as dirty in soot as the coal-mining CEO.

Innovation can change our rules.  Nuclear energy is the way to go.  “Energy isn’t the problem.  Energy is the solution.  The more of it we capture and put to use, the more readily we will capture still more.”

If we could switch to something better we can avoid running out of fossil fuels.  We shouldn’t wait until anthracite runs out before we say goodbye to hydrocarbons.  The Stone Age did not end because they ran out of stones.  There is something cleaner, more efficient, and more abundant ready to use.  “It’s time to get real!”

Source: Wired 13.02
Peter Schwartz and Spencer Reiss

Back to the Resources Page