|
Safe Nuclear Energy
Nuclear Fusion promises to create an inexhaustible source of safe nuclear
energy. "Fusion power produces no troublesome emissions, is safe,
and has few, if any, proliferation concerns. It creates no long-lived
waste and runs on fuel readily available to all nations." -
Bringing
a Star to Earth
Nuclear Fusion research has produced significant progress toward the
goal of safe, clean and abundant energy, but engineers and scientists
still face many technical problems that must be solved before we will
see a working Nuclear Fusion power plant.
Continued research in Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion will lead
to the development of technology capable of producing all of the energy
needed for a modern world. Economic prosperity and energy are interrelated.
Global availability of energy from Nuclear Fusion will enable sustained
worldwide economic prosperity for millions of years.
By the time our young children reach middle age, fusion may begin
to deliver energy independence … and energy abundance …
to all nations rich and poor. Fusion is a promise for the future we
must not ignore. - Former Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham
|
Although Nuclear
Fusion is not available at this time, nuclear energy
from Nuclear Fission is available today.
The Energy
Quest web site gives an illustrated explanation of the difference
between Nuclear Fusion and Nuclear Fission for anyone who needs clarification.
Nuclear Fission creates no air pollution, but it does create radioactive
by-products. Opponents of nuclear energy believe a nuclear power plant
accident would cause toxic radioactive nuclear material to be released
into the environment. Fear of exposure to Nuclear
Radiation has created public opposition to nuclear energy
However, even with the potential danger of nuclear
radiation, nuclear energy technology has a long history of safe operation.
Worldwide nuclear electricity has accumulated over 10,000 reactor-years
of operating experience. Today, the issue of nuclear energy safety and
nuclear waste disposal is not a technical problem but one of public and
political acceptance.
|
“Through the release of atomic energy, our generation has brought into
the world the most revolutionary force since prehistoric man's discovery of
fire.” —Albert Einstein
|
How toxic is Nuclear Radiation? "The direct
radiation effect is the one thing that is different about nuclear material,
as compared to other toxins, which may be the source of some of the fear
and mystique. All other toxins require ingestion or inhalation for harm
to occur. Radioactive material is the only toxin that can strike
from a distance. This is because chemical toxins need to be in
the body to cause chemical changes that harm cells and biological processes,
whereas radioactive material emits high energy particles that can travel
over distances." Says Nuclear engineer James Hopf. "However...
direct radiation will never be a significant factor with respect to total
public health impact. Instead, the effects would come from dispersal of
radioisotopes onto the land, air, and water, and the subsequent ingestion
or inhalation of those isotopes. In all cases, the concentrations of radioisotopes
would be far too small for the soil, water, or air in question to cause
a significant direct radiation dose to a nearby person. However, if the
radioactive isotopes are ingested or inhaled, and they then spend a significant
residence time in the body, they will cause the adverse health effects
that the public fears. But in this respect, radioactive material does
not behave any differently from any other toxin. It basically has to be
inhaled or ingested to have effect... Thus, although the mystique exists,
it will never come into play in any real way, in any real situations."
— Nuclear Radiation
— How Toxic is it? A Tutorial by Nuclear Engineer —
James Hopf.
The majority of Americans believe nuclear energy is safe:
Nearly
Seven of 10 Americans Favor Nuclear Energy: Public
favorability of nuclear energy as one of the sources of electricity
has exceeded 60 percent since 2001. In a September 2006 survey, 68% favor nuclear
energy; 27% oppose.
Two national surveys taken in April 2004 find 65% of Americans favor
the use of nuclear energy for electricity, and 73% of college graduate
voters support nuclear energy.
Two national surveys find favorable public
attitudes toward nuclear energy at a record high. One survey of
the
U.S. public at large found that 65 percent favor the use of nuclear
energy. The other survey of only college graduates who are registered
to vote found that nearly three-quarters favor the use of nuclear
energy
as one of America’s options to generate electricity. The surveys
were conducted April 16-20, 2004, for the Nuclear Energy Institute by
Bisconti Research, Inc.
Energy
Concerns Drive Record Public Favorability for Nuclear Energy
By Ann Stouffer Bisconti, Ph.D.
President, Bisconti Research Inc.
Opposition to nuclear energy comes from a small but vocal minority of
the American public. Opponents of nuclear energy threaten lawsuits and
political action against electric power companies. For this reason, electric
power companies in the United States have not ordered a new nuclear power
plant in 25 years.
If the American people fail to communicate their support for nuclear
energy to their legislators, the opponents of nuclear energy will continue
to stop new power plants from being built. If the opponents of nuclear
energy continue to block the construction of nuclear power plants, there
will be no future for nuclear engineers in America. Universities will
stop offering nuclear engineering courses and the United States will fall
behind the technology. America is at risk of losing its nuclear engineering
expertise.
The anti-nuclear protesters are irrational, says a psychiatrist and
expert on fears and phobias who has studied and analyzed social perceptions
of
nuclear energy, see:
A PBS interview with Dr. Robert DuPont
— Dr. Robert L. DuPont is a practicing psychiatrist
and a clinical professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University School of Medicine.
He is also the author of “The Selfish Brain: Learning from Addiction” and “Nuclear
phobia—phobic thinking about nuclear power: A discussion
with Robert L. DuPont”.
University
of Nevada Professor sees a Nuclear Age dawning... again:
"Have you ever felt as if you have experienced time travel (déjà
vu)?" asks Research Professor Denis Beller in an essay titled:
Atomic Time Machines: Back to the Nuclear Future. Dr.
Denis E. Beller says, "When reading about or listening to present-day
news items or speeches about the nuclear power industry, whether they
are by or about industry leaders, nuclear scientists or engineers, or
anti-nuclear individuals or organizations, some people might think they
have been transported back in time in a time machine. Many people in
the nuclear power industry and academia at the beginning of the twenty-first
century have the same optimistic outlook as the founders did a half-century
ago, and opponents of technology, especially nuclear technology, feel
as if they’re facing the same battles they fought in the 1970s
and 80s. For a variety of reasons that will be explained in this essay,
young nuclear proponents have what appears to be a brilliant future..."
Atomic Time Machines: Back
to the Nuclear Future By Dr. Denis E. Beller
In recent years, a growing
number of environmentalists have taken a new look at the safety record
and benefits of nuclear energy:
STEWART BRAND IS
A SELF-PROFESSED “GREENIE.” AN ORIGINAL
hippie of the 1960s and founder of the “Whole Earth
Catalog,” he
has spent decades promoting environmental and social causes.
So it came as a shock to many when last year, Brand wrote
an essay for Technology Review in which he touted the benefits
of nuclear power. In the piece, titled “Environmental
Heresies,” Brand embraced nuclear as the only technology
currently available that can help save the planet from global warming.
Soon, people began mentioning Brand with other prominent environmentalists
who had also spoken in favor of nuclear: scientist James
Lovelock,
who proposed the Gaia hypothesis; Patrick
Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace;
and Anglican Bishop Hugh
Montefiore, a former board member of Friends
of the Earth. According to Brand, others are following suit. “I’m
seeing much less resistance from my fellow greenies,” he
said at a forum held at MIT in September. “Not total conversion,
but fewer opposing it.”
Nuclear is getting a second look from environmentalists because,
unlike coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels, it does not produce
carbon dioxide as a byproduct. Carbon dioxide released into
the atmosphere traps heat radiating from the Earth’s
surface, thus leading to a gradual rise in global temperature. Scientific
and governmental bodies around the world agree that much of the warming
of the planet seen in the last 50 years is due to this kind
of human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels for energy.
— By Corinna Wu, PRISM magazine, January 2006
MSNBC video interview: Is nuclear power green?
— Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, talks with Tucker Carlson
There is no sensible alternative to nuclear power if we are
to sustain civilization.
We
need nuclear power, says James Lovelock, the man who inspired
the Greens. “We
reject nuclear energy with the same unreasoning arguments that our
ancestors would have used to reject geothermal energy, the effort
to harness the
heat of the Earth. Compared with the imaginary dangers of nuclear power,
the threat from the intensifying greenhouse effect seems all too real.
I wholly support the Green wish to see all energy eventually come from
renewable sources but I do not think that we have the time to wait
until
this happens. Nuclear power is unpopular but it is safer than power
from fossil fuel. The worst that could happen, if Chernobyls become
endemic, is that we live a little less long in a mildly radioactive
world. To me this is preferable to the loss of our hard-won civilization
in a greenhouse catastrophe.
“Nuclear electricity is now a well-tried and soundly engineered
practice that is both safe and economic; given the will it could be
applied
quickly. It is risky if improperly
used but, even taking the Chernobyl disaster into account, it is, according
to a recent Swiss study, by far the safest of the power industries.
Disinformation about its dangers sustains
a climate of fearful ignorance and has artificially inflated the difficulties
of disposing of nuclear waste and the cost of nuclear power. If permitted,
I would happily store high-level
waste on my own land and use the heat from it to warm my home. There
seems no sensible reason why nuclear waste should not be disposed
of in the deep subducting regions of the ocean where tectonic forces
draw all deposits down into the magma.
“What stands against the use of nuclear power are not sensible
scientific or economic arguments but a widespread, but unjustified,
public fear... The Greens, have so frightened their supporters that
a change of mind would be almost impossible.
“The accident at Chernobyl is almost always presented as if it were the greatest industrial disaster
of the 20th century. Even the BBC, in a recent programme, stated that thousands had died there. Such
exaggeration suspends rational thought and is an unnerving triumph of fiction over science. In fact,
45 died at Chernobyl, according to the UN report on the disaster, and many of them were the firemen
and helicopter crews who tried to extinguish the fire. It was an awful event and should never have
happened, but it was far less lethal than the smog of 1952, when 5,000 Londoners died from poisoning
by coal smoke.”
— James
Lovelock, preeminent world leader in the development of environmental
consciousness.
www.jameslovelock.org
—The personal website of James Lovelock, originator of Gaia
theory,
inventor of the electron capture detector (which made possible the detection
of CFCs and other atmospheric nano-pollutants)
and of the microwave oven.
A DOSE OF NUCLEAR RADIATION By James Lovelock, Excerpt from The
Ages of Gaia
NATURAL NUCLEAR REACTORS (OKLO) By James Lovelock, Excerpt from
The Ages of Gaia
Something
Nasty in the Greenhouse By James Lovelock
Environmental opposition to nuclear energy is the greatest misunderstanding
and mistake of the century
— Environmentalists
For Nuclear Energy
Global Warming—The longer the time horizon,
the more likely the United States will place an increased priority on
global warming, leading
to an urgent need to replace coal and gas-fired electricity generation.
In view of the time it takes to gear up the nuclear industry, the prospect
of this need is one of the reasons for national concern with maintaining
a nuclear energy capability. If Future U.S. environmental policies greatly
restrict carbon emissions, the cost of electricity generation from natural
gas and coal-fired power plants could increase by 50 to 100 percent over
current levels. Nuclear power would then acquire an unquestioned cost
advantage over its gas and coal competitors.
The Economic Future of Nuclear Power
A Study Conducted at The University of Chicago
August 2004
"One thing I was always concerned about was Nuclear waste, until
I learned that if I lived to the age of 80 and all the energy I ever used
in my lifetime came from Nuclear energy, that I would have created a golf-ball
sized piece of waste. When taken with the consideration of the pollutants
that fossil fuels create, this seemed insignificant to me..."
-David Kilbor
Nuclear power is the only green solution — By James Lovelock
“We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilisation
is in imminent danger.” May 24, 2004
Thirty percent of all USA CO2 emissions are created when fossil
fuels are burned to produce the nation's electricity.
The replacement of coal power plants with
nuclear power plants would reduce America’s atmospheric CO2 emissions
by 30%.
Nuclear energy is the only proven technology that can deliver baseload
electricity on a large scale, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, regardless-of-the-weather,
without producing carbon dioxide emissions. Nuclear Energy can replace
power plants that burn coal, gas or oil. And, Nuclear Energy
can help the USA develop
a replacement
for
its
Petroleum based transportation fuel.
Nuclear
energy can provide the process heat and hydrogen gas required
for the manufacture of synthetic oil from coal. If nuclear heat and
nuclear
generated hydrogen is used to produce synthetic oil from coal, then
the yield of oil from coal would be much higher than if the coal is
used to provide the process heat and hydrogen. Resulting in much less
CO2 being released in the process.
If coal power plants were replaced by nuclear power plants, for baseload
electricity, and coal is then used to make synthetic gasoline, Americans
who are dependent on the coal mining industry for their incomes would
support nuclear energy. Today, the USA burns about one billion tons
of coal per year in power plants. Using one billion tons of coal to
produce synthetic oil, at 3 barrels of oil per ton, could replace
about
65% of America’s imported oil. (At 12 million imported barrels
per day, 65% is 7,800,000 barrels per day.) Just over 20%
of oil imported into the USA today comes from Persian Gulf Nations,
which are also members of OPEC.
Less than 45% of oil imported into the USA today comes from
OPEC countries.
The U.S. has an estimated 270 billion tons of recoverable coal in
existing mines, having more than four times as much energy in coal
than the Middle East has in oil—enough to last the U.S. a couple
of centuries or more. That's only the coal in existing mines. If you
consider total recoverable reserves, the U.S. has over 500 billion
tons of coal available to replace imported oil.
Gasoline made from coal would not reduce CO2 tailpipe emissions, nor
would it increase emissions, because coal would merely replace fossil
oil that is already being used for transportation fuel.
Nuclear Hydrogen for Production of Liquid Hydrocarbon Transport
Fuels:
Liquid fuels (gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel) have major advantages as transport
fuels: a high energy density per unit volume and mass, ease of storage, and ease
of transport. However, there are major disadvantages: crude oil is increasingly
expensive, most of the world's crude oil comes from unstable parts of the world,
and burning of hydrocarbons releases greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. These
disadvantages may be reduced or eliminated by use of hydrogen
and oxygen produced
from water using nuclear energy as the energy source, and by use of alternative
carbon
feedstocks in the production of liquid fuels.
As oil becomes scarce, liquid fuels will be produced with increasing frequency from heavier feedstocks such as heavy oil, tar sands, oil shale, and coal. With current technology, this conversion process can be summarized as follows:
Carbon-based feedstock + Water + Oxygen —> Liquid fuels
+ Carbon dioxide (1)
With nuclear
hydrogen, this conversion process can become:
Carbon-based
feedstock + Water + Nuclear energy —> Liquid fuels (2)
When nuclear energy is used (Equation 2), no carbon dioxide is released from the fuel production process. All the carbon is incorporated into the fuel. The carbon in the feedstock is not used as an energy source in the liquid-fuel production process. Carbon dioxide is released only from the burning of the liquid fuels. For feedstocks such as coal, which have low hydrogen-to-carbon ratios, the traditional technologies such as coal liquefaction (Equation 1) may release more carbon dioxide to the environment in the fuel production process than will be released from burning the liquid fuel.
Hydrocarbon liquid fuels that have no greenhouse impacts can
be produced if the carbon source for the manufacture of the liquid
fuels is carbon recycled from the atmosphere (via biomass collection
or direct
removal from air). With nuclear hydrogen production, this
conversion process becomes:
Recycle
carbon + Water + Nuclear energy —> Liquid fuels (No greenhouse)
—by Charles
Forsberg Oak Ridge National Laboratory
*Nuclear Hydrogen Production Process Design and Economics
Nuclear Hydrogen
Synthetic
Fuels
Rutgers coal-to-diesel breakthrough could drastically cut oil imports
—New solution to foreign oil dependency employs Nobel Prize-winning chemistry
The General Atomics
Gas Turbine - Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR)
—The GT-MHR combines a meltdown-proof
reactor and advanced gas turbine technology in a power plant with thermal
efficiency approaching 50%. This efficiency
makes possible much lower power costs, without the environmental degradation
and resource depletion of burning fossil fuels.
Conventional, low-temperature nuclear plants
operate at about 32% thermal efficiency. GT-MHR power plants
can achieve thermal efficiencies
of close to 50% now, and even higher efficiencies in the future.
• 50% more electrical power from the same number of fissions.
• Dramatically lower high-level radioactive waste per unit of
energy – today’s reactors produce 50% more high-level
waste than will the GT-MHR.
• Much less thermal discharge to the environment. Plants can
use air cooling, which allows for more flexible siting options.
Is there enough
Uranium to supply a world dependent on nuclear energy? Yes, says
Nuclear Engineer James Hopf, "the actual recoverable uranium supply
is likely to be enough to last several hundred (up to 1000) years, even
using standard reactors. With breeders, it is essentially infinite. Hundreds
of thousands of years is certainly enough time to develop fusion power,
or renewable sources that can meet all our power needs."
World Uranium Reserves by
James Hopf.
Nuclear waste
- If technological advancement continues for the next 100 years
at the pace we have witnessed in the past, then future technology will
solve many of the problems we face today. For this reason, it is safe
to assume that engineers in the 22nd century and beyond will not consider
nuclear waste - or radioactivity of any kind - too great of a problem
to solve (and it is likely that technological advancements will solve
the problem before the end of the 21st century). Human civilization will
have no reason to fear nuclear waste left over from the 20th and 21st
century.
It has been suggested that the Yucca Mountain
repository
should be regarded as a strategic uranium
reserve, insuring that the spent fuel stored in the
repository is retrievable for future generations of Americans. Light-Water
Reactors (LWR's) consume only 2% of the potential energy within their
uranium fuel - If, sometime
in the near future, all of the "spent-fuel" from the LWR's
is reprocessed and made into new fuel for nuclear power plants, then
Yucca Mountain will not be a radioactive
problem 10,000 years from now.
|
Argonne National Laboratory has developed a revolutionary process that in one step converts spent
commercial nuclear fuel, which is a ceramic oxide, into metal. The product can
then be treated with Argonne's electrorefining technology to recover the uranium
and transuranic elements for recycling into new fuel. Argonne chemist
Laurel Barnes prepares for a test of the metal-oxide conversion process in a
glove box.
Argonne National Laboratory photo
|
"The volume of the entire world's spent nuclear fuel (air spaces,
shielding and cladding removed) for a year - assuming a specific gravity
of about 8 is less than 2,000 cubic metres, which is about the internal
volume of my modest home (10 metres by 20 by 10). No wonder there is no
immediate need to do anything with it. And, it is also NOT waste, but
represents a recyclable resource as only about 1 to 3 percent of the contained
energy is used in the first pass through the reactor cycle. Store it retrievably,
and we will eventually use it for the remaining energy content."
-John K. Sutherland, Chief Scientist, Edutech Enterprises
Nuclear Power Comparisons and Perspective
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence
than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know
much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never
be solved by science." -- Charles Darwin.
“Marie Curie, one of the early pioneers of radioactive research
and the winner of two Nobel prizes, recognized the social value of dispelling
ignorance, when she stated: 'Nothing is to be feared. It is to be understood'.
Marie Curie herself was so radioactive from her 'bucket chemistry', and
inhaling radon and ingesting radium and other nuclides, that when she
entered any physics laboratory, it was noted that any charged electroscopes
immediately lost their charge. She died, possibly of leukemia, at age
66, having outlived most of her generation. Nuclear wastes must surely
be one of the most difficult and thorny topics to address in the complete
absence of perspective, which is the way they are usually addressed. The
general belief seems to be that only nuclear wastes are dangerous or socially
damaging not only now, but also into the far distant future, and that
wastes from other sources of energy are not. This general lack of perspective,
and inability to compare social risks today and over time, is not only
unnerving, but also expensive and hazardous to society's continued health.”
“The issues of nuclear power, radiation, and nuclear wastes
are rife with ignorance, political manipulation, environmental obfuscation,
and fear. As a result, they are either a political minefield, or a goldmine
of emotions, depending upon which side of these politicized issues you
stand...”
- Dr. John K. Sutherland, Health Physicist
Nuclear
Waste Perspectives
“…Nearly everyone agrees privately that safe disposal of
spent fuel or other high-level radioactive material is not a technical
problem, but a political one… If one accepts the view apparently
held by the majority of scientists working in the nuclear waste field
that public apprehension regarding the problem is grossly exaggerated,
then it is reasonable to ask how this condition came to exist. How did
the myth evolve? …the public has been rational. Their fears and
apprehensions are understandable, given the information available to them.”
“In ancient times, myths (beliefs not necessarily based upon fact)
became embedded in the folklore of a culture over long periods of time
by passing from generation to generation. Often such myths were embellished
and amplified with each passage. Laws and rules governing society, such
as the witchcraft laws in colonial America, were predicated on such beliefs
since they came to be regarded as fundamental truths. Today, in the age
of mass communication, myths can become established far more quickly.
The advent of science during the last few centuries may have had a mitigating
effect on adherence to mythology, particularly in modem societies, but
this is by no means always the case. The folklore regarding nuclear waste
presents a particular case in point where beliefs, not supported by science
and logic, have played a major role in the development of our policies,
rules and laws.”
- Jerry J. Cohen, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Nuclear Waste Disposal: the Nature of the Problem
 size:
130Kb
Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycle:
Next
generation nuclear reactors with
a pyroprocessing-based
fuel cycle can provide a vast improvement in energy efficiency. By
recycling spent fuel, such a fast reactor system can deliver 100 times
more energy from available uranium resources than today's reactors without harmful
greenhouse gas emissions thereby assuring a sustainable long-term energy source.
The Closed fuel cycle — A closed fuel cycle reprocesses
spent reactor fuel to extract uranium and plutonium, the main elements
that power the reactor. The alternative is to place spent fuel in repositories
without reprocessing. Some closed fuels cycles, such as Argonne’s
pyroprocessing technology, extract minor actinides—waste elements
such as neptunium and americium that take hundreds of thousands of
years
to decay—along with uranium and plutonium and recycle them all
into new fuel. The reactor destroys the actinides by fission as it generates
electricity. With the actinides gone, the short-lived wastes need environmental
isolation for less than 1,000 years. "In that time,"
said John Sackett, Argonne associate laboratory director for engineering
research, "they decay until they are less radioactive than
the natural ore the original fuel came from. You’d still need
repositories, but you’d have less material to fill them, and
they would be less costly to build and maintain."
Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste — By William H. Hannum, Gerald
E. Marsh and George S. Stanford
size:
575Kb — Fast-neutron reactors
could extract much more energy from recycled nuclear fuel, minimize
the risks of weapons proliferation and markedly reduce the time nuclear waste must be isolated.
The
Path to Sustainable Nuclear Energy September 2005
Basic and Applied Research Opportunities for Advanced Fuel Cycles
size: 853 Kb - 22 pages
ADVANCED FUEL CYCLE INITIATIVE (AFCI) — PROGRAM PLAN May
1, 2005
size: 1.5Mb - 100 pages
Future Nuclear
Fission Power Plant Technology — Generation IV
Scientists at Argonne
National Laboratory are developing a new generation of Nuclear Reactors.
The technology is called IFR which stands for Integral Fast Reactor. The
technology is also called AFR which stands for Advanced Fast Reactor.
Read what a nuclear physicist says about Integral Fast Reactors:
Integral
Fast Reactors: Source of Safe, Abundant, Non-Polluting Power by George
S. Stanford, Ph.D. nuclear reactor physicist, now retired from Argonne
National Laboratory after a career of experimental work pertaining to
power-reactor safety.
“There's another huge benefit, of course. If nothing
better comes along, the IFR can supply the world with pollution-free energy
for thousands of years.” — George Stanford, Ph.D.
Passively
safe reactors rely on nature to keep them cool by David Baurac, director
of public information for the Argonne National Laboratory.
Argonne's advanced fast reactor (AFR) has demonstrated its passive
safety conclusively on a working prototype. "Back in 1986, we
actually gave a small prototype advanced fast reactor a couple of
chances to melt
down," says Argonne nuclear engineer Pete Planchon, who led
the 1986 tests. "It politely refused both times."
Read more about Integral/Advanced Fast Reactors:
Dr.
Charles Till Nuclear physicist and associate lab director at Argonne
National Laboratory West in Idaho. He is co-developer of the Integral
Fast Reactor, an inherently safe nuclear reactor with a closed fuel cycle.
The radioactive isotopes in spent nuclear fuel are of two types:
fission products and actinides. The fission products as a group have
an effective half-life of about thirty years. It takes only about 500
years for their toxicity to drop below that of the natural uranium ore
from which their parent atoms came.
The actinides, on the other hand, have long half-lives, and their
toxicity level is orders of magnitude greater for millions of years.
In pyroprocessing, the actinides are easily recovered and recycled back
into the reactor. This reduces the effective lifetime of the nuclear
waste from tens of thousands of years to a few hundred, and meanwhile
energy is generated by fissioning the actinides.
A repository is still needed, but its performance specifications
can be much less stringent without the long-lived actinides. Furthermore,
the repository's capacity is increased substantially because the long-term
heat source is eliminated. And the disposal site does not become a geological
plutonium deposit, waiting to be mined by a would-be bomb-maker in the
distant future, when the isotopic suitability of the plutonium for weapons
will have improved considerably.
Nonproliferation: The nuclear materials in the
closed fuel cycle cannot be used directly in weapons, because pyroprocessing
is unable to separate pure plutonium. Instead, the plutonium is mixed
at all times with uranium, other actinides, and fission products. The
mixture is protected against theft or unauthorized diversion because
it is dauntingly radioactive and must be handled remotely with sophisticated,
specialized equipment.
Pyroprocessing systems are compact, and the fuel-cycle facility
can easily be collocated with the reactor, all but eliminating the need
to transport nuclear fuel.
Yoon I. Chang
Adapted from a talk delivered at Argonne National Laboratory, September
28, 2001
Advanced
Fast Reactor: A Next Generation Nuclear Energy Concept
Argonne
National Laboratory, along with the Idaho
National Laboratory (INL), is leading
U.S. participation in the
Generation IV project, an international effort to develop the
next generation of Closed fuel cycle advanced nuclear reactors.
The
INL Nuclear Energy Program Descriptions
Building on the role as the nation's leading center of nuclear energy
research and development, the INL will devote significant resources
to national priorities including:
- DOE's Generation IV nuclear reactor project
- Generation IV International Forum
- Nuclear Power 2010
- Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
- Fusion safety
- Hydrogen
Six Generation IV technology
concepts have been selected for R&D
With a robust R&D effort, most of those concepts could be developed
and deployed by the year 2020. And each is aimed at meeting projected
power needs in the mid-21st century. For example, several concepts—
most prominently, the very-high-temperature gas-cooled reactor—have
a higher output temperature and are therefore attractive for process heat
applications. These concepts also would be well-suited to produce hydrogen
in quantity and at an attractive price. Nuclear power currently is one
of the most attractive means of large-scale production of hydrogen.
Japan is focusing on the sodium-cooled reactor, with its significant
potential for recycling of spent nuclear fuel in the near future. The
United States, on the other hand, is presently most interested in the
very-high-temperature gas-cooled reactor because it seems to have the
best potential to support the development of a hydrogen economy.
The six Gen IV reactor concepts shown with illustrations:
Gas-Cooled
Fast Reactor (GFR)
features a fast-neutron-spectrum, helium-cooled reactor and closed fuel
cycle.
Molten
Salt Reactor (MSR)
produces fission power in a circulating molten salt fuel mixture with
an epithermal-spectrum reactor and a full actinide recycle fuel cycle.
Sodium-Cooled
Fast Reactor (SFR)
features a fast-spectrum, sodium-cooled reactor and closed fuel cycle
for efficient management of actinides and conversion of fertile uranium.
Lead-Cooled
Fast Reactor (LFR)
features a fast-spectrum lead or lead/bismuth eutectic liquid metal-cooled
reactor and a closed fuel cycle for efficient conversion of fertile uranium
and management of actinides.
Supercritical-Water-Cooled
Reactor (SCWR)
is a high-temperature, high-pressure water-cooled reactor that operates
above the thermodynamic critical point of water (374 degrees Celsius,
22.1 MPa, or 705 degrees Fahrenheit, 3208 psia).
Very-High-Temperature
Reactor (VHTR)
a graphite-moderated, helium-cooled reactor with a once-through uranium
fuel cycle, designed to supply heat with core outlet temperatures of 1,000
degrees Celsius, which enables applications such as hydrogen production
or process heat for the petrochemical industry or others.
A robust R&D effort like The Manhattan Project could deploy these
reactors before 2020.
New
Life for Nuclear Power: By Alvin M. Weinberg
"If nuclear reactors receive normal maintenance, they will
never wear out, and this will profoundly affect the economic performance
of the reactors. Time annihilates capital costs. The economic Achilles'
heel of nuclear energy has been its high capital cost. In this respect,
nuclear energy resembles renewable energy sources such as wind turbines,
hydroelectric facilities, and photovoltaic cells, which have high capital
costs but low operating expenses. If a reactor lasts beyond its amortization
time, the burden of debt falls drastically. Indeed, according to one
estimate, fully amortized nuclear reactors with total electricity production
costs (operation and maintenance, fuel, and capital costs) below 2 cents
per kilowatt hour are possible. Electricity that inexpensive would make
it economically feasible to power operations such as seawater desalinization...
If power reactors are virtually immortal, we have in principle achieved
nuclear electricity too cheap to meter. But there is a major catch.
The very inexpensive electricity does not kick in until the reactor
is fully amortized, which means that the generation that pays for the
reactor is giving a gift of cheap electricity to the next generation.
Because such altruism is not likely to drive investment, the task becomes
to develop accounting or funding methods that will make it possible
to build the generation capacity that will eventually be a virtually
permanent part of society's infrastructure.
If the only benefit of these reactors is to produce less expensive electricity
and the market is the only force driving investment, then we will not
see a massive investment in nuclear power. But if immortal reactors
by their very nature serve purposes that fall outside of the market
economy, their original capital cost can be handled in the way that
society pays for infrastructure."
-Alvin M. Weinberg is a former director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams — Rethinking nuclear power
Video: Is nuclear energy the answer to our dependency on oil? France thinks so
Opposing views:
Sierra Club's Position on Nuclear Power
Rocky
Mountain Institute's Position on Nuclear Power
Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Position on Nuclear Power
Supporting views:
Greenspan Says
U.S. 'On The Edge' of Recession
— Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan on February 14,
2008 said the U.S. economy is “clearly on the edge” of a recession.
High oil prices are dragging on the economy, but the fact that they haven't
done more damage shows its resiliency.
Crude oil futures hit above $95 a barrel on February 14, 2008
and went above $100 in early January.
Greenspan said he would like to see additional use of electric cars.
Nuclear power makes the “most sense” to
increase U.S. power generation when all trade-offs are weighed; “We
have to use nuclear,” Greenspan said.
The Future of Nuclear Energy —Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
A distinguished team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard released
today what co-chair Dr. John Deutch calls "the most comprehensive, interdisciplinary study ever conducted on
the future of nuclear energy." The report maintains that "The nuclear option should be retained precisely
because it is an important carbon-free source of power."
The
Inevitable Nuclear Resurgence, and the Inevitable Panic Attacks
By Dr. John K. Sutherland, Chief Scientist, Edutech Enterprises
Nuclear power is the only green solution
By Dr. James
Lovelock
—Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction,
the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has
proved to be the safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer
from chemicals or radiation. Nearly one third of us will die of cancer anyway, mainly because we breathe air
laden with that all pervasive carcinogen, oxygen.
Nuclear energy for
the 21st century — Speech by James
Lovelock to the International Conference in Paris, March 2005.
Going Nuclear — By
Dr. Patrick Moore, former Leader of Greenpeace, April 16, 2006
Idaho Energy Complex — FAQ
By Don Gillispie, CEO
Letters to the Editor By
James Hopf and Dr. Denis
Beller
Should
the U.S. increase use of nuclear power to produce electricity? By
Llewellyn King
The Price
of Nuclear Illiteracy By Ron Bengtson, Founder of AmericanEnergyIndependence.com
Supporting organizations:
www.nvnuclearenergy.org
www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org —American
Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, John F. Kotek, Executive Director
Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy
Clean and Safe Energy Coalition — Co-Founded
by Dr. Patrick Moore, Former Leader of Greenpeace; And Christine
Todd Whitman, Former NJ Governor and EPA Administrator.
Recommended reading about Nuclear Energy:
Radiation And Modern Life: Fulfilling Marie Curie's Dream
—
by Alan E. Waltar
Introduction by Dr. Hélène Langevin-Joliot, granddaughter
of Marie Curie
|
|
“Radiation has existed since the very beginning of the
universe...”
In this overview of radiation's many great benefits and as yet untapped potential, Dr. Alan E. Waltar, past president of the American Nuclear Society, explains how this important energy source has been harnessed to serve a plethora of humanitarian functions. Through the use of anecdotes, Waltar provides numerous examples of radiation's many uses in agriculture, medicine, electricity generation, modern industry, transportation, public safety, environmental protection, space exploration, and even archeology and the arts. Estimating the total financial contribution of all these varied uses, Waltar comes to the revelation that radiation technology now contributes more than $420 billion to the US economy and provides over 4.4 million jobs. In the future, Dr. Waltar foresees continuous improvement in many areas of science, industry, and medicine through tapping the incredible potential of Marie Curie's initial insights.
|
 |
|
A brighter tomorrow—fulfilling the promise of nuclear energy
—
by U.S. Senator Pete Domenici
Foreword by former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn
|
|
Senator
Domenici has written a compelling story, one that will give you an insider's
view of the politics and history of nuclear energy in America.
A brighter tomorrow—fulfilling the promise of nuclear energy is
a must read for anyone who cares about energy independence.
The book is also a good read if you just want to know what happened
to nuclear energy development in the USA.
Pete Domenici has written more than just a history of nuclear
energy — he also tells us about the current efforts in Congress
to revitalize the nuclear industry. The need for nuclear energy
today cannot be overstated, because it is the only proven
emission free energy source that can provide reliable baseload
electricity, 7 days a week, 24 hours
a day, 365 days a year, under all weather conditions.
Imagine if you could fill the gas tank in you car once, and
then drive continuously for a full year without needing to
fill up again. That is what nuclear fuel does for a nuclear
power plant. This means that nuclear energy is not vulnerable
to the problems of short term price swings created by spikes
in demand for fuel.
Nuclear energy will never suffer the fuel shortages and price
swings that threaten power plants that are dependent on natural
gas.
|
In this book, Senator Pete Domenici, former chairman
of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
describes what he believes would be the solution to the problem
of nuclear waste. Only the most fearful and foolish people
believe technology has reached its limits. It is self-evident
that technology will advance beyond our present capabilities.
Many futurists would say that is an understatement. Because
scientific knowledge is increasing exponentially, it is certain
that future technology will be capable of reducing or eliminating
the dangers of nuclear waste.
The Senator has proposed that spent nuclear fuel be transferred
from the nuclear plant on site storage pools, to a federal
interim storage site where it would be kept above ground for
the next 50 to 75 years — Safely guarded and available
for research. Over the next 50-75 years, significant investment
in
reprocessing
and transmutation research will produce advances in technology until
spent nuclear fuel is no longer considered
a problem. The radioactivity will be changed so that it decays
to the level of natural uranium in less than 500 years, rather
than thousands of years. And, because
of advanced
fuel reprocessing, the total volume of disposable nuclear waste, which is
already small by comparison to the volume of waste created by any other industry, would
be less
than 5% of the volume removed from a nuclear power plant today.
Senator Domenici cites Dr.
Denis Beller in Atomic
Time Machines, where Dr. Beller describes the
Transmutation
technology,
which can neutralize radioactive material.
I think the book gives a fair and accurate description of
the anti-nuclear groups. Nuclear energy is not
a right-wing conspiracy. Congressional support for nuclear
energy is a bipartisan initiative, one that includes support
from Democrats and prominent environmentalists. The Senator
exposes the deceptive practices of anti-nuclear
organizations.
Ron Bengtson
Founder
AmericanEnergyIndependence.com
|
Power to Save the World—The Truth About Nuclear Energy
—
by Gwyneth Cravens
Introduction by Richard Rhodes
In this timely book, Gwyneth Cravens takes an informed and clarifying
look at the myths, the fears, and the truth about nuclear energy.
With concerns about catastrophic global warming mounting,
it is vital that we examine all our energy options. Power
to Save the World describes the efforts of one determined
woman, Gwyneth Cravens, initially a skeptic about nuclear
power, as she spends nearly a decade immersing herself in
the subject. She teams up with a leading expert in risk assessment
and nuclear safety who is also a committed environmentalist
to trace the path of uranium—the source of nuclear fuel—from
start to finish. As we accompany them on visits to mines as
well as to experimental reactor laboratories, fortress-like
power plants, and remote waste sites normally off-limits to
the public, we come to see that we already have a feasible
way to address the causes of global warming on a large scale.
On the nuclear tour, Cravens converses with scientists from
many disciplines, public health and counterterrorism experts,
engineers, and researchers who study both the harmful and
benign effects of radiation; she watches remote-controlled
robotic manipulators unbolt a canister of spent uranium fuel
inside a “hot cell” bathed in eerie orange light;
observes the dark haze from fossil-fuel combustion obscuring
once-pristine New Mexico skies and the leaky, rusted pipes
and sooty puddles in a coal-fired plant; glimpses rainbows
made by salt dust in the deep subterranean corridors of a
working nuclear waste repository.
She refutes the major arguments against nuclear power one
by one, making clear, for example, that a stroll through Grand
Central Terminal exposes a person to more radiation than a
walk of equal length through a uranium mine; that average
background radiation around Chernobyl and in Hiroshima is
lower than in Denver; that there are no “cancer clusters” near
nuclear facilities; that terrorists could neither penetrate
the security at an American nuclear plant nor make an atomic
bomb from its fuel; that nuclear waste can be—and already
is—safely stored; that wind and solar power, while important,
can meet only a fraction of the demand for electricity; that
a coal-fired plant releases more radiation than a nuclear
plant and also emits deadly toxic waste that kills thousands
of Americans a month; that in its fifty-year history American
nuclear power has not caused a single death. And she demonstrates
how, time and again, political fearmongering and misperceptions
about risk have trumped science in the dialogue about the
feasibility of nuclear energy.
In the end, we see how nuclear power has been successfully
and economically harnessed here and around the globe to become
the single largest displacer of greenhouse gases, and how
its overall risks and benefits compare with those of other
energy sources.
Power to Save the World is an eloquent, convincing argument
for nuclear power as a safe energy source and an essential
deterrent to global warming.
About the Author
Gwyneth Cravens has published five novels. Her fiction and
nonfiction have appeared in The New Yorker, where she also
worked as a fiction editor, and in Harper’s Magazine,
where she was an associate editor. She has contributed articles
and op-eds on science and other topics to Harper’s Magazine,
The New York Times, and The Washington Post. She grew up in
New Mexico and now lives on eastern Long Island, where she
was part of the opposition to the Shoreham Nuclear Power
Plant. In her book Power to Save the World—The Truth
About Nuclear Energy,
Gwyneth Cravens tells us how she became convinced that her
anti-nuclear beliefs were wrong and Nuclear energy is
safe.
|
The
Nuclear Energy Option By Dr. Bernard L. Cohen
The Need for
Nuclear Power By Richard Rhodes and Dr. Denis Beller
Why the French like Nuclear Energy — In
France, unlike in America, nuclear energy is accepted, even popular
Nuclear
Waste Perspectives By John K. Sutherland, Chief Scientist, Edutech
Enterprises
Nuclear
Waste Perspectives - Part II — Spent Fuel is too valuable
to be Nuclear Waste
Nuclear Power Comparisons and Perspective Caution: Reading this article
may prove dangerous to your perceptions about nuclear power, energy in
general, and low-grade but well-heeled environmental activism.
Back to the Nuclear Future
By Dr. Denis Beller
The
Silence of the Nuke Protesters:
Atomic power is making a comeback in the U.S., with only muffled squawks
from the usual opponents. Could that have something to do with the price
of oil? Or maybe global warming?
U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman:
Nuclear power is safe, clean and reliable. And, for the foreseeable future, it is the only mature,
emissions-free technology that can supply the power America will need to meet the projected increase
in demand for electricity over the next 25 years.
Nuclear Energy Basics:
U.S. DOE Nuclear Literacy
NuclearInfo.net
—Everything you want to know about Nuclear Power
U.S. Nonproliferation Policy:
THE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY
— A White Paper Presented by the
American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness
size: 194Kb - 34 pages
Cost of Nuclear Energy:
The Economics of Nuclear Power (March 2008)
The New
Economics of Nuclear Power Report
— This World Nuclear Association Report (December 2005) entitled “The New Economics
of Nuclear Power” provides international perspective and definitive analysis of the costs of constructing
and operating nuclear power plants in the 21st century.
size: 310Kb - 32 pages
Nuclear Power Plant Fuel:
Nuclear Power Plant Fuel
World Uranium Reserves
Uranium Information
Centre
Physical
Properties of Uranium
Spent Nuclear Fuel (Waste):
Radiation tutorial
Radiation and Life
Plutonium Peril - 1999
Yucca
Mountain Project
Nuclear Waste Disposal
Nuclear Waste: The Facts
Nuclear Waste Perspectives
Used Nuclear Fuel Management
U.S. Nuclear Waste Review Board
High Level Waste Storage and Disposal
Dry Cask Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel
The Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative (AFCI)
Accelerator driven Transmutation System
U.N. report fuels Chernobyl radiation debate
Spent Nuclear Fuel 300-Year Disposal Solution
Spent Fuel is too valuable to be Nuclear Waste
How Much Nuclear Waste is in the United States?
PBS interview with a former U.S. Nuclear Waste Negotiator
Transportation to Yucca Mountain nothing for Nevadans to worry about
Radiation degrades nuclear waste-containing materials faster than expected
Reprocessing method could allay weapons fear — By Gerald E. Marsh and George S. Stanford
Energy
Department-funded Scientists Decode DNA of Bacterium that Cleans Up Uranium
Contamination and Generates Electricity
Nuclear Radiation:
www.RadioChemistry.org
Dirty Bombs - Know the facts
Understanding Radiation: Its Effects and Benefits
Human Health Aspects of High-level Radioactive Waste
Health Effects of Low-Level Radiation — Low-level radiation from natural or manmade sources is unlikely to harm human health.
Health Hazards Associated with Interviewing Antinuclear Activists
size: 14Kb - 1 page
Uranium in Coal Combustion:
* how many people know that
burning coal to produce electricity releases radioactive particles into the
atmosphere?
Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash
Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger?
Unique and Historical Agreement for Non-Conventional Uranium Resource Evaluation
in China
Nuclear Safety and Security:
The History
of Nuclear Safety
Plant Safety: Defense in Depth
Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors
Regulation: Effective Plant Oversight
Dispelling Myths About Nuclear Energy
Why do Americans fear Nuclear Power?
Advocates laud safety of new nuclear reactors
The World Association
of Nuclear Operators (WANO)
—WANO is an organisation created to improve
safety at every nuclear power plant in the world.
The TMI 2 Accident: Its Impact, Its Lessons
Three Mile Island and the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations
Nuclear Power Plant Security Praised By Coordinators of Terrorism Simulation
------
Independent study demonstrates through state-of-the-art computer modeling
techniques that structures housing reactor fuel at U.S. nuclear power
plants would protect against a release of radiation even if struck by
a large commercial jetliner.
Aircraft Crash Impact Analyses Demonstrate Nuclear Power Plant's Structural
Strength
size: 370Kb - 10 pages
------
Transportation
National Academies Report Endorses Safety Record of Used Nuclear Fuel Transport System
------
Transporting Nuclear Waste
Transportation Container Cutaway Illustration
Safety Every Step of the Way: Diagram
Fact Sheet: Spent Nuclear Fuel Transportation
Department
of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management's (OCRWM)
------
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC)
Nuclear Fission links:
Nuclear Power
NuclearInfo.net
www.nuclear.gov
Nuclear resources
Molten salt reactor
Nuclear Power 2010
About Nuclear Energy
Idaho Energy Complex
www.aboutnuclear.org
Nuclear's Quiet Comeback
Pressurized Water Reactors
www.SustainableNuclear.org
Wayne's View of Nuclear Power
Preventing nuclear proliferation
Introduction to the ALMR/PRISM
The Pebble-Bed Nuclear Reactor
—South Africa:
www.pbmr.co.za
China plans nuclear energy future
The Radiation Information Network
World Nuclear Generation of Electricity
Nuclear Cycles and Nuclear Resources
Nuclear Energy Research
Initiative (NERI)
Nuclear plants may be clean hydrogen source
Nuclear Fission
at Argonne National Laboratory
Frequently Asked Questions About Nuclear Energy
Nuclear Cycles and Nuclear Resources
PBS interview with Glenn Seaborg—Nobel Laureate and one of the founding
fathers of the atomic age
A nuclear fission reactor at the center of the Earth:
Nuclear
Planet —Earth is a gigantic natural nuclear power plant,
Says geophysicist J. Marvin Herndon
Natural Nuclear Reactors
High-Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) Transmission:
GE
HVDC technology
ABB HVDC technology
Superconducting Transmission Lines
Nanotechnology leads to discovery of super superconductors
High-Voltage Composite Electricity Transmission Lines:
Composite
Technology Corporation
Composite-Reinforced Aluminum Conductor (CRAC)
CRAC-TelePower: Electricity and Data over the same line
Produced by the California Energy Commission
The 44 page report is a 238 KB Adobe PDF document.
Investment Capital for New Energy Technology:
Zero Interest Financing for American
Energy Independence Projects
Fusion Research:
|
