Nuclear Energy

Global energy need (consider the prevalence of poverty) is on the scale of tens of terawatts (currently ~13 TW). As renewable systems are scaled up, they become more expensive because of their dependence upon the distribution system (a significant cost passed on to consumers) to make up for their intermittency. Additionally, they are inefficient at producing many of the chemicals we require at an industrial scale. Even if solar panels progress to the point where they have reached their maximum theoretical efficiency (I hope they do) with zero cost, the environmental impact will be enormous unless installation is limited. We need to be asking how we can make clean energy cheaper so that more people can use it, rather than trying to make dirty legacy energy more expensive. Taxing carbon without having a comparable or cheaper alternative is just going to spread economic instability.

The most reasonable way to achieve global energy demand for cheap electricity generation, fuel/fertilizer/material synthesis, desalination, and eventually carbon sequestration is to pursue those technologies that are theoretically capable of producing the most energy at the lowest cost while being clean. There turns out to be very few candidates worth looking at. One of those is LFTR/MSR, a liquid-fueled nuclear fission reactor that operates at high temperature and low pressure, providing safe and highly efficient energy at the cost and abundance we require for solving problems related to sustainability. These machines would not need to be placed near water sources (lakes, rivers, aquifers, shorelines), unless for example water feedstock was required for synthesis, desalination, or manufacturing. The superior waste profile of thorium (compared to uranium) significantly reduces the quantity of material required to be sequestered in long-term storage (Yucca Mountain). But technical challenges remain, which is why it would be smart for us to aggressively join the international competition for energy development, the so-called Thorium Race, in a bid to secure our future. The rumor is that China is already putting $100 million annually into MSR development, picking up where we left off decades ago- they top the visitor list over at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Our future is waiting for us, but it won't wait forever.

Thorium is an alternative nuclear fuel to uranium. Its advantages are that it's more abundant than uranium and nuclear reactors based on thorium produce less waste. Research and development in thorium energy has rekindled in recent years driven by the need for a safe alternative to fossil fuels. you can get more information here: http://www.nuclearfriendsfoundation.com

There is long standing studies being done on thorium, with Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, the fuel of the future is here. Here is a link to a video lecture done by Kirk Sorensen, an aerospace engineer and nuclear physicist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8

"Yet funding continues to go toward Uranium-based nuclear energy, mainly because Uranium-based atomic power integrates well with our nuclear weapons program..."

That was an incentive in the early days of nuclear technology and up to the end of the cold war. But that's not true today, with the US's arsenal of nuclear weapons that can still destroy the world many times over, a huge stockpile of plutonium, and 104 power plants still producing more plutonium than they know what to do with. The reluctance is due to other factors, perhaps the overarching one that it's a nightmare to push any new nuclear technology through congress.

China and India are currently pursuing Thorium technology as a cleaner, safer energy source. Oak Ridge National Labs had a working model of a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) which produced energy for seven years before it was decommissioned due to a lack of funding. This technology has been proven. Additionally, the Thorium cycle does not produce Plutonium. Yet funding continues to go toward Uranium-based nuclear energy, mainly because Uranium-based atomic power integrates well with our nuclear weapons program, (even though we are trying to disarm and deter proliferation).

This is a critical question, because it seems nuclear energy makes sense if and only if renewables cannot meet base load demands. At this point I'm reasonably convinced renewables are indeed hard to scale, so I'll advocate building modern nuclear power stations unless new facts or arguments suggesting otherwise come to my attention.

It's disheartening when greens promote their "nuclear is always bad" dogma at every opportunity, especially when nuclear power is arguably the best solution we have to solve the Global Warming problem.

In the case of Japan's nuclear incident, some green politicians are blatantly misinforming the public, saying the Fukushima plants are of the "most advanced technology" available. A basic Wikipedia check shows the Fukushima plants were built in the 1970s.

Interesting blogging heads talk on Fukushima here.

There are three broad energy trajectories (mixtures possible):

1) Continue to use fossil fuels and risk fucking up the planet with millions dying from natural disasters such as floods.
2) Move to renewable energy (and away from fossil fuels, but underinvest in nuclear) and risk fucking up the economy with millions dying from famines and political turmoil.
3) Move to nuclear energy and risk fucking up some cities with thousands or even millions dying from a terrorist acquiring nuclear material.

The utilitarian answer should be to choose the least awful option. Conservatives tend to deny trajectory 1 is a reality. Greens tend to deny trajectory 2 is a reality. As a nuclear advocate, I believe trajectory 3 is a reality, but I think it's a possibly a better reality than trajectories 1 and 2. Some nuclear advocates believe good nuclear designs can mitigate the risks of trajectory 3. I hope they're right. It's unthinkable what could happen if extremists could get their hands on some plutonium.

What will actually happen? Politicians won't allow trajectory 2 to occur (i.e. we'll move to renewables to some extent, but not the point it severely hurts the economy). They will to some extent move towards trajectory 3 (i.e. we'll build more nuclear power plants), but if a big enough nuclear incident happens, they'll be forced back into trajectory 1.

--

Some data now in here:

"The poll, which was conducted by GFK NOP shows a drop of 12% in support for nuclear power to 35% compared with a similar poll conducted by IPSOS MORI in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Opposition to the technology rose 9% to 28%."

"The People’s Republic of China has initiated a research and development project in thorium molten-salt reactor technology". More here.

Is China going to beat the US on clean energy? The senators Orrin Hatch and Harry Reid have tried to sell the merits of using thorium energy to the US government with little success. Steven Chu (the Energy Secretary of the US) was asked about thorium nuclear power research here. His answer seems to be that "normal" (i.e. uranium) based designs are sufficient (perhaps he's right - 4th gen designs are pretty good). OTOH I worry that the lobbyists for nuclear energy want to promote their (uranium based) plant designs, and don't want the competition.

It's efficient, cheap (compared to solar and wind), and doesn't need to be bought from the volatile Middle East.

I think the answer provided is applicable to the question "Does nuclear energy require a significant amount of fossil fuel?”
Because Thorium Fuel Cycle implemented in LFTR reactors has no requirement for mining activities (the mining for rare earths for renewable energy and defense applications will provide ample supplies of Thorium for power generation) and the fact that Thorium requires no enrichment step (which is responsible for generating most of the CO2 footprint for nuclear if coal is used to supply the electricity used in the enrichment process) then Thorium based nuclear energy is the most advantageous and lowest carbon footprint approach to nuclear power generation. Thorium is the most sustainable form of nuclear energy and has the lowest carbon footprint. I am merely showcasing the fact that Thorium Fuel Cycle, one form of nuclear energy production, has the lowest fossil fuel impact and the smallest (net negative) carbon footprint of any form of nuclear power generation.
Furthermore, since LFTRs are significantly smaller for a given power output rating and require less cement and steel to build relative to Light Water Reactors or Sodium Cooled Reactors alternatives. And if magnesium silicate cement is used to build the underground containment building for a new LFTR and a Supercritical CO2 Brayton Cycle turbine generator which uses CO2 as its working fluid is used to transform the heat produced by the reactor into electricity, then from an overall system standpoint, the Thorium LFTR is net carbon negative (building each LFTR has the direct net effect of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere). It can be responsibly proposed that the observed worldwide increase in average CO2 concentration in the atmosphere can be mitigated by building a sufficient number of Thorium LFTR reactors. Just building the LFTRs will reduce CO2 in the atmosphere without ever turning the reactors on. Of course, fueling the LFTRs with Thorium, and replacing the production of electricity from coal, which eliminates the production of 7 million tons of CO2 per Gigawatt-year of energy output, will have an even better result from a CO2 remediation standpoint and will also have the advantage of producing abundant quantities of cheap, clean electrical energy.

The argument hinges on making three assumptions:
1) that the nuclear power plant requires enriched uranium (not true for all reactors but it is true for the majority of existing reactors)
2) that the enrichment process is the old gaseous diffusion process. The newer centrifuge process is much more energy efficient. Most of the old gas diffusion plants are closed or expected to close - they can't compete economically with the newer plants.
3) that coal is the energy source to produce the electricity used in enrichment. Half-true today but if the topic is consideration of transitioning to a mostly nuclear powered electricity grid then it would no longer be true at all.

Several fourth generation reactors (like LFTR, IFR, and TerraPower will not require enrichment once they have been started. In addition, they require dramatically less (100x) mining.

Note: This comment is more applicable to the question Is thorium a viable energy source for the future?.

Additional ideas for related questions:

1) A question regarding should the US reprocess waste
2) A question regarding shipping waste overseas (e.g. france ships waste to russia)

This MIT study is very informative & authorative: http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

It identifies the various aspects of safety:

*reactor safety
*the continuing availability of trained personnel for nuclear operations
*the threat of terrorist attack
*nuclear fuel cycle safety, including nuclear fuel reprocessing
plants.
*dealing with waste
*proliferation

TODO: Each of these separate aspect of safety is a question, each being an implication of the general question: "Is nuclear energy safe"?.