AUGUST 2009
Image:
Terrible Thing to Waste
One of the most important messages in Matthew L. Wald’s “What Now for Nuclear Waste?” is that we really have several options for handling nuclear waste. All the options, whether aboveground storage for a couple of hundred years until we decide on the next step, reprocessing fuel to remove the long-lived isotopes to be burned in a fast reactor, or even the original plan for burying spent fuel will have little to no impact on future generations or the environment. There are no plausible scenarios for controlling climate change that do not require use of nuclear energy. Apart from hydroelectricity, it is the only base-load source that does not require burning fossil fuels. For this country, there are no new major hydro sources available. Unfortunately, as Wald notes, the process for deciding how we ultimately handle nuclear waste has been driven largely by politics and not science. It is time, however, that we mature past the disingenuous arguments about nuclear waste as a roadblock to any new nuclear plants and build the facilities we need.
William H. Miller
Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute
University of Missouri–Columbia
In a Parallel Universe ...
It’s such a shame the Neandertals had to leave us, as Kate Wong recounts in “Twilight of the Neandertals.” Imagine sharing the planet with another race of stocky people like Tolkien’s dwarfs! What I can’t grasp is why we need to explain them away as anatomically inferior evolutionary dead ends. Maybe in some parallel universe, things went the other way. The Neandertal would be studying our bones and talking about how we were built weaker, had smaller brains, and were poorly adapted to the cold during an ice age. Of course we died out!
Our own history has seen plenty of civilizations go extinct while others have expanded to fill the void, and we are all built the same way. So why did we luck out over the Neandertal? Who knows? Maybe we had developed a higher level of social organization? Maybe when you get started in a more agreeable climate, you have time to experiment with higher concepts like extended tribal networks and such? We may never know what gave us an edge, but I’d rather not jump to conclusions about our mental or physical superiority.
Edward K. Chew
Kingston, Ontario
Why do your close-up illustrations of supposed Neandertals show them as overweight, aging, puffy-skinned, sparsely bearded guys with bad hairstyles? Where is the archaeological evidence for any of these traits in representative Neandertals? Okay, they may have had heavy browridges and big ears, but so did Clark Gable, so why not use him as your model? The Neandertal guys were probably very proud of their neatly trimmed pencil moustaches—consistent with the real evidence for bone tools, blades and decorated bodies.
Peter Brooker
West Wickham, England
THE EDITORS REPLY: Wong’s “Who Were the Neandertals?” (April 2000) featured an attractive female Neandertal gazing into a mirror.
Laissez-Faire?
The ongoing debate on genetically modified crops, as espoused in “A Seedy Practice” [Scientific American Perspectives], is not about stopping public relations efforts by these companies. Companies market products, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Nor is it about whether I or anyone else thinks genetically modified foods are good or bad. The problem is that today these claims are mostly opinion, because independent research is not available to properly inform discussions.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add Comment"...whether above ground storage for a couple of hundred years until we decide on the next step, reprocessing fuel to remove the long-lived isotopes to be burned in a fast reactor, or even the original plan for burying spent fuel will have little to no impact on future generations or the environment."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhoever wrote that should be forced to take remedial reading. Burying or storing above ground definitely WILL affect future generations - as alluded to in the "next step."
Reprocessing will just mean more reactors - and the possibility of different accidents-leaks etc.
100% of the heat produced by these reactors is not used to generate power and has a large affect on local environments.
This article is clearly written by a biased (for NP) individual.
I agree with everything you said. Nuclear power, no matter how safe you make it, will remain the most dangerous source on the earth and it will always be the first target of smart terrorists. Its small benefit will never out weigh its multitude of dangers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMake no mistake, the continued use of fossil fuels is dangerous as is evidenced by the smog clouds that hover over most populated areas. Doing just a little research and it quickly becomes apparent that there are far more deaths and injuries related to coal and other fossil based power production every year than any produced in the history of nuclear power. So, when comparing fossil based power production to nuclear production, the main question we really should be asking is which is the least dangerous. Is it the air polluting fossil plants, or the isolated storage of nuclear waste. Although I am not a Nuclear scientist, it's my understanding that nuclear power plants produce far less waste per kilowatt of power than any fossil plant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet us be clear. The Nuclear power that we all know and love is based on "slow" fission reactors. They are about as safe as man can engineer them. Great safe machines. The "new" nuclear reactors everyone is talking about are "fast fission" or "breeder" reactors. Do not confuse this "nuclear" with the old nuclear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan the "fast" reactors be operated in a manner that approaches the old? This is what must be clearly (with-out hype) demonstrated. In the past such fast reactors were plagued by accidents/mis-operations. I was involved, in those days and my hair still stands on end when I think of hundreds of "commercial" breeders running (many in third world countries) .
Don't get me wrong, I believe "nuclear" is our only immediate bridge to new energy technologies of the future, however we must proceed very cautiously. GK
What about the water required to cool the reactors? Scientific American itself poses this question in Earth 2.0 or 3.0 (don't remember which one). Nuclear is the current highest water use source of power over all others. The understandable focus to isolate problems for easier solutions is, in this case, not seeing the forest for the trees. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what the source of the opposition to nuclear is either. Which of you pro nuclear types will feel the same when a terrorist target is built in your immediate area or a radioactive spill happens and your home is threatened? And what about a $10 billion a piece cost times 100 plants (heavily gov't subsidized too), with a 10-20 year lag between money spent and power produced? Funny how many who are against gov't interference in business have no problem with direct intervention in business (corporate welfare) if it benefits them or their companies. By just about all measures nuclear power generation is a dumb idea who's time is long gone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLearn the truth about Energy here (click on the view intro video button):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.terrestrialenergy.org/
Check this book out:
http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Economy-Zachary-Moitoza/dp/1441561269
You see that bit of Yellowcake that the author is holding in his right hand. That is enough to supply all of your lifetime’s energy needs. And the amount of Nuclear Waste you will generate is about the same.
Better yet, read the above book, get yourself educated on Nuclear Energy. The survival of the next generation depends upon it.
The author’s conclusion:
“…In the face of economic and environmental collapse, and so-called “renewables” not measuring up, people are finally starting to realize the little secret that only nuclear power can revitalize the economy and the environment… In June 2009, at an annual shareholder meeting in DAllas, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson said that the age of fossil fuels would last 100 years because there is no alternative. Conveniently, this is just long enough for most of the fossil fuels to be burnt, even coal. This book was written precisely to show that there is one alternative, which the fossil fuel industries rarely seem to mention. Petroleum man may be nearing extinction, but uranium man must rise to take his place… Energy can be a tough subject to understand, and the fossil fuel industries have benefited from an uninformed public… the time to end energy ignorance is now…”
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/27/the-nuclear-economy/
There are lot of people here, who think this Oil fueled paradise we have lived in for the past 100 yrs, with typical raw energy costs of ½ cent per kwh, will just continue into the future, by wishing and hoping, and not doing anything except investing in Wind at 13 cents per kwh for intermittent, unreliable power, or Solar at >40 cents per kwh. Fools, you have NO IDEA what is coming down the pipe. Latest, and most reliable news is World Oil production Peaked at 74.7 MBD on July 8. And it’s going down fast, while non-OECD demand continues to rise, dramatically in spite of the recession. See:
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/ccst20091119.png
France swapped out Oil and Coal for Nuclear in 20 yrs, with a modest build, using a run-of-the-mill US design, modified it and standardized it. Electrify their transportation sector, build a few more Nuclear plants, maybe add some Nuclear CHP and some small Hyperion type reactors and JOB DONE!
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/FRELEC.pdf
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/DKELEC.pdf
I don't understand the claim that nuclear power does not use fossil fuels. That is true, or nearly so, at the reactor site. However, the mining, refining, and especially enrichment are done with fossil fueled equipment. In addition the massive amounts of concrete, refined metals and exotic materials required to construct a reactor all require fossil fuels to create. and transport. I would love to read an honest assessment of this issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEVERYTHING requires fossil fuel at some point, how do you think wind generators or solar cells are built, transported, installed, maintained and disposed of? I think nuclear would compare favorably to any fair investigation, especially when judged against its power output.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe terrorist argument doesn't really work for me either. To operate and pose a credible threat, terrorists need money. And they are getting it indirectly from fossil fuel. That's where I fear the terrorism arguments will turn on you. Solar and wind will not be able to carry the base load, people will be unwilling to sacrifice their lifestyle and desperate politicians will grasp for the fastest fix, which is fossil fuel.
The issue of fossil fuel requirements for creating and maintaing a nuclear power generation system is a matter of degree. How much is really required? Where is the credible assessment? Building reactors and providing for an ongoing nuclear fuel supply requires ongoing use of fossil fuels, perhaps in very large amounts. How large?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe claim that nuclear power does not use fossil fuels or otherwise create greenhouse gases is very, very wrong. Is anyone prepared and qualified to make credible estimates before we commit in ignorance, as we did with ethanol?
The main problems with nukes are cost and only utility scale. But CSP solar/$2.5k/kw, wind/$1.5k/kw, kinetic river/tidal power/$2k/kw, regular hydro, biomass, passive solar, eff/conservation are all lower cost than nuke, oil, NG or coal once in real mass production.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the real, full cost of oil, coal, nuke direct and indirect subsidies were in them instead of in our income taxes, health care, etc then RE is by far a better, cheaper energy source. There is no shortage of energy, just the simple equipment to catch, make and use RE.
And storage as heat or electricity by lead batteries is only $10/kwhr/yr so storage costs are not a factor. In fact they can by charging cheaply at night/off peak and selling at peak, can pay for themselves, even make a profit as EV's can too with V2G and their 10-30kwhr battery packs and 50-200kw inverters they already have.
1 simple detail is by making your own energy you double your savings as any utility doubles their cost to sell it to you.
The question is not whether we can afford RE, it whether we can afford to not use it.
In 70 year's time (at the latest) all economical uranium sources will have been extracted. If we treble the number of nuclear sites, sources will run out in 25 year's time. So no new plant can pay its way. Who said 'We are storing up a treasure for you in Heaven'. A radioactive treasure for future generations it seems...And who will foot the bill?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisecosteve, you are talking utter nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne tonne of depleted uranium, will fuel a 1 GW, GenIV nuclear reactor for 1 yr. So why is the pro-Oil, pro-Coal U.S. Gov't planning on permanently disposing of the entire U.S. stockpile of 551,000 tonnes. An extraordinary act of ENVIRONMENTAL TERRORISM!
"...Did you know that our uranium waste is our nation's #1 energy resource? In fact, just in the depleted uranium (DU) waste alone (the stuff left over after natural uranium has been enriched), we have more than 10 times the extractable energy than we have from coal in the ground!..."
"...the energy content contained in LWR spent fuel and depleted uranium resulting from weapons production and enriched LWR new fuel production exceeds all the known oil reserves in the world..."
551,000 tonnes of DU would supply all the current USA electricity production for 1160 yrs.
The Traveling Wave Reactor – Burner of Depleted Uranium:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/files/TerraPowerGilleland.pdf
A Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LIFTR) will produce as much energy from one tonne of natural Thorium as 2.9 million tonnes of Coal and 13 million barrels of Oil. With current (largely unexplored) reserves of Thorium at 4.4 million tonnes, that would supply the entire World's energy needs for 825 years.
The Thorium Molten Salt Reactor would fuel a 1000 MWe power plant for 1 year with 1000 kg of Natural Thorium and generate 1000 kg of waste, 83% of which is valuable for industrial instrumentation, agricultural irradiation and medical cancer treatment and diagnostic imaging. The remaining 170 kg of radioactive waste only needs containment for 300 yrs. The equal sized Coal Power Plant Thorium waste would run the equivalent Thorium Nuclear Power Plant for 11 years.
See Kirk Sorenson video on LIFTR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8
and PowerPoint presentation here:
http://www.energyfromthorium.com/ppt/LFTRGoogleTalk_Bonometti.ppt
Some Facts about Nuclear Fuel Supply:
"...There has been no major new uranium exploration for 20 years, but at current consumption levels, known uranium reserves are predicted to last for 85 years. Geological estimates from the IAEA & the OECD show that at least six times more uranium is extractable – enough for 500 years' supply at current demand (3). Modern reactors can use thorium as a fuel ..."
Well here's my 2 cents worth....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the pretext that global warming will result in catastrophic events then all efforts to avert it should be taken.
We cannot take the risk of going the renew ables only route because if it fails to supply the world's demands then civilization as we know it will be in serious peril. I think these risks far outweigh the risks of nuclear power.
Nuclear foes are correct however - nuclear power is indeed expensive. However all forms of energy will become increasingly expensive and it is a cost we will have to bear.
Another point is that the rest of the world is proceeding ahead with nuclear power and research at great speed with or without us. If the US decides not to go along it will have little or no effect.
I feel very strongly that we must continue to add nuclear until it is proven that renew ables can do the job. If they are as good as some claim they should have no trouble pushing nuclear out of the way, but I'm not willing to take the risk until they are proven.