Today the Washington Post published an article detailing the Administration’s plans to reprocess and distribute spent nuclear fuel from abroad. Also part of the mix would be legislation intended to encourage the development of new nuclear power plants. The time for discussion of nuclear power as an energy source is now upon us.
As many of you are aware, there have been no new nuclear reactors commissioned in over two decades. There are a variety of reasons cited for this, but primarily the causes are the extreme expense of new nuclear power plants coupled with strident local opposition (the not-in-my-backyard, or NIMBY, effect). Though the energy output of nuclear facilities has continually increased, filling the gap in energy demand has largely fallen on increases in the share of energy generated from burning natural gas and coal.
I produced the two graphs on the right using data from the DOE’s Annual Energy Review. Notice that hydroelectric energy production has barely increased over the last fifty years, while petroleum has decreased. Natural gas began a steady increase in the mid-80s when new nuclear builds suddenly stopped (notice that the change in slope on nuclear occurs simultaneously with natural gas). Nuclear output has continued to increase as existing facilities have expanded capacity. But the big story is that we now burn twice as much coal as we did in 1975, and the increase is not slowing.
Meanwhile, renewable energy (as a hydrologist, I do not count hydroelectric as a renewable source of energy in the environmental sense) has been unable to increase quickly enough to satiate our demand. The bottom graph shows renewable energy sources by type, and while wind is gaining ground, it is still an extremely tiny part of our total energy capacity. The vertical axis on these graphs is in quadrillion BTUs (quad), and all told renewables account for about 1 million quads, while coal produces 20 million. This is not meant to condemn renewable energy, just merely to put things into perspective.
Disclaimer: I Am Not Neutral on Nuclear Power
Let me state my intentions up front here: I am a staunch environmentalist who’s views are affected by my understanding of science and engineering knowledge and limitations. I am practical in terms of my view of national priorities and economic costs. I am also a geologist by training, and am acutely aware of the geologic timescales on which nuclear fuel remains hazardous, and of how difficult that hazard will be to contain. That said, I am pro-nuclear largely because every year in our country, coal burning kills over 24,000 people each year whereas nuclear power is far more benign (the total number of deaths to to nuclear power is some low number, but the exact number is not at all known, probably something near several thousand including cancers due to uranium mining, and fewer than 100 in nuclear plant failures). Also, nuclear energy is a domestic energy source and as such does not endanger the sovereignty and strength of our nation in terms of our international affairs. I am geo-green, and as part of being geo-green (see Thomas Friendman, “The Geo-Green Alternative”, January 30, 2005), I accept nuclear power as a vital source of electricity.
I am also extremely optimistic about alternative energy sources, particularly wind, and in future energy sources such as fusion and solar power satellites. As I hope to expand upon in future entries, wind energy is continually getting cheaper, but its physical infrastructure is considered an eyesore by many people. Nor can it ever realistically supply the entire nation’s electricity needs. However, the production of the millions of wind turbines that will be needed in the future could be an invaluable source of work for our hundreds of thousands of unemployed heavy manufacturers.
I personally purchase my power at a premium from burning of methane produced by methanogenic bacteria in landfills; thus I power this computer with “renewable” energy. Also, my vehicles are zero net emissions because I purchase carbon equivalent from Terrapass. I recycle everything I possibly can, I plan on buying a kitchen composting machine when I get the spare change, and nearly every possible lightbulb in my house is a compact fluorescent one. I am also very much conservation-minded, though I recognize that conservation as a national policy may remain unrealistic for the forseeable future. So whatever you may want to call me, you cannot accuse me of not being green, and not being concerned about the environment.
Tomorrow’s Nuclear: Pebble Bed or Breeders?
In many ways, the Washington Post story above is fairly surprising. US energy policy has shunned breeder reactors and reprocessing of spent fuel for three decades. Breeder reactors reprocess spent fuel by using some neutron source to convert radioactive wastes into useful radioactive fuels. The trouble with this practice is that fuels must be transported much more often in a reprocessing scheme than in a once-off version. Transport of fuels is the most dangerous part as it subjects potentially hazardous wastes to the vagaries of accidents or attack.
Reprocessing is also not cheap, nor are the technologies for it widely available. Developing the infrastructure and expertise for this undertaking would largely fall on the federal government because of the high risk involved for the private sector. Is this the direction that our energy policy should be moving? Should we pursue a path that is politically untenable and destined to fail rather than spending that money on another way that will produce near-term returns and potentially reduce the costs of producing nuclear energy?
Modular nuclear reactors based on the pebble bed design may be one such way of modernizing our nuclear sector while making it safer and reducing the likelihood of nuclear proliferation. Pebble bed reactors are inherently incapable of reaching runaway criticality (or meltdown), because as their temperature increases they give off neutrons in a wider spread of energies than at lower temperatures. This phenomenon, known as doppler broadening, means that more of those neutrons are absorbed by 238U than by 235U, which is driving the nuclear reaction. Fewer neutrons absorbed by 235U slows the reaction and the temperature stabilizes. This is what’s known as a negative-feedback process, and is critical to the inherent safety of pebble bed nuclear power.
I’ll not go into the gory details of pebble bed plant designs here, but the Wikipedia entry is extensive and informative. I will however explain the “pebbles” themselves as they are key to understanding the long-term risk of a pebble bed nuclear facility. The pebbles are made up of a graphite matrix with embedded particles of Uranium oxide (a ceramic, rather than a metal) seeds. These seeds are quite tiny, and each pebble contains approximately 0.125 mm3 of fissionable materials. Coating the graphite matrix is a silicon carbide fire-proof layer, which is in turn coated by dense graphite. There are concerns that the graphite exterior may be flammable, and that if there are cracks in the pebbles the seeds could release radioactive products. Please read those concerns thoroughly and then read the websites linked to the entry.
I have done this, and based on my understanding of the problem I believe the pebble beds to be inherently extremely safe. Even if a plant fails, as one in Germany did, the release of radioactivity is extremely small, far smaller than the hazards posed by fossil fuel burning. The radioactive wastes that are produced are much less hazardous than by conventional fusion, but are in much greater supply. So, the transportation problem is not entirely solved but the multiple-containment design of the pebbles makes them much safer to move and much less attractive to terrorists or rogue regimes. Also, their graphite structures are a much better containment than the metal vessels we are planning on burying our high-level wastes in at Yucca Mountain, so conceivably just burying them in the ground could be a feasible disposal scheme.
Wired had a glowing recommendation of pebble bed reactors in an article about nuclear energy in China last July. In it, they mentioned the possibility that the high temperature of these systems could be used to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen and thus produce a source of energy to power vehicles. Additionally, on places like school campuses or in large factories, this heat can be used directly to heat and cool buildings. Or, the heat can be used to desalinate water to help alleviate our global thirst. This is exactly what we need out of a future energy source: versatile, reliable, safe, dense, secure, and extendable.
No other source of energy meets all of those requirements today. Not wind, coal, fusion, solar, anything. Pebble bed nuclear reactors and other inherently nuclear designs have the potential to completely replace coal, and meet a growing need for gasoline replacements in the process. America needs to free itself from our energy dependency, and nuclear is the way to do it. But moving backward to reprocessing and breeder reactors seems a move designed to fail. If we truly want to secure the world for our children and leave it habitable in the process, we need nuclear, and we need pebble bed reactors.
Fantastic article! I am glad to hear that you can be pro-nuclear power and still green. I think a lot of the anti-nuclear sentiment is due to misinformation and misunderstanding. Like you said, this is are only long term option that ultimately has the least amount of pollution and meteorological effects (i.e. hydro power slowing rivers to the point of severe destruction, too many wind turbines actually stopping normal weather progression somewhat, not to mention killing passing birds).
The most interesting part of your article is how much effort you felt that you had give to convince everyone how green you are, because if you endorse nuclear power, then you must be a wicked, rootinist-tootinist-pollutinist right-wing conservative anti-environment powermonger capatalist pig.
Anyway, I think your assessment is very well thought out and scientifically justified.
wong name… tp was supposed to be Tom.
Tom aka “I can’t find the knob on the J”,
Thanks! Yeah, normally the whole anti-nuclear/green connection is taken for granted, but I think increasingly views are changing. I am a rootinist-tootinist-capitalist though, and not so friendly to anti-globalization stuff either. Maybe I’ll post about that some day. One nice thing about blogs is that they give individuals whose views don’t fall neatly within the confines of one political party or ideological movement the chance to fully state their own views. And, for others to criticize them freely!
Yes indeed, a great job on this. You are a one-man version of “science in the public interest.” When I got my B.S. in physics and was deciding on grad school in (gulp) 1975 I was choosing between nuclear engineering and optics - I chose the latter, which was a lucky choice in light of what has happened to the nuclear power industry since the 70’s (plus optics has been great).
We really need more people to bridge the gap between “doing what’s best for people and the environment” and “anything ‘nuclear’ must be dangerous, bad, and/or beyond human control.” There’s guilt by association with nuclear weapons because they share the word “nuclear” - when nuclear families probably harm more people every year
We can’t ignore safety, of course, but nuclear power can be safe. It’s also related to the average person’s limited understanding of the nature of risk. The more familiar (car rides or coal burning) may SEEM safer than the less familiar (airliners or nuclear power), but the statistics may show otherwise. But most people don’t go by statistics, they go by what “makes sense.” So we need more communication like this article. I also admire how you strive to live green as well as talk it — more than most people (including me!).
-Bruce
Bruce,
I absolutely love your comment about nuclear families causing more damage than nuclear power every year, that’s great! You’re serious point about word association is well taken though, nuclear weapons certainly cast a long shadow on nuclear power.
I’m sure your career in nuclear engineering would have gone well too, there is still a lot of good work being done there, just much that has yet gotten out of the laboratory!
Perceived vs. Actual risk is a really interesting thing to think about, and is, I’m sure, an active area of psychological research. We humans are not really that good at computing the odds on a regular basis, and even if we can compute them, our penchant to believe superstition is much deeper than our logical reasoning. So, in our reptilian brains we believe nuclear to be dangerous, though our cortices may argue otherwise the reptile in us wins most of the time.
[…] Windpower: Where Some Greens Goes Bad [Conservation, Environment, Environmentalism, Global Warming, Wind Energy]As I’ve gone to lengths to discuss in previous posts like this one about nuclear energy, I’m green to the core. Nevertheless, I have some serious disagreements with prominent parts of the environmental movement including my belief that nuclear energy will be a key source of energy into the future. Wind energy is shaping up to be another of those decisive battles within the green community that will determine its course for years to come. The two sides of the debate represent two very different philosphies about environmentalism: pragmatism versus conservationalism. I’m not going to mince words here, the conservationalist side of this debate spouts arguments that are frankly illogical or are altogether unproven. The pragmatic side has everything right, including ironically the conservation part. On the pragmatic side of this battle stand the geo-greens, those who believe that going green represents not only saving the environment but also protecting national interest by reducing our dependance on foreign energy supplies. Allied with them are the folks in the environmental movement who believe that preserving the natural environment is the best way of preserving human health and prosperity–ecosystem services provide much of the wealth that our nation and the rest of the world depends on. The rallying cry for these people is Jared Diamond’s recent work Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. In it he describes how failures of environmental management led to the downfall of a number of prosperous and powerful civilizations throughout recorded history. These folks all believe that wind energy has great potential to supply much of the world’s energy supply in the near future. Not only that, but the economic opportunity that wind energy provides may help to revitalize parts of the heavy-industrial sectors in our country that have fared so poorly over the last few decades. […]
Lots of assumption. “We can probably bury them in the ground” and ” The radioactive wastes that are produced are much less hazardous than by conventional fusion”
So we should go with cheap, stable energy even if it might ruin our environment through radioactivity?
Maybe you should do a bettery job of promoting nuclear. Perhaps prove it is benign to the environment. I doubt that you ever could, as we continue making piles of waste that will be around millions of years longer than we will. Future generations of humans will pay for your selfishness and greed.
Hydrocarbons are finite. So is uranium. Our best bet are clean renewables and greatly reduced energy use. If Costa Ricans can live as long as Americans do on 5% of US energy use per capita - I think humans can survive on MUCH MUCH less.
I live carfree in Minneapolis. If I can do it anyone can.
Kevin,
One of the primary bugaboos of the anti-nuclear movement is the word “radioactivity.” Sure, radiation is dangerous both in high acute doses and in elevated chronic exposures. However, radioactive wastes require an extremely small storage area relative to their energy production. The Earth is a big place. I have no doubt in the capability of engineers and geologists to select a site that will safely store radioactive wastes long past the point at which they remain dangerous.
I agree that both hydrocarbons and uranium are limited supplies, and I think renewables have a major role to play in our energy future. In fact, I think solar energy will be what fuels the human race for millenia to come. But, until we get to the point where we can harness enough of the virtually limitless energy that the sun outputs, there is no viable renewable solution to meet current energy demands.
I also agree that reducing energy use is a noble goal, and one which should be pursued through methods that do not decrease comfort, safety, or prosperity. I certainly think we could all do with a little bit less (see my blog post, “Better Off?”), but the broader public is not going to accept that anytime soon. The environmental movement has pushed conservation for decades to little or no success, unfortunately.
I am a realist. I see major benefits to American society through things like increased public transit, denser residential areas, and increased consumption of local and organic produce. But, I care too much about the environment for me to be unyielding on the limited danger of nuclear energy in light of the enormous dangers inherent in fossil fuel burning (hydrocarbon burning, i.e. vegetable ethanol, is a significantly less harmful course).
Continue to live carefree, Kevin. I believe you that anyone can, hell my energy is renewable too. But I don’t believe that everyone will, and I want a brighter future with a few compromises, rather than a black and lonely future where I kept to my righteous principles.
easy ways out are like A$$holes, everyone’s got one and they eventually spew a bunch of $hit. Y’all seem quite smart but you seem to think the environmental movement is going to go along with building more nuclear plants if they just understand the science. Talking about the “long-term” in the U.S. is like a KIA dealer talking about resale value. The Earth existed quite fine for millions of years, so when somebody encourages sustainability, they mean millions of years, through thick and thin. So when we go into the next dark ages, some A$$hole doesn’t load up a catapult with nuke waste and lob it over our shanty town wall. Ever heard of payiing it forward? How about peddling it forward…as in your bike. If the consumption/comfort levels do not decrease now, we probably will go into the fission age, and the small amount of nuke waste you’re talking about will increase….ONE MILLION FOLD, before we finnally say…”hmm, it looks like now we have to decrease our comfort levels, maybe we should have done that way back when we only had ten fingers.” By the way, Thomas Friedman is more self-righteous than….me.
Hey look, you don’t know everyone in the “environmental movement” any better than I do. It’s certainly not one individual entity with one idea on how to proceed. I certainly agree that just exposing people to the science will not alter irrational aversions.
And yes, I mean irrational. The fear of nuclear waste goes far beyond its actual danger to human health. This falls into a difference between perceived and actual risk. Many many more people are afraid of flying because of the spectacular images of plane crashes than are afraid of driving: but driving is the far more risky activity. Nuclear waste is dangerous, yes, but far less dangerous than many would portray it to be.
I agree that consumption will continue to increase, but I don’t think it will increase anything like you say. There are fundamental limits to human consumption that are set by the environment in which we live and the cost and availability of resources. Unlike you seem to suggest here, consumption is not evil. Consumption beyond the means of the environment to support it is. But, if we lived in a world in which infinite energy was available to us, and all waste was nearly completely converted back to energy upon disposal, consumption would be like breathing is to us. It would become an intimate and integral part of our very nature.
If we do not expand our energy supplies while also conserving our ecoystems and the resources they provide, we will get hit by some fundamental limitations that will cause drastic decreases in comfort levels. But far more threatening to our common future is a population that does not stop its exponential increase. Our energy supplies have much greater leg room than do our prospects for increasing agricultural yields.
So, let’s talk about a different vision of the future. Let’s talk about severely restrained growth rates, even negative population growth, but allowing consumption to expand in a way that is truly sustainable (i.e. millions of years, not just till the next election cycle). Because let’s face it, all the bikes in the world won’t keep us safe when there are 15 billion hungry and angry mouths to feed.