Follow this blog:
RSS

Nuclear’s back. Oh no it isn’t! Oh yes it is!

By | March 27, 2012, 4:26 AM PDT

Here on SmartPlanet, I’ve been opining that nuclear power does indeed have a future, and that it should reside in alternative, safer technologies like thorium that could replace the conventional uranium reactors that create dangerous, long lived waste and that pose meltdown threats.

Today, I’m taking a look at what a couple of leading opinion shapers are saying about nuclear’s outlook in a post-Fukushima world. The two scenarios could not be more different. I’m going to give you only the headlines from two separate, respected publications, because they say it all about the spectrum of nuclear perception (click on the links for  the more detailed arguments).

From Bloomberg, March 25: Nuclear Industry says Back on Track After Fukushima ‘Speed Bump.’ Contrast that reportage to the title of an opinion piece from The Economist earlier this month: The dream that failed: A year after Fukushima, the future of nuclear power is not bright - for reasons of cost as much as safety.

For those of you familiar with the comedic stage tradition of British pantomime (no, not “mime” and Marcel Marceau as many Americans mistakenly think whenever they first hear about pantomime), the current nuclear split evokes the catchphrase, “Oh no it isn’t! Oh yes it is!”

Or, on a more literary tack, it seems that a year after the Fukushima meltdowns, the debate has intensified more than ever into a tale of two nuclears.

To return to my opening point, and as you’ll note through some of the links below, I believe the world can shift toward a safer nuclear future by departing from conventional uranium-fueled, water cooled reactors. Instead it should dust off some long-ago proven but never deployed technologies, like thorium molten salt reactors.

What do you think?

Photo: Cameron Russell via Flickr (that’s not me/mh).

A tale of THREE nuclears - and more - on SmartPlanet:

And elsewhere:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Mark Halper

About Mark Halper

Mark Halper is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Contributing Editor

Mark Halper has written for TIME, Fortune, Financial Times, the UK's Independent on Sunday, Forbes, New York Times, Wired, Variety and The Guardian. He is based in Bristol, U.K.

Follow him on Twitter.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Mark has no financial holdings in the companies he writes about. He occasionally travels at the expense of companies or their press relations agencies in order to report on a company or industry event related to it; Mark will prominently disclose this information when appropriate. This relationship will have no influence on his coverage. Companies he covers do not get to review columns in advance, or select or reject topics.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
14
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
Go Thorium!
Thorium takes the snap. He fakes to the fullback. Now he's up the middle. Oh, he's hit by a linebacker! Wait...he's not down. He stiff arms two more tacklers, razzle-dazzles two more and strides across the goal line. Touchdown for Thorium! Too bad it's not that easy. We really should trade up to thorium.
Posted by justajo
27th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Touchdown, rule changes
I like the football analogy, Justajo. Now, just like the NFL is always changing its rules, so, too, should the NRC see fit to split out a separate regulatory body that can establish thorium guidelines. NRC is too bogged down with conventional uranium reactors now. President Obama's Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future at one point looked interested in pushing for a division. Once that happens, thorium stands an even better chance of crossing the goal line.
Posted by markhalper
27th Mar 2012
-1 Votes
+ -
Molten Salt is Sodium
Calling the cooling mechanism molten salt hides the real concern. Salt contains sodium which reacts violently with water. Molten salt is not a panacea -- it has its own safety problems. Back in the day when the US was developing the fast breeder reactor (one of the technologies that can reduce nuclear waste), it was cancelled in part because of safety concerns with the use of liquid sodium as the coolant (weapons grade plutonium proliferation was also a major consideration).

There is a Thorium variant that requires a particle accelerator to "ignite" the reaction. One advantage of this approach is that loss of power shuts down the accelerator, and extinguishes the nuclear reaction.
Posted by eboyhan
Updated - 27th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
So much wrong
There is a HUGE difference between metallic sodium, and the sodium in table salt, which is NaCl. Metallic sodium reacts violently with water because of it's electron configuration, but NaCl is very happy with the bond it's got, and won't react at all. The same goes for every other salt compound.
In chemistry, a salt is a term for an ionic compound and says nothing about what elements the salt is comprised of.

Molten salt reactors have nothing in common with the LM-FBR. MSRs allow for complete and indefinite passive safety, with nothing in the reactor that can violently react with anything. Using the problems of the LM-FBR to show MSRs in a negative light is purely guilt by association.

And the accelerator driven reactor you mention last have nothing to do with thorium specifically, and is a solution looking for a problem. All reactors today are designed in such a way that a runaway reaction is impossible, and shutting it down is not a problem.
The problem is decay heat, which newer Gen III and Gen IV design handle much better than the old Gen I and II reactors operating today.
Posted by Uzza2
28th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Not all salts contain sodium.
The salt being proposed for this is Thorium Fluoride, which is effectively inert.

All models of liquid salt reactors shut down safely if there is a problem, they are also self regulating.
Posted by SionJones
29th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
FastBreeder Reactor
The coolant for the Integral Fast Reactor(IFR) was indeed liquid sodium, and indeed it reacts violently with water. The molten salt reactors are something different again. It is in fact quite easy to keep sodium away from water, it was done in high school laboratories in my boyhood, using oil. It is done in a reactor by having it in unpressurised steel containers, These worked without incident for 30 years. Sodium does not rust steel, whereas hot high pressure water does.
High voltage electricity itself is amazingly dangerous, as any thunderstorm can show you, but that does not change the fact that high voltage transmission lines not only carry heavy power loads with minimum losses to heat, the magnetic fields around them are also lessened by the lower currents necessary.
The program was cancelled by ignorance and a failure to recognise the immense difference between weapons and civilian use. The plutonium in a properly run breeder reactor is very far from bomb grade, since it contains Pu-240, in quantities that can either poison or prematurely ignite the exponential explosion reaction.
Posted by SmartAlbert
27th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Nationalise it!
The spectacular failures of several financial companies, two automobile companies, and even Enron, an energy company, should have introduced some skepticism about the notion that the private sector can be trusted with everything. Perhaps that sentence is two words too long.
In any case, we know that the most spectacular success of civilian nuclear power in the world was France, which built a national company Electricite de France, and produces far less acid rain, global warming, or even radioactive emissions than Germany, still, despite Germany's alleged 20% energy production with wind turbines.

Strangely enough, the United Kingdom also had a national electric power program, until for ideological reasons the Thatcher government sold it to private ownership. Suddenly, quite a lot of the nuclear power plants became unprofitable, and the consumers and taxpayers had to pay for decommissioning them. Stranger still, the owner of the surviving plants, the company "British Energy", is now a subsidiary of the French EDF.
In the USA, something like 500,000 tonnes of "depleted" uranium, stored as uranium hexafluoride, which is much more scary than sodium, is owned by the government.
Arcnuclear.com, a company that has designed a reactor based upon the IFR EBR II, claims that it can build a 100 MW reactor less than 20 metres high and 10 metres in diameter, which takes a load of 20.7 tonnes of uranium enriched to less than 17%, runs for 20 years without refuelling, and can then have the fuel core taken out and replaced, while the old core then is refurbished with 8% of its mass, about 1.67 tons, sent to fairly short term waste storage (it's all fission products) and replaced with depleted uranium, to produce a completely refurbished fuel core for another replacement.
Posted by SmartAlbert
Updated - 29th Mar 2012
-2 Votes
+ -
Nothing will make it work
The Economist has it right; nothing will ever make nuclear fission power economical or safe.
Posted by Greenknight_z
28th Mar 2012
+1 Vote
+ -
Technological advances happens everywhere
Making a blanket statement like that is an insult to the ingenuity of the human mind. Advancements in technology happens constantly in every field, including nuclear.

All operating reactors today are Gen I or Gen II. The very first Gen III plants are under construction right at this moment, which are improvements on Gen I and II, with passive safety features giving up to a week long headroom.
But there exists designs that are completely passive and walkaway safe, where no human intervention is required to keep the reactor safe indefinitely. They all fall under the category of Gen IV.
Posted by Uzza2
28th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Safe Designs
Nothing will ever make coal burning or petroleum oil or gas burning clean.
As for safety and toxicity, present day nuclear has a far better safety and toxicity record than coal, even if you count hurricanes, earthquakes, and the stupidity of the Soviet occupiers of the Ukraine at Chernobyl. The Integral Fast Reactor project developed in the decades before Clinton, Kerry, and O'Leary cancelled it, was safe, clean, renewable, and unlike biomass, it was sustainable even at the USA's profligate rate of energy consumption -- because it renewed the stock of fissile isotopes.
Part of the trouble is that when President Obama advocates a world free from nuclear weapons, it is reported that he wants a "nuclear free world".
In a hundred years, at the present rate, we will have a petroleum-free, and probably coal-free, world -- because they'l be either used up or prohibitively expensive. Wind turbines won't fill it in, and I doubt that the environmental consequences of OTEC have been examined. It seems unlikely that extracting serious amounts of energy from a process that will warm the deeper parts of the sea is a good idea.
Posted by SmartAlbert
29th Mar 2012
-1 Votes
+ -
Back in Time...
I have an idea... let's bring back steam engine trains! But instead of burning plain old coal, we'll load them up with new age coal! ... Old tech rules!

Seriously, enough Nuclear. After reading both reports, I'll side with the economist and many others out there who will tell you Nuclear is an old technology and it needs to be put in the museums. We can create clean, base-load power without fossil fuels, or harnessing nuclear reactions. I'm looking at Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion as just one small example of innovations, and pushing for energy sources we can proudly pass to future generations. OTEC uses the temperature difference in shallow and deep water to create emission free power 24/7/365. Plus, the only byproduct is clean drinking water. Seriously, affordable, dependable power, and millions of gallons of life giving water. It's proven and happening today, especially in the Caribbean.

To learn more about OTEC and the people behind it visit The On Project.
http://www.theonproject.org/?utm_source=smartplanet&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=mscomment
Posted by MStraub
28th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
It ain't 2525 yet
We should go with what 'brung' us...gas, oil and coal with a sprinkling of new nuclear. The rest (alternatives) are for sometime in the future when we really get them figured out. Technology will eventually rescue us from a fossil-fueled economy but not today and not for the foreseeable future.

While China and India (and many others) are building dirty coal-fired power plants we are banning or making cost-prohibitive the technology that we have cleaned up by 85% or so. Smooth move.
Posted by James-SantaBarbara
28th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
How will renewables be competitive...
...if you keep pushing their development back because they are not mature yet? Your scenario is wrong in that there will be no smooth transition from fossil/nuclear to alternatives "when we really get them figured out". Instead, without support to alternatives now, traditional sources of energy will dry without leaving any choice causing pain, trauma and societal collapses because of failing to do the homework earlier. That is not smooth at all!
Posted by Pruden
1st Apr 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Petroleum Has Peaked, and Coal Is Filthy.
We have a "sprinkling" of already mined-and-refined uranium, four or five hundred thousand tons of it, in the "depleted" uranium dumps. Generation IV nuclear, already proven, can turn that into an energy supply for 200 years of supplying energy for everything for which we currently burn fossil fuels. As the US Navy, operator of nuclear powered submarines and carriers, says:
One pound of fissile isotope has as much energy as a million gallons of oil.
Posted by SmartAlbert
1st Apr 2012
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!