|
Saturday, July 01, 2006 The Best Nuclear OptionThe U.S. Energy Department's fuel-recycling initiative could be a distraction from a more achievable goal: reviving today's nuclear industry and averting some carbon emissions in the short term. By Matthew L. Wald
Imagine a nuclear industry that can power America for decades using its own radioactive garbage, burning up the parts of today's reactor wastes that are the hardest to dispose of. Add technology that takes nuclear chaff, uranium that was mined and processed but was mostly unusable, and converts it to still more fuel. Then add a global business model that makes it much less likely that reactor by-products such as plutonium will find their way into nuclear weapons in countries like Iran, even as economical nuclear-power technology becomes available to the whole world. That is the alluring triple play the Bush administration hopes to turn with the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) it unveiled earlier this year, a proposed long-term research and development program almost as audacious as the Manhattan Project. The basic fuel-reprocessing concepts at its heart have been kicking around for the better part of a half-century. Now they are being touted anew as a way to provide plentiful carbon-free fuel for an energy-hungry world threatened by human-induced climate change. Under the plan, for which the administration has requested $250 million for the fiscal year beginning October 1, the United States and certain partner countries would process spent nuclear fuel using new techniques that would turn some of it into more fuel and minimize the amount requiring disposal. The United States and its partners would also lease reactor fuel to other countries, which would then return their spent fuel to be reprocessed. The technology could exploit uranium far more efficiently: Phillip J. Finck, associate director at Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago, says it could extract up to 100 times as much energy from uranium as is now possible. With the waste now piled up at reactors around the United States, the theory goes, GNEP could produce all the electricity the country will need for decades, maybe even centuries -- assuming enough of the necessary new reactors could be built. That would eliminate about a third of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions (roughly the portion that today comes from fossil-fuel power plants). All this while reducing waste and thwarting the diversion of fuel to nuclear weapons. In practice, though, in the best scenario GNEP would take decades to develop, and in the worst it might produce nothing; it could turn out to be a nonstarter on technical grounds, or the technology could be economically uncompetitive with other carbon-free sources of electricity. And the program could undermine a more modest and achievable goal: resuscitating a nuclear industry that hasn't launched a successful reactor project since 1974. Today, a public once wary of nuclear energy has opened up to it as a possible answer to global warming. New reactor designs similar to those used in today's commercial fleet -- but said to be safer and more efficient -- are already approved or under review by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Utilities are in various stages of planning at least 16 such reactors (see "Stirrings of Renewal" chart) and may file applications with the NRC as early as the end of next year. |
New Nukes
10/20/2008







Comments
Guest (Bob) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Eric) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Sean) on 07/21/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Ken Maize) on 07/23/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
thurley on 12/28/2006 at 3:47 PM
2
Guest (Dick Caro) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
The US can simply implement this technology by licensing it from BNFL, or allowing BNFL to make a North American investment. This is environmentally friendly technology.
Guest (Mark) on 07/22/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Verite) on 07/23/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
This is a reasonable place to start..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNFL
Guest (Ken Maize) on 07/23/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Verite) on 07/23/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Begging to believe in a future solution.. this is normally called "Faith" and normally associated with religious ways of thinking...or not thinking.
There are those who have adopted a type of religious faith in "science".
Guest (plug-it-in) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Paul) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Christians oil guzzlers.
Guest (plugged-in) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Tom) on 07/24/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Wieslaw Lichacz) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Cam) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (kitk) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Kwester) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Mike) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
India has no such plant and Pebble Beds are eons away from being a commercial reactor.
Guest (Mike C.) on 07/24/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
changath on 09/11/2006 at 4:05 AM
1
Guest (Jonathan Schattke) on 08/01/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
yeah, Chernobyl was an inherently critical uranium design, and a thorium ADEP must continue to be driven or stop producing heat, but that just means after it blows it's top that you get a lump of cooling slag, rather than a lump of superheated slag that never cools.
Guest (Mike) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Even Canada is backing away from the CANDU design due to Candeleria problems.
Mike (BS Nuclear Engineer, Idaho State University, Nuclear Operator for the last 22 years)
Guest (John Allen) on 07/22/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Basedon your credentials and experience I'm very interested in hearing what you think is the best option for generating energy. Please cc me by email since I'm not real good at monitoring. johnaallen@gmail.com
Guest (Kwester) on 07/24/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Glowing in the Dark) on 07/24/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Given there a only two reliable energy sources that will outlast mankind, one solar and the other geothermal, why arent we, as a tool-using species, trying to develop a power source that will be viable into the far future, rather than scuttling around trying to outdo each other for some putried dino-goo?
Guest (Jonathan Schattke) on 08/01/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Yoweigh) on 07/30/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Kymus Ginwala) on 08/11/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
jmaximus9 on 10/31/2008 at 1:40 AM
47