Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement
[1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next »

Saturday, July 01, 2006

The Best Nuclear Option

The 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

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon
The U.S. Energy Department is promoting far-out waste-recycling technologies requiring new reactor designs. But updated conventional designs like GE's "economic simplified boiling-water reactor" (shown here) are ready today. (Credit: Bryan Christie)
Multimedia
•  Video: Scientists speak out about the threat of global warming and how to deal with it.

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.

[1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
July/August 2006

Would you like to read more articles from the July/August 2006 issue?

This article is from the July/August 2006 Issue of Technology Review. To read other articles from this issue simply register for My.TechnologyReview.com. It's free.

Subscribe today and save up to 41% »

Comments

  • Reprocessing wastes
    Guest (Bob) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    It always makes me wince when I hear that nuclear wastes will be around for thousands of years with no possibility of solving the problem. Are we to believe therefore that science will not come up with technological breakthroughs in thousands of years? Even the lines of research we have already in place such as particle bombardment and the development of fission/fusion hybrid reactors make this and the idea that costs will not decrease with continued research quite laughable.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • wastes
      Guest (Eric) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      How feasible would it be to fire the nuclear waste to the sun with electromagnetic guns?
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: waste
        Guest (Sean) on 07/21/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Better to get a space elevator working first.
        Rate this comment: 12345
      • Shooting nuke waste into the sun
        Guest (Ken Maize) on 07/23/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Considered in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. Big problem: what if the "gun" misfires and spreads the waste around the earth's atomosphere? Considered and rejected, repeatedly.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: Shooting nuke waste into the sun
          thurley on 12/28/2006 at 3:47 PM
          Posts:
          2
          Let's do what the Russians did--drop the waste into the deepest, muddiest part of the ocean. Or stick it into a subduction zone and let mother earth recycle it for future generations, like a few hundred million years from now.
          Rate this comment: 12345
    • Use the French/British nuclear industry as a pattern
      Guest (Dick Caro) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      The French nuclear industry generates more than 80% of France's electricity using safe heavy water moderated reactors that cannot become critical. The spent fuel is shipped by barge across the English Channel to British Nuclear Fuels that has the technology to reprocess the rods to new fuel rods and ships them back to France. The collective waste is very small and is encapsulated in concrete for long term storage. The UK currently benefits from low-cost North Sea oil and does not use much nuclear power. The technology exists. See this website:http://www.bnfl.com/
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • ^Agree^
        Guest (Mark) on 07/22/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Amen to that.  Nuclear with fuel reprocessing is very likely the best hope we have at the moment for energy. 
        Rate this comment: 12345
      • uninsurable liability  passed to  the taxpayer
        Guest (Verite) on 07/23/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
          LOL !
        This is  a reasonable place to start..
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNFL
        Rate this comment: 12345
      • French/British
        Guest (Ken Maize) on 07/23/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        The French reactors do not use "heavy water" moderation. They are LWRs quite similar to Westinghouse designs. Of course they become "critical." Otherwise, they can't generate heat to boil water to make steam to make electricity.
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • Believe
      Guest (Verite) on 07/23/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Bob.."Are we to believe therefore that science will not come up with technological breakthroughs in thousands of years?"
      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".
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Getting started? Good Luck Mates!
    Guest (plug-it-in) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Interesting the writer is from the NYT. Mindsets like at the New York Times have neutered the attempted decades old solutions for cheap clean energy...which is why we see the beginnings of WW3...and our dependence on cut throat Islamist oil producers. The leftist agenda doesn't like "American energy independence" nor "winning wars".  As a result, WW3 will have to be one by America uniquely bridled with leftist Kyoto-like restrictions. These articled and quite possible solutions don't have a chance until the war is over, won, and non-leftist thinking is securely pushing America's Energy Plan forward.  You can kiss any progress off if a Democrat wins the next presidential election and Congress follows...then we will all be riding bicycles to work like good little citizens...can you imagine what it would be like today if Al Gore had won the presidency?  God help us.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • crank it
      Guest (Paul) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      "...cut-throat Islamist oil producers...if a Democrat wins the next presidential election...then we will all be riding bicycles to work like good little citizens....God help us." God help us indeed--from cut-throat
      Christians oil guzzlers.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • You love bicyles?
        Guest (plugged-in) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Guess you have already made the break from oil?  I don't see Schwinn stock going up?  But, you must feel self-satisfied pedaling down the interstate to work...yes?
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • NYT Bias
      Guest (Tom) on 07/24/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      I couldn't understand the negative slant to this article.  Here is a research program proposed by the Bush administration to address the issue of nuclear waste for $200M in Federal funding which is less than what is spent in two hours on Social Security and Medicare benefits.  It seems like the article should have a positive slant based on all the facts and possibilities quoted.  Then I got to the end and saw that it was written by a reporter from the Bush bashing New York Times.  Understanding achieve.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Public subsidization of nuclear should cease
    Guest (Wieslaw Lichacz) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Public funs subsidizing nuclear directly and indirectly should cease.  The $200m public funds destined to this nuclear energy addiction juggernaut ought to be redirected to renewable cleaner solar technology.  Even China has legislated to aim for more than 10% of its energy production to come from renewables.  Will China become the renewable Solar economic superpower in the next few years while USA slips back to the 70's and beyond worrying more and more about terrorists getting hold og nuclear WMD materials?
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • China and energy...
      Guest (Cam) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      I'm guessing from your response you haven't seen how much nuclear power China is planning to bring on stream by 2020!  They'll be the Nuclear "economic superpower" as well.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • how it goes
    Guest (kitk) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    why is it anything nuclear makes most people turn off their reason and refer to sci fi movies for horrible outcomes? we cannot reasonably fire nuke waste into the sun--any error and it crashes right back onto us, besides, we have no way to move that quantity of mass to the sun. BUT WE DO NOT HAVE TO!!! nature sequesters uranium, thorium, radium and more quite safely, and has done so for billions of years. research I know well found several safe, often cheap means to bury forever nuke waste--but the nuke haters prevented them from being used! you see, many politicians get votes for preventing the solution. the initiative described in this article is meant in part to get around political roadblocks to known technology, for our mutual benefit.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • The Best Nuclear Option - thorium
    Guest (Kwester) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Where do some of the designs for "inherently safer" types of reactors fit into the administration's scheme. I've also read articles suggesting that pebble bed reactors using thorium as fuel are not only safer to operate but produce waste that could be disposed of much more safely than waste from conventional reactors and that there are much greater reserves of thorium than uranium. I believe that India is already operating at least one pilot plant based on this design and fuel cycle, which suggests that the technology is fairly mature.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • India
      Guest (Mike) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Wrong,

      India has no such plant and Pebble Beds are eons away from being a commercial reactor.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Pebble bed reactors
        Guest (Mike C.) on 07/24/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        India might not have pebble bed plants but it appears China does. Eons away? Hardly.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
        Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: India
        changath on 09/11/2006 at 4:05 AM
        Posts:
        1
        exactly true.
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • [no subject]
      Guest (Jonathan Schattke) on 08/01/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Dude, Graphite + High Temperature = Chernobyl.
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • WRONG
    Guest (Mike) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    FRance uses a Light Water Reactor Design based on Westinghouse 3 and 4 loop reactors. Reactors HAVE to go critical IN ORDER TO WORK!!!
    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)
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Wrong
      Guest (John Allen) on 07/22/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Mike,
      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
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Wrong
      Guest (Kwester) on 07/24/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Mike, Clearly I'd have to defer to your experience in the matters. I'm curious though; do you know if there is anything wrong in the basic premise of nuclear power based the pebble bed -thorium fuel cycle scenario? From the point of view of fuel reserves and waste disposal what I've read still sounds very attractive even if substantial investment is required for development.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Whatever Happened to Thorium?
    Guest (Glowing in the Dark) on 07/24/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    When I was a kid (just after Woodstock) I remember reading an old Popular Science that reported scientists of the Fifties (what a wonderful, optimistic time for technologists) believed thorium powered reactors would make electricity so cheap it wouldn't be worth metering it.  Now the chatter is about thorium-fueled "energy amplifiers", basically reactors touched off with a particle accelerator match.  India seems to have a good lead on this technology

    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?
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • [no subject]
      Guest (Jonathan Schattke) on 08/01/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Near as I can figure, Thorium is being squashed by power companies, because it can be done small-scale and cheap.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Repetition
    Guest (Yoweigh) on 07/30/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Sorry, but your post had the word 'leftist' in it too many times to take it seriously.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Pebble Bed Modular Reactor
    Guest (Kymus Ginwala) on 08/11/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    South Africa is in the final stages of design and preparing to source components for a 160 MW pebble bed demonstration plant.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Corporate Welfare
    jmaximus9 on 10/31/2008 at 1:40 AM
    Posts:
    47
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    When the nuclear industry is willing to pay for their own liability insurance [instead of the tax payers] and pay for their own waste disposal [instead of the tax payers], then we can talk. Until then sorry we don't need any more Reverse Robin Hood Socialism. The money would be better spent tax credits for putting solar on homes and small businesses. This can be quicker, would create millions of jobs that can't be off shored, and doesn't require an elaborate scheme to bury toxic waste for 10,000 years. BTW most of French nuclear waste is shipped to Russia not the UK, less than 10% is reprocessed and sent back to France.


    Rate this comment: 12345
Advertisement

Current Issue

Technology Review January/February 2009
Lifeline for Renewable Power
Without a radically expanded and smarter electrical grid, wind and solar will remain niche power sources.
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News

Magazine Services

Career Resources

MIT Technology Insider

Stories and breaking news from inside MIT about the latest research, innovations, and startups--in a convenient monthly e-newsletter. Subscribe today
Advertisement

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

Get Technology Review updates via the web, cellphone, or Instant Messager – Follow techreview on Twitter!

Advertisement

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement