Building a Nuclear Future Sasha Klebnikov 11/12/13

It is time for a paradigm shift. Nuclear is now safe and the only reasonable option. Vestigial worries about the dangers of Nuclear have been resolved by technology. Building the most sophisticated plants possible and investing heavily in research is the way to do this.

Conventional wisdom states that the best solution to mitigating global warming, pollution and depleted fossil fuel reserves is to reduce our total energy usage. Yet, this approach is irrational; countries with the strongest infrastructure and cheapest power have significant industrial advantages. Instead of advocating for solutions to reduce our power generation, it is smarter to find better ways to power the future. Many argue that this panacea comes not from the oft fabled renewables but from misunderstood Nuclear Power. There is no question that a change from the status quo is needed. President Obama recently redirected efforts away from preventing global changes, to simply being more resilient to their effects.1 Coal, Natural Gas and Petroleum may have powered the world into the 21st century, but their continued usage will quickly start harming society. While reductions on demand are useful, replacement of these technologies is paramount. The solutions lie in three areas: Nuclear, Solar and Wind or some future technology. Of these, Solar accounts for 0.08% of national electricity, despite massive political promotion and incentives. Wind is useful, but can never scale up to match the weight of Coal or Natural Gas. Cold Fusion or Space based solar arrays are still the purview of science fiction.2 Only Nuclear can actually provide baseload power for the USA and entire world in the upcoming century. Increasing numbers of people are acknowledging that Nuclear is a safe solution, a sustainable solution, even a cost effective solution. The problems that plagued it in the past have been resolved, yet it has yet to be fully embraced. Moreover, embracing the Nuclear path will have benefits beyond just dependable energy and averting climate
1 2

WhiteHousePressSecretary,ExecutiveOrderonClimatePreparedness,November1st,2013 N.Lior,(2013),Mirrorsinthesky:Status,sustainability,andsomesupportingmaterialsexperiments,Renewable andSustainableEnergyReviews,18,401415.

change. To this end, my two major proposals for American Energy Infrastructure are the immediate implementation of existing nuclear technologies along with a significant long term investment in an efficient research environment to continue innovation in the field. Commissioning a Progressive Nuclear Fleet The simplest solution to increasing the power generated by Nuclear is simply using best practices when constructing existing technologies. Over the last fifty years, the entire construction industry has been revolutionized by the three concepts of health and safety, systems optimization and computer modeling. This means that modern buildings, plants and infrastructure are far more effective than their predecessors. One can clearly see the differences between 1970 and today by looking at the history of Alvin Weinberg. Weinberg was one of the critical innovators in developing civilian reactors from 1950-70, but during the Nixon administration, he was fired as the White House said "Alvin, if you are concerned about the safety of reactors, then I think it may be time for you to leave nuclear energy."3 Modern thinking has completely changed, yet plants built in the 70s are still in operation and still having issues. The clearest example of this issue was given during the 2011 Japan Tsunami. A reactor built in 1971, Fukushima Daiichi Reactor, catastrophically broke and has yet to be fully rectified. To many, the radioactive water caused by this accident is validation of the dangers of nuclear. Critics of Nuclear are often surprised to note that the nearby Onagawa Reactor (built in 1995) not only weathered the disaster4, but provided shelter for the entire nearby town while their houses were washed away. More modern regulations meant that a similar power generating facility to Fukushima did not break, and was regarded as a safe haven for homeless people. Notably, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were all commissioned in the 1970s; these plants had issues, yet, no commercial plant commissioned after 1980 has had a critical failure as recognized by the IAEA.5 One reason Nuclear is an increasingly appealing option is technical advancements within the field. Modern research into super-alloys,67 has allowed reactor techniques that are far more efficient than the simple Pressurized Water Reactor we have used for forty years. Plans like the Westinghouse AP1000, Super-Critical Water Reactor or Sodium
3 4

http://web.ornl.gov/ornlhome/news_items/news_061019.shtml http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/20/usjapannucleartsunamiidUSTRE79J0B420111020 5 http://web.archive.org/web/20071123031308/http://wwwpub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/accres.asp 6 Steelsalloyswithfarsuperiorcorrosionandtemperatureresistance 7 C.Sims,N.Stoloff,W.Hagel,(1987)SuperalloysII:HighTemperatureMaterialsforAerospaceandIndustrial Power,JohnWiley&Sons

Cooled Reactors, have improved safety, efficiency and waste properties. These designs are only made possible by better materials science and, more importantly, computer modelling. It is somewhat terrifying to think that reactors built in the 70s were designed using slide rulers and blueprints. Modern computer modelling, simulations and optimization have opened doors that were not previously possible. To this end, Nuclear Reactors built today have overcome many of the issues plaguing their earlier ancestors. A recent intellectual leap in Nuclear Plant design is based on the concept of modularity. Instead of producing massive 1000 MWe reactors, the Department of Energy has realized that creating smaller reactors can lead to improved energy grid performance, easier capital investment, and better safety. The (aptly named) Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are essentially scaled down PWRs, with extremely high safety systems8 . They are substantially smaller and cheaper, meaning that finding investors for projects is far more feasible. Currently, they are manufactured in a single location, shipped to the permanent site and setup in two weeks. By definition, their modular nature means anywhere from one to ten can be installed in a single complex. The Department of Energy has issued two awards to NuScale Power9 and another, yet to be determined, company to develop prototype SMRs to enable regulation development. They are widely expected to saturate the market in 2025-2030, especially in the USA, Britain and Germany, due to their less offensive nature. It seems clear that this investment can easily be scaled up, replacing many of the smaller coal and natural gas generating stations around the country. Modern plant designs are intrinsically non-proliferable. Many opponents of nuclear will say that Uranium based power plants can be used to produce nuclear weapons. This is true. However, it requires the plants to be designed to produce said weapons grade material. By having incredibly efficient and safe plant designs, the Western world can export nuclear reactors to other countries. Instead of having Iran create a brand new blueprint for their reactors and fuel sources, it would be far simpler to offer a more efficient design that cannot physically be used to create weapons. This way, much more of the world can be trusted with clean energy, until the weaponization problem is resolved. The goal of SMRs being constructed in a factory and then be shipped to their final location is exactly how this system should be implemented. It incorporates the best practises seen in countries with a large amount of experience in the industry, while providing cheaper and more reliable power for emerging countries. The mechanism for implementing this progressive scheme is simple. First, give the Department of Energy a mandate to allow additional plants to be designed and
8 9

http://energy.gov/ne/nuclearreactortechnologies/smallmodularnuclearreactors http://www.nuscalepower.com/nrcnewplantlicensing.aspx

constructed, as current bureaucracy takes years to navigate. Second, begin an intensive program to replace existing coal power plants directly with Nuclear ones. By putting the new plant in the same location, the grid will not be disrupted, while eliminating the most polluting type of energy. Third, redefine Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) to include Nuclear power, and increase their usage nationally. Finally, create a detailed subsidy plan to decrease the cost of capital needed to build a reactor. As most large reactors cost around $6-$8 Billion, distorting the energy market in favor of Nuclear investment is necessary. One specific mechanism that can be used is creating specific tax reductions on the goods used to construct the reactor. This will benefit local construction companies, and increase local support and also make the entire project more economically feasible. Refocusing America on producing power from Nuclear Reactors is a weighty goal, yet its benefits are substantial. Despite a significant capital investment needed, huge numbers of jobs will be created, shown by the NEI White Paper, as the Nuclear Industry has the most positive effect on jobs of any mainstream energy source.10 This scheme would drastically reduce carbon emissions, while allowing the American Energy Infrastructure to prepare for the energy intense future, without being afraid of how the energy will produced. Advanced Nuclear Research America was once the hotbed of innovation in regards to Nuclear Physics. The list of achievements and innovations is staggering: identifying isotopes in Los Alamos, building bombs, creating super materials to withstand incredible pressures, creating nuclear power planes, transversing the North Pole in submarines, melting metal to cool reactions and crucially producing a number of civilian reactors. All this energy occurred in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. The US built 100 000 MWe of plants in the 70s and 80s. But then everything stopped. For a number of reasons, primarily the 1973 Oil Hoax, 1979 Three Mile Island leak and 1981 interest rate reforms11 , few nuclear plants have been even proposed over the last 30 years. The Government stopped mentioning Nuclear regularly. NSF funded research stalled and retracted. Research and innovation in more advanced technology continues, only it lies in other countries. France currently supplies 75% of its electricity from Nuclear Power12, Japan recently voted to restart and increase its nuclear capacity following Fukushima13,
10 11

http://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/economicbenefitscurrentfuture.pdf?ext=.pdf http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/nuclear_power.html 12 http://www.worldnuclear.org/info/CountryProfiles/CountriesAF/France/ 13 http://oilprice.com/Finance/investingandtradingreports/HeresAnOfficialVoteForNuclear.html

Norway is moving forward with privately funded research14, Britain is collaborating with the French company Areva and two Chinese firms to build its first reactor in many years15 , India has an operating Thorium power plant16 with 62 more plants in production17, and China is recruiting scientists at an incredible rate. Yet little of this excitement comes from the USA. There is hope. A technology popular in the 1970s has been rediscovered by a powerful Chinese Politician. Dr. Jiang Mianheng, the son of the former Chinese Prime Minister, and a PhD from Drexel, has decided that Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, reactors with an alternate fuel and an innovative coolant, have the ability to solve Chinas Energy problems. Thorium reactors were pioneered in Oak Ridge National Laboratories in the 60s and 70s. They had the potential to be massively scaled up to produce the majority of civilian energy needs, yet President Nixon chose a Uranium based fuel instead. This was because the byproducts of a Uranium Reactor could be repurposed as a military fuel. Unfortunately, this has become one of Nuclears biggest issues. Thorium, a widely available element, is non-proliferable, yet can still be used to create energy. It simply needs the research to match the fifty years of experience and research in Uranium. This is exactly what Dr. Mianheng found. He brokered a deal where his institute, the Shanghai Institute of Nuclear and Applied Physics, had access to all of Oak Ridges ground breaking research. He has acquired $350 million a year of funding.18 He is recruiting 750 PhDs to help him. He is gambling on Thorium, while also providing the scientific legwork to make the technology commercially viable. The primary issues with Thorium, its complex metallurgy, it is fertile but not fissile and the lack of experience using it, can all be solved with aggressively funded research. Exactly as China is doing. This government driven innovation has two parallels in the US: NASA trying to reach the Moon, and the drive to make Solar economically feasible. Both have worked to a certain extent, while exciting and educating the entire nation about science, environmentalism and engineering. Both have had widespread economic benefits (solar panels cost 99% less than 1970), while fundamentally altering the technological paradigm of their field. However today, the major innovation in energy is Hydraulic Fracturing, an
14 15

http://www.thorenergy.no/ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/20131021/arevasecuresukreactororderworthmorethan27billion.html 16 http://www.thehindu.com/todayspaper/tpnational/article3582922.ece 17 Martin,Richard.(2012)Superfuel:Thorium,theGreenEnergySourcefortheFuture,PalgraveMacmillan 18 http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligentenergy/watchreplayofnuclearsfuturewithdashofrareearth politicalintrigue/?tag=content%3Bsiucontainer

idea developed in secret by large corporations and fought by the government. Taking an aggressive, progressive stance on a future technology will help foster a period of intense excitement, innovation and productivity. Simply look at India, which currently produces 3% of its power from Nuclear, but expects that to grow to 25% by 2025. This forward thinking policy will give India a modern energy infrastructure to power it well into the century, simultaneously creating thousands of jobs and services. The major challenges to stop America embracing this clean energy future are fivefold: First is general political apathy. This is due to public wariness of Nuclear, being uneducated that Nuclear has the lowest deaths/trillion kWhr of any energy source19 20 . Furthermore, the fact that scientific research today will not have a meaningful impact for twenty years makes it hard to justify, as there is little evidence of Congress looking for long term solutions. Finally, the Nuclear lobbyists are no where near as powerful as those of the Coal, Natural Gas or Renewable Energy Sector. Nuclear Research and implementation is incredibly capital intensive. This requires a big government, extensive loans, and a strong economy. Even as economists will debate if this is the case, massive investments are still unpalatable in the current economic/political climate. Nuclear Waste is an unresolved issue. We do not have a solution for reducing the total volume at this time, nor a meaningful path to find this solution. However, it is important to note that this is not a time critical issue, as the total nuclear waste ever produced would simply cover a football field by seven meters. Current plant designs sustainably store byproducts on site, for perpetuity. Finding a solution to this requires money and time to be invested in research. This should start immediately. Specific aspects of advanced nuclear plants have yet to be resolved. For example, a specific byproduct of Thorium fission is a Protactinium 23321, which must be removed from the reaction chamber, yet the reaction chamber is a closed environment. While these issues mean we cannot build a working Thorium plant
19

C.Schneider,J.Banks,(2010),TheTollFromCoal:AnUpdatedAssessmentofDeathandDiseasefrom AmericasDirtiestEnergySource,CleanAirTaskForce,September 20 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energysdeathprintapricealwayspaid/ 21 Groult,Henri,(2005),Fluorinatedmaterialsforenergyconversion,Elsevier,pp.562565,ISBN0080444725.

starting next week, they simply require time and money be devoted to solving them. In short, Advanced Nuclear plants are not a mature technology. Finally, the scientific environment for researching Nuclear is weaker. Fewer departments offer degrees in Nuclear Engineering, the big labs of Los Alamos and Oak Ridge have moved onto other problems and few people are really excited about the topic. This means it will take time to ramp up research to the extent that humanity can divorce from fossil fuels due to Nuclear. This simply means funding should begin soon, and increase over time. None of these issues are game changers. In fact, they all point to the same conclusion: a driven national government can easily alter the entire energy paradigm. By making Nuclear a sexy option, similar to how renewables are regarded now, Congress will be more inclined to consider and pass relevant legislation. Monetary investment in research is always difficult to justify, yet is necessary for the long term strength of a countrys technical industries. The benefits of massive infrastructure upgrades will be substantial job creation and increased specialist abilities. Finally, by taking aggressive action, America will return to the forefront of a field that is likely to be the primary form of energy for the 21st Century. The only question is, why wait?