Nuclear Energy: The Once and Future Power Source

Read
more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/10/31/nuclear_energy_the_once_and_future_power_source_124508.h
tml#ixzz3O2uP9IRo
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

To say the nuclear industry has had highs and lows in the last 35 years is an
understatement. The atoms for peace that were intended to wean Planet Earth
off fossil fuels, make Western nations energy independent, and provide a clean
environment all but screeched to a halt after the disasters at Three Mile Island
in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986. Add in 20 years of weapons of mass
destruction talk and sensational sci-fi movie explosions -- all before a tsunami
overwhelmed a reactor on the coast of Japan -- and nuclear energy was on the
verge of going full dodo.
In the United States, nearly all of the currently active nuclear power plants were
built 40 years ago or more. Wed gone almost 30 years without seeing any new
ones built. Now, five reactors are under construction, with one close to coming
online, and many more are receiving licenses to operate for another 20 years.
After four plantclosures since 2013, the United States has 100 working reactors
with clear support from the American public.
Yet growth has been sluggish, for several reasons. First, the revolution in
hydraulic fracturing technology dramatically expanded the supply of oil and
natural gas while driving the price of natural gas to historic lows. Utility
companies looking to build new power plants are looking at a third the cost per
kilowatt-hour if they employ nat-gas.
In the past 10 years alone, the cost per installed kilowatt for nuclear power has
risen by a factor of eight. Years-long delays and plant cost overruns to the tune
of billions of dollars hamper both its political and economic viability. Perhaps
most troubling for environmentalist and federal lawmakers alike, the problem of
nuclear waste storage has yet to be resolved, as epitomized by the $15 billion
(to-date) Yucca Mountain morass. However, France reprocesses all its spent
fuel, stores it and has been a leading innovator in this field. And then there
was Fukushima, which brought to mind every worst-case scenario about the
safety of nuclear power in the publics mind.
But Fukushimas fatal flaw was its shoddy design. Psychology, more than policy
or science, might be the biggest stumbling block facing nuclear in the years
ahead.
Despite those drawbacks, nuclear energy has many advantages. Its a 24-7
form of energy that doesnt conk out when clouds roll in or the wind stops
blowing. Planned closures of nuclear facilities have the potential to disrupt a
reliable power source and increase the greenhouse gases put into the air. It
already provides nearly 20 percent of our electricity and 60 percent of the clean
energy we use. Thats right. Nuclear is a (virtually) renewable energy source
that produces no carbon emissions. Throw in some nice subsidies from Mother
Government and youve got an industry thats regaining its sea legs.

Nuclear might even garner support from a corner that is ostensibly against its
use. Many Democrats and environmentalists, the so-called nuclear greens,
are warming to the idea that nuclear power is essential for the well-being of the
country. Former Environmental Protection Agency chief Carol Browner, as
recently reported inThe Hill, says it would be irresponsible to neglect nuclear.
James Hansen, former NASA head and staunch Keystone pipeline opponent,
made many mainstream environmental groups like the Sierra Club and
Greenpeace see red with his pro-nuclear position, according to a report
in Grist. Their focus is on mitigating the effects of climate change, but their
support could be critical in furthering the expansion of nuclear power -- and not
just in the U.S.
Countries around the world are meeting more of their energy needs by
refurbishing old and building new nuclear reactors. France, despite voting to
reduce nuclears share of electricity generation from a world-leading 75 percent
to 50 percent, has depended on the cheap energy source for nearly half a
century and will continue to do so going forward. The U.K. got approval from
the European Unions executive commission for two new reactors at the
massive new Hinckley Point project. Prime Minister Narenda Modi of India has
asked his countrys nuclear agency to triple nuclear power in 10 years. Ditto
Chinas leaders. Even Japan, which closed all 48 of its nuclear reactors after
Fukushima, is on the path to restarting the industry.
Leading this resurgence are three technologies that stand out as the potential
next-generation of nuclear energy.
Molten salt reactors (MSR) are smaller nuclear reactors that employ a liquid, not
solid, fuel as a coolant. With MSR, the fuel is dissolved right in the sodium
moderator and coolant so there is no chance of a meltdown or escape of
radioactive steam. Theyre also safer in many aspects than traditional systems
(think of an automatic off switch), are more efficient and produce much less
wastethat then needs to be stored for tens of thousands of years. And they are
much cheaper. Commercially available molten salt reactors have yet to be built
and the technology is still experimental. The upside, though, is enough to make
an energy nerds heart flutter.
The second promising innovation is thorium, a chemical element that has been
on nuclear physicists minds ever since the earliest days of nuclear research.
There was nothing magical about uranium. It was the element of choice
because it meshed with the weapons program. Enrico Fermi, the father of
nuclear, preferred thorium for commercial development. Its safer and more
powerful. It alone cant be used to make weapons, and is more easily handled
than uranium. Plus, thorium is also twice as abundant as uranium. And it can
be used in the nuclear reactors we already have. India, which has the worlds
largest thorium deposits, and China are starting to experiment with the
technology.
Finally, the energy world is atwitter with recent assertions by Lockheed Martin
that nuclear fusion may be just around the corner. Fusion, a concept thats been
around for decades, smashes two atoms together, safely creating a ton more
energy than nuclear fission (the process our reactors utilize now) more cheaply
and with miniscule amounts of radioactive waste.

Lockheed hopes its compact reactor, which can fit on the back of a truck, is
operational in 10 years. The world has heard this before, however, so
skepticism in the scientific community is the norm, rather than the exception.
Im highly skeptical that they have anything interesting to offer, Ian Hutchinson,
a professor of nuclear science and engineering, recently told Technology
Review, It seems purely speculative, as if someone has drawn a cartoon and
said they are going to fly to Mars with it.
Lets hope Lockheeds project, and similar ones around the globe, arent just
another cold fusion bust.
But if someone had said only five years ago that the United States would be a
world leader in the production of oil and that the cost of solar panels would
plummet seven-fold, he or she would have been escorted out of the room
wearing a warm, white jacket. Today, nuclear has revived from its nadir in the
1970s and 1980s and enjoys generous funding from governments, institutions
of higher learning and global investors all in search of the energy Holy Grail.
Given its position today, betting on nuclear is no longer foolish. It may prove
eminently wise.

Read
more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/10/31/nuclear_energy_the_
once_and_future_power_source_124508.html#ixzz3O2toytDF
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter