from www.examiner.com

There’s more than one way to split an atom

December 3, 2009
Austin Science Policy Examiner Steven Andrew


Welcome Instapundit Readers! You might be interested in this science and science policy interview that Prof. Glenn Reynolds was kind enough to provide us here. And if you appreciate an analytical take on 2nd amendment rights, Gun Rights Examiner Howard Nemerov is an outstanding resource.

I have good news and bad news on energy. First the bad news: even though the US has lots of coal, the idea of “clean coal” is right up there with a ‘little bit’ pregnant. Aside from being a huge and growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, coal is dirty, nasty stuff loaded with toxic heavy metals and dangerous pollutants. Oil and gas are only marginally better, but they’re in limited domestic supply, which means we have to rely on unreliable sources all over the world. Renewables, primarily solar and wind, can definitely be part of the solution, but at current efficiencies and given the laws of physics, they will not be the sole answer anytime soon. The good news is we do have other options worth exploring. Better still the US is uniquely positioned to lead the world in one of them.

We talked a few days ago about the basic physics of nuclear power (See my nuclear power primer). What we didn’t mention was that those atom splitting neutrons come at different velocities and, depending on the nuclear fuel, some velocities work better than others. Nuclear engineers and physicists call that velocity the Neutron Temperature, so now you can already impress your friends with cool jargon! Most existing nuclear power plants, including all the ones operating in the US, are of a type known as a thermal reactor, they use slower neutrons. But there’s another type of nuclear reaction useful for generating power that uses faster neutrons. We'll call those types “fast reactors”. The concerns with existing thermal reactors can be grouped into several categories, and here’s how fast reactors compare side-by-side in each.

1. Thermal reactors use expensive fuel like uranium -- often mined at great cost from unstable countries which puts us in a similar bind as foreign oil -- and produce nuclear waste which remains dangerous for thousands of years. Storage of that waste is either expensive, temporary, or haphazard depending on the nation in question.

Fast reactors could power this country for decades using that same waste as fuel. Fast reactors also happen to be about 100 times more efficient in converting that radioactive mass into electrical energy than thermal reactors, meaning they use relatively less fuel over time. Moreover, the waste from some types of fast reactors decays safely away in a matter of decades, making storage a far less worrisome and way less expensive proposition. And if we include the depleted uranium (DU) left over from the enrichment process, it would be something like 700 years before any more mining would be needed, once the current “thermal” types of reactors have been phased out. At the current price of energy, the existing DU alone is worth trillions in kilowatts and dollars. Nevertheless, for now, the DOE currently plans to mix the existing DU into concrete, making it rather inaccessible for use as fuel. Fast reactors would take care of that waste while providing power in the process.

2. Thermal reactors can melt down and poison the environment. Case in point, Chernobyl.

Let's clear up one misunderstanding: a nuclear power malfunction won't result in a city-sized mushroom cloud, and the type of reactor that caught fire at Chernobyl will never be built again. Nowadays, designs exist that will prevent that from happening even under complete power failures, inner core breaches, or suicide truck bombs for that matter (And keep in mind that a well placed bomb in the wall of a big hydroelectric dam would handily threaten lives and property, too). Chernobyl did not have those new features, plus it was a poorly designed, graphite-moderated reactor. Even then it took egregious human error and utter jaw-dropping negligence to initiate the failure. New generation fast reactors do have those design features. And it should be noted that tens of thousands of people suffer or die every year from the effects of coal, from mining accidents to exposure to toxic substances and pollutants. Nuclear sounds scary, especially for those of us who grew up with the specter of WW3 looming overhead. But even with Chernobyl and other accidents factored in, nuclear power has a far better safety record overall than traditional fuels and power plants.

3. Nuclear power plants can aid in the development of nuclear weapons.

To a degree, yes, although it isn’t quite as simple as that. But the kind of fuel used in and the waste produced by fast reactors doesn’t lend itself any better to weapons grade research or production than thermal reactors. Besides, the nations that would do the most good from a global pollutant standpoint by using fast reactors instead of fossil fuels are the US, China, and India. None of those nations need fast reactors to develop nukes, all three already have plenty of nukes.

4. Replacing a significant portion of our grid using fast reactors would be expensive and take a long time.

Maintaining and defending oil supply lines stretched halfway across the world isn’t exactly cheap. And we’re not necessarily talking about 'replacing' anytime soon; we’re talking about building fast reactors in the future instead of building a bunch more plants that burn coal, oil, and gas. Most importantly, the US is extremely well equipped to improve and innovate when it comes to nuclear power. We invented it, we lead in it. It happens that we have a superior fast reactor design in mind called an Integral Fast Reactor (IFR). The IFR concept has several advantages over other kinds of fast reactors, which are in turn superior to thermal reactors in part for the reasons stated above.

In fact, it makes so much sense to build a prototype fast reactor it was already proposed and funded. But whereas India is already moving ahead with plans to develop fast reactor technology, and the Chinese have purchased two Russian BN-800 fast reactors, the Clinton-Gore administration killed the prototype US IFR in 1994 years before completion. The concept has yet to be seriously revisited, let alone refunded.

As a science writer I spend a great deal of time debunking pseudoscience and misinformation. A lot of those I argue with tend to be conservatives, and our progressive battle cry is often “put aside your biases and look at the facts and the science with an open mind.” That goes both ways folks. The science behind fast reactors is compelling. And consider, we don’t have a bunch of great options for near-term future energy sources, we have mediocre options at best, and according to the world’s foremost expert in climate science, the science of business as usual is not good:
While it’s difficult to say based on present information, I’ve come to conclude that If we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty. – Dr James Hansen, Storms of My Grandchildren pg. 236

As long as the Obama administration is tossing around hundreds of billions in stimulus spending, a substantial portion of which is earmarked for alternative energy, it makes sense to at least build a prototype. We’d learn a great deal from such a project, perhaps enough to build them cheaper, safer, and better. Perhaps not. But at the very least we’d have the technology more fleshed out in case we need it, and need it fast.

* * * * *

This guy claims to be a progressive (liberal) so why do I heartily agree with this whole idea? His 2nd to last paragraph implies that he gets a lot of opposition from conservatives. That is a HUGE surprise to me. I always thought it was the left that wanted us to live in caves huddled over little energy-efficient campfires.

I say we divert some of the Stimulus money to building the Integral Fast Reactors for our future energy needs. Put some Americans back to work doing it. Meanwhile, open the coastal shelves to oil drilling while we're waiting for the IFRs to come on line. Tell the arab oil shieks that we don't need their oil anymore and they have exceeded their lifetime quota of pissing us off.

It all seems pretty simple to me. In interests of full disclosure though, I must admit that I am not a president, nor do I play one on TV. However, I do have a U S Birth Certificate and Passport, several college diplomas and transcripts, and I meant it when I swore my oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.