Energy Development: The Race to Slow Anthropogenic Climate Change
by Jerry Nolan
We don't really know how much trouble we are in with global warming, but if it continues experts tell us to expect flooding in coastal areas, intense storms, droughts, regional food and water shortages as glaciers disappear, mass migrations, and social upheaval. There is probably a tipping point, the point at which global warming becomes irreversible so there is an urgency to developing safe, clean, cheap energy. Scientists and engineers are in a race to find a solution. Currently in the U.S. we are seeing the replacement of coal with natural gas thanks to advancements in drilling technology and hydraulic fracturing. Although burning natural gas emits only half the CO2 that coal does, its emissions are still substantial and harmful. Natural gas will serve as a necessary intermediate step until something better comes along.
Wind and Solar
Wind and solar power might be a suitable alternative for energy in some places, but solar and wind will always be a small part of total energy production because of its high cost, and its low and intermittent energy output. A big windmill generates about five megawatts when the wind is blowing. A single coal, gas, or nuclear plant generates over 1,000 megawatts nonstop. Large solar installations generate from 50 to 100 megawatts when the sun is shining. Both wind and solar require fossil fuel plants to generate electricity at night or when the wind isn't blowing. Germany is building new coal burning plants for this purpose. (Google "Germany replace nuclear coal".) Many locations simply don't have enough wind or sunshine for wind or solar to be practical. The large land mass required by wind, solar, and required delivery grid is often met with resistance from locals who don't want these industrial installations on their landscapes. Wind and solar are more expensive than coal or gas. Currently wind and solar are heavily subsidized by governments.
Nuclear power has the greatest potential to be the energy source of choice, but it has to overcome public and political resistance. Nuclear power has proven itself to be thousands of times safer than fossil fuels, just as commercial air travel is thousands of times safer than travel by automobile. We hear sensational stories about airplane crashes and nuclear accidents while tens of thousands of deaths from respiratory diseases caused by burning coal are ignored. Nuclear power has by far the lowest accident rate compared to coal, oil, or natural gas.
The only nation to suffer fatalities from a nuclear accident is Russia. Russian authorities report 31 fatalities from its1986 Chernobyl accident. UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) says that apart from increased thyroid cancers,* "there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident." It should be noted that the Chernobyl plant was built without a containment dome and was run in a reckless manner. The Chernobyl plant was designed for making weapons, not electricity. See Wikipedia entry Chernobyl disaster effects
In the case of Fukushima the explosions and radiation did not and probably will not cause any deaths. The radiation levels most people experienced were 20 millisieverts or less. Cancers are not expected with exposures less than 100 millisieverts. The World Health Organization's (WHO) report on Fukushima health risks says "for the general population inside and outside of Japan, the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated." The greatest downside of the Fukisima accident is the overreaction of nations that have backed away from nuclear power and will increase the burning of fossil fuels to generate power. See Nuclear Safety in Wikipedia
Three Mile Island
Probably the most damaging overreaction to a nuclear accident was Three Mile Island; no fatalities, no injuries, no radiation exposure, yet the U.S. stopped building nuclear reactors for thirty years and built fossil fuel plants that added millions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.
For political reasons, the
U.S. funding for nuclear power research has been shrinking steadily. This is due
to two things: 1. fear of nuclear power and 2. an unfortunate choice made during
the Nixon administration. The original purpose of nuclear power was to build
bombs and power submarines. Using nuclear power to generate electricity was an
afterthought. The design of nuclear power plants of those early days was the
light-water reactor (LWR). This design has undergone significant design
improvements, but it is still old technology that should be replaced with a
better design. In the 1950's and '60s, after nuclear power from light-water
reactors was well ensconced in its military role, scientists at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL) came up with another reactor design. The new design
made meltdown impossible and the waste was a 1,000 times less than the LWR. In
fact the new design could use the waste of the old design as fuel. The new
design didn't need large amounts of water the way the LWR does and could
desalinate water while generating electricity. The new design didn't even need
uranium for fuel. A prototype was built and ran for five years to prove the
design would work. It should be noted that the one thing the new design
proved to be inferior at was making bombs. But that's
not surprising, it wasn't designed for that.
When the Air Force came to
ORNL scientists back in the late '50s and asked them to develop a nuclear power
plant for a bomber, the scientists were forced to create a reactor that was
light, small, and safe. It would have to be one that would eliminate most of the
problems of the LWR. The new design they came up with was the molten salt
reactor (MSR). They built a small proof of concept reactor for the Air Force,
but then funding was cut as long-range bombers were replaced with ICBMs. In the
sixties ORNL received funding for the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE). The
scientists argued for continuing development of the molten salt reactor but the
military and bureaucratic momentum were behind the LWR. The MSRE was highly
successful and ran continuously from 1965 to 1969. A decision was made during the Nixon
administration to stop funding for the MSRE in favor of development of a breeder
reactor at a time when it was thought there was a shortage of uranium needed for
LWR reactors. The
breeder reactor ran from 1964 to 1994 when it was defunded. The breeder
reactor design evolved to the Integral Breeder Reactor which is still being
worked on today. The molten salt reactor work was forgotten.
For 30 years students could get PhD's in nuclear engineering without
hearing anything about molten salt reactors.
Enter the 21st century and a young NASA scientist given the job of finding a way to power a colony on the moon. His name is Kirk Sorensen. He knew the power source would likely have to be nuclear given that the moon has no wind and two weeks of darkness every month, but the prevailing LWR designs all called for water, lots of water. One day while visiting a colleague's office he noticed a book titled Molten Salt Reactors and asked to borrow it. He took it home and became consumed in its 1,000 pages of technical jargon and data. Kirk Sorensen was so enthralled with the design that he started a grassroots movement that today has scientists and engineers working on their own time to refine and develop the design. Their design is called the Liquid Fuel Thorium Reactor (LFTR), a type of molten salt reactor that burns thorium, a plentiful and cheap fuel.
The Generation 4 reactor design
The race is now on to see who
can produce the first commercial grade Gen 4 reactor and get international patents
for it. The lead has been taken by China. There are over 100
companies in China working on designs for nuclear reactors, including
the LFTR design. In fact, the LFTR design in China is receiving 100%
Chinese government backing and the U.S. Department of Energy is
cooperating with China by giving them all the research that was done
at ORNL. The U.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE) describes this as
collaboration. China stated clearly that it intends to be sole owner
of any international patents on LFTR designs. At the time of this
writing, there is no DOE funding for the development of LFTR's in the
U.S. Since Kirk
Sorensen's grassroots movement was initiated, many countries have
begun R&D on molten salt reactors because the design is so
promising and simple compared to other designs.
Meanwhile, Kirk Sorensen and a partner
have started a private company called Flibe Energy, to develop
LFTR's. Ironically the U.S. Army is backing Sorensen's efforts.
expects to have a LFTR power up in 2015. Kirk chose a partner in his
company who is a lawyer and expert in international patents. He
apparently sees the importance of getting those international patents
before China does.
There are other nuclear designs in the works. Bill Gates is backing a nuclear reactor design called a Traveling Wave Reactor (TWR), a type of Integral Fast Reactor, that is being developed by Terrapower. Another company worth noting is Trans Atomic Power started by two MIT PhD students. Their design is a molten salt reactor they call Waste Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) that will burn the nuclear waste produced by today's LWR's. They claim their idea is new but all LFTR fans know that molten salt reactors can burn nuclear waste. Nothing new about that, but good luck to them. I hope they end up joining Kirk Sorensen's company, but there is no reason to think that will happen.
Robert Hargraves' excellent book
Thorium: energy cheaper than coal
points out that LFTR's could be built in factories and turned out at
a rate comparable to Boeing's production of airliners. LFTR's could
be used to power ocean going ships, a major source of CO2
, and could provide
electric power for high speed rail to replace many commercial jet
flights. The heat from LFTR's could be used to synthesize hydrogen
based fuels for automobiles, could be used to desalinate sea water
in coastal areas, and could be used to bring energy to impoverished
nations. Robert Hargraves makes a convincing case for the success of
LFTR technology and its likely success in a capitalist economy. The
only real question is whether the United States will be a leader or a
follower in LFTR technology.
This is an important race worth watching. The winner is going to win big. We will all win big. Will we be buying reactors from China, or will Kirk Sorensen's company prevail? In any case, clean energy is coming. I would just like to see Kirk Sorensen win the race. He deserves it. Without him, the Chinese wouldn't even know about molten salt reactors. Moreover, as much as I would like to see Kirk Sorensen win the race, this is too important to be left solely to a small underfunded company. The DOE national labs need to be more involved. Currently the national labs are contributing in some important ways, namely research on materials that work best to contain molten salt for solar power plants. Their research will most likely be available to the private companies working on LFTR's, but they should do more because they have the authority to build and test LFTR's without the interference from the NRC.
Gen II and Gen III reactors are winners, but politics made us losers
While I am an advocate of the development of 4th generation nuclear power, it must be said that the political movement that has virtually stopped the building of nuclear reactors for the past thirty years is a disaster. Instead of using clean and safe nuclear power we've been building fossil fuel power plants and spewing millions of tons of CO2 and particulates into the air that have set us on a disaster course with global warming. That now appears to be changing. "Here in the United States, five new plants are expected to be operational by the end of the decade while internationally, 70 such facilities are planned." reports Ken Silverstein in Forbes Magazine. Power Engineering Magazine reports Big Plans for Mini Reactors in February 2013 article.
Although Generation IV reactors should decrease worry about proliferation and disposal of nuclear waste, worry about today's reactors is an unfortunate overreaction.
Proliferation risk: Current LWR reactors designed to generate electricity are not suitable for bomb building. If a nation wants to build a uranium bomb, enriching uranium to a high enough level for a bomb is much more difficult than enriching for a reactor. If a nation wants to build a plutonium bomb, the best way to do it is to build a different type of reactor for that purpose. In other words, it is simply not true that if a nation builds a nuclear power plant, it could easily build a bomb.** Nations make thoughtful decisions of what to build. They don't say, "Oh, since we've built a nuclear power plant, let's build a nuclear bomb too!" There are nations with nuclear power plants and no nuclear bomb, and there are nations with nuclear bombs and no nuclear power plants.
Nuclear waste: Nuclear waste is not a technical problem, it is a political problem. The U.S. could recycle its waste, but it makes more sense to store it and use it as fuel in 4th generation reactors. Yucca Mountain is an example of a technical solution being blocked by political problems. Current on site storage will suffice until the next generation of reactors come online. The next generation of reactors will burn nuclear waste from the old reactors.
added on 10-15-2013
High Cost: Lately a popular argument against building nuclear reactors is the high cost. That argument has a lot more credibility in the U.S. than in other countries, and certainly more credibility than safety, proliferation, or waste issues. Political pressure from fossil fuel companies, and their unwitting allies, the anti-nuke greens, have resulted in exorbitant licensing fees, licensing delays, and unnecessary over building of reactors. Interesting that we could afford to build reactors years ago, but not today. Other enterprising countries are moving ahead with building reactors. Russia, China, and Canada are building reactors for other countries and making money at it. Unfortunately, anti-nuke political pressure has succeeded in forcing the overpricing of reactor construction in the U.S.
* Thyroid cancers are easily detected and treated. "One common theme in all of these accidents is that in general, health consequences are not global and unless you are up close and personal with the reactor core, health effects are not noticeable in any measurable way. The thyroid cancers from Chernobyl are the only exception to this and did produce some measurable offsite consequences. These particular cancers can be attributed to gross negligence in the emergency response efforts from the Soviet government as they were only focused on the reactor and sadly, these were preventable. All the Soviet government had to do was to evacuate and/or distribute iodine pills to the public and so block uptake of the radioactive iodine released from the accident." from Does Evidence Show that there are no Nuclear Disasters
** Uranium processed for electricity generation is not useable for weapons. The uranium used in power reactor fuel for electricity generation is typically enriched to about 3-4% of the isotope U-235, compared with weapons-grade which is over 90% U-235. For safeguards purposes uranium is deemed to be "highly enriched" when it reaches 20% U-235. Few countries possess the technological knowledge or the facilities to produce weapons-grade uranium.
Plutonium is produced in the reactor core from a proportion of the uranium fuel. Plutonium contained in spent fuel elements is typically about 60-70% Pu-239, compared with weapons-grade plutonium which is more than 93% Pu-239. Weapons-grade plutonium is not produced in commercial power reactors but in a "production" reactor operated with frequent fuel changes to produce low-burnup material with a high proportion of Pu-239.
The only use for "reactor grade" plutonium is as a nuclear fuel, after it is separated from the high-level wastes by reprocessing. It is not and has never been used for weapons, due to the relatively high rate of spontaneous fission and radiation from the heavier isotopes such as Pu-240 making any such attempted use fraught with great uncertainties.
This article was published at the ANS Nuclear Cafe on August 21, 2013. A related article appeared about a month later ANS Will Enter Climate Change Dialogue
This article was also published at the Energy Collective on March 4, 2013 and drew interesting comments.
The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: What Fusion Wanted to Be
Energy From Thorium: A Nuclear Waste Burning Liquid Salt Thorium Reactor
Kirk Sorensen - Introduction to Flibe Energy @ TEAC3
The Thorium Molten-Salt Reactor: Why didn't this happen (and why is now the right time?)
Robert Hargraves - Thorium Energy Cheaper Than Coal
If You Care About the Environment, You Should Support nuclear Power
A good, politically charged documentary often seizes on what the audience already believes and throws fuel on the fire (see, e.g., the work of Michael Moore). A better such documentary tries to convince its audience that what it takes for granted is flat-out wrong.
America's Nuclear Energy Future
Other people think molten salt reactors have promise, like Per Peterson at UC-Berkeley. He's going to China to test a 2 megawatt version of the molten salt
Nuclear energy: Radical reactors
Molten-salt reactors would be impervious to catastrophic meltdown, for example, and instead of producing nuclear waste laced with plutonium and other
India: A hotbed of molten salt
The world is full of surprises isnít it? Well, Iíve just experienced quite a big one. Iíve just returned from the most amazing meeting of the minds in Mumbai Ė the Conference on Molten Salts in Nuclear Technology hosted at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC).
Russian nuclear energy conquers the world
Russian nuclear energy demonstrated impressive achievements in the global market "of nuclear services" in 2012. In this area, Rosatom State Corporation wins competition with major Western companies, even though cooperation in the field of "peaceful
Book Description at Amazon follows:
"This is a very scary book by a very bright man, offering a picture of humanity's future that is both ominous and exhilarating."
-Edward O. Wilson
This eye-opening book by the legendary author of the National Book Award-winning Whole Earth Catalog persuasively details a new approach to our stewardship of the planet. Lifelong ecologist and futurist Stewart Brand relies on scientific rigor to shatter myths concerning nuclear energy, urbanization, genetic engineering, and other controversial subjects, showing exactly where the sources of our dilemmas lie and offering a bold, inventive set of policies and design- based solutions for shaping a more sustainable society. Thought- provoking and passionately argued, this is a pioneering book on one of the hottest issues facing humanity today.