Nuke, Why Not?

Lady Judge knows what she is talking about when it comes to the UK’s nuclear waste - she has been in charge of the agency that must figure out what to do with it for the past 6 years. As she says, at least 90% of the problem comes from the weapons related efforts by the government, not the power related processing. There is a big difference in the technology and there is also a big difference in the level of knowledge that we have today about how to keep waste under control compared to what we knew in the 1950-1970s.

You can read a lot about the shortages of skilled reactor designers and builders, but most of the skills needed can be readily learned, especially by those skilled engineers and technicians that already have deep experience in similar industries. Nuclear engineering is not really all that special, there are plenty of other technologies with similar demands and similar levels of quality control like building large aircraft, major construction projects, and automobile manufacture.

The last time I checked, more than 600,000 people per month were losing their jobs in the US. A major new effort to build a generation of clean, reliable, emission free power stations could be our generation’s equivalent of the hydroelectric dam building undertaken during the 1930s and still providing parts of the US with some of the cleanest and least costly power available more than 70 years later.

I know that GE, Siemens, Vestas, Suzlon, Sharp, BP, Chevron, Shell, and other major wind and solar component manufacturers are chomping at the bit to produce massive new wind farms and solar spreads, but their power output is weather dependent and land intensive. It might seem like it is much quicker to erect wind turbines because each tower does not take very long. However, if you compare the time it takes to achieve a reliable power output of 1000 MW between wind and nuclear, you will have a different result.

Nuclear is not zero emissions.  Mining nuclear fuel destroys vegetation and requires vast amounts of FOSSIL FUELS.  Then, the material must be transported ON SEMI TRUCKS.  Nuclear plant construction requires vast amounts of energy-intensive concrete.  Then there is the waste problem.  I am not convinced that there is not a waste problem just because someone says only 10% of the total nuclear waste produced is from nuclear electricity production.  How exactly is that a reason to produce more waste that we still have no idea what to do with?  If anything, I see it as even more motivation to halt all nuclear weapons production and nuclear powered subs and aircraft carriers. 

This whole thing is idiotic when seen in light of the easy, safe and profitable solutions of energy efficiency, wave, wind, solar, geothermal, cogeneration, biochar, local economies, telecommuting, etc. 

I can’t believe anyone in their right mind would utter the statement: “Life on this planet depends on us going nuclear.”  What ridiculous bullsh*t! 

Thorium Molten Salt Reactors really are better nuclear technology and deserve to be commercialized.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory proved experimentally that TMSRs could be built and are safe and economical to operate. ORNL operated a MSRE TMSR reactor for four years successfully in a research reactor. TMSR nuclear technology is needed by the Country to help America become energy independent while eliminating the production of GHG which threatens the climate.
A moderate investment in commercializing Thorium Molten Salt Nuclear Technology would provide large dividends to the Country and will allow us to actually meet our Global Warming Green House Gas reduction goals. After a decade of subsidies and tax advantages solar and wind still provide only about 1.6% of our energy (2007 DOE figures). If we double our wind and solar power generation in the next 4 years we will still produce only slightly over 3% of our power by renewable sources. Improving non GHG emitting fission nuclear to Thorium Fuel Cycle technology could be accomplished in parallel with the hard work it will take to build, site, and install the renewable energy systems and the new smart grid. Improved nuclear could “back up” renewable sources and fill in power when the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow. There is at present no economical way to store renewable energy for later use (batteries are just too expensive and hazardous in the sizes required). Thorium Molten Salt nuclear is ideal as a back up because it can be safely throttled multiple times an hour if desired to smooth out supply variations produced from the changing weather conditions effects on the output of renewable energy systems. Standard Light Water Reactor Nuclear is not well adapted to ‘load following” and peek generating applications to back up renewables. LWRs operate best when carefully being brought up to power and kept at that setting for an extended period of time. Bringing LWRs up and down frequently would be traumatic and potentially dangerous. Thorium Molten Salt nuclear is an ideal non GHG producing load matching peak generating component that would greatly increase the satisfaction of Americans with the final completed energy system involving a combination of renewables and new less waste generating nuclear that together would generate no Green House Gases.

It would be wise to invest in less waste generating nuclear in parallel with our investment in renewable energy solutions.

For a cost of approximately one tenth the projected 2010 budget of NASA per year for five years the US could have Oak Ridge National Laboratory and an industrial partner prepare plans for a commercial 1000 MW Thorium Molten Salt Reactor that would, in the future, greatly reduce the amount of toxic high level waste that would have to be placed in the Yucca Mountain Repository. Approximately 1.8 billion dollars a year for five years could fund a complete NRC certifiable approved reactor design that could be quickly adopted and built by utilities wanting to provide improved nuclear power. Ongoing design efforts at the Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie in Grenoble, France and in Japan are underway to produce new, updated, Thorium Molten Salt Reactor designs. It might be possible to bootstrap design efforts by joining with the French and Japanese on a combined, updated, NRC reviewable commercial TMSR reactor design and share the costs of development.
Respectfully, Robert Steinhaus   Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Retired)

Note1: We could replace all of the Coal Burning Green House Gas Generating Power Plants in America producing 45% of the nation’s electricity with two hundred and eighty 1200 MW Thorium Molten Salt Reactors and generate less high level waste than one conventional 1200 MW Light Water Reactor.

[1] Dr. Ralph Moir, ?Cost of electricity from Molten Salt Reactors (MSR)?in Nuclear Technology vol 138 pages 93-95 (2002) 
Article can be downloaded online through the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/rmoir2003/coe_10_2_2001.pdf

In this study Dr. Moir shows that the cost of electricity from TMSR reactors versus LWR and Coal is

Molten Salt Reactor - 3.8 ¢/kWh
Light Water Reactor - 4.1¢/kWh
Coal Fired Power Plant - 4.2 ¢/kWh

[2] Revisiting the thorium uranium nuclear fuel cycle, © European Physical Society, EDP Sciences 2007.
This article can be downloaded from http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/EPN:2007007

The word “nuclear” still makes most people cringe, but that’s just one of the many obstacles the industry is facing.

For starters, we’re talking about a technology that is relatively new, unproven and therefore risky (and no, four years of operation under controlled conditions does not prove a technology). Furthermore, the cost (which none is even attempting to calculate) will likely be astronomical, even more than the proposed carbon sequestration schemes. Don’t get me wrong - I don’t like coal. I’m just saying that faced with these two prospects, a proven technology with a high-risk, high-cost improvement (sequestration) versus an unproven technology with both high cost and high risk, I would be hard pressed to pick the latter.

I would like to suggest that Thorium Molten Salt Reactors (TMSR) are a significantly less, 1 part in 100, waste generating and produce waste which is 1 part in 1000 as radio-toxic after a period of 10 years.

Molten Salt Reactors tend to be significantly smaller for a given power output and use significantly less cement and steel than conventional Light Water Reactors. The capital costs for Thorium Molten Salt Technology should be significantly lower than current technology. Dr. Ralph Moir of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has done a careful cost study showing that Molten Salt Reactors have a cost of electricity less than coal fired power plants [1] or any renewable energy source currently being considered.
 
Parallel investment in less waste generating nuclear technology alongside planned heavy investment in renewable and ?smart grid? power distribution would reduce technology risks to the nation.

[1] Moir, Ralph ?Cost of electricity from Molten Salt Reactors (MSR)?  which can be downloaded online through the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/rmoir2003/coe_10_2_2001.pdf