Nuclear Power as Part of Our Energy Surety
Submitted by Mark Miller, Sandia Labs
With the current global warming issues and looming energy crisis, we must objectively evaluate the facts regarding the world energy crisis and based on the weight of the evidence, draw reasonable conclusions from them and then strive to see that they are implemented on a national and even world scale. There is no question that there will be increasing potential for regional and global conflict over access to conventional energy resources which are essential to achieving a better standard of living. However, today, we are faced with the stark reality of finite fossil energy reserves, the threat of global warming, overpopulation, economic turmoil and the world’s “have-nots” striving to attain the standard of life enjoyed by the world’s “haves”.
The U.S. obtains 73% of the energy it consumes from CO2-producing sources. 97% of U.S. transportation uses oil (train, truck, car, agriculture) 70+% of this oil is imported, most of it from countries of the world that are politically unstable and don’t like Westerners. This is up from ~30% prior to the 1973 oil embargo. Since then every President has proclaimed that the U.S. would reduce its dependence on foreign oil – to no apparent effect. Are we missing something here?
By reliable, I mean that is it available
24/7/365
Regardless of where you live – large country or small, your future energy supply must be:
- reliable,
- sustainable,
- environmentally friendly,
- affordable and,
- available.
By reliable, I mean that is it available 24/7/365. Unfortunately renewables, although essential to every country’s energy portfolio, are not capable of delivering on this essential characteristic which is needed for baseload generation (have you ever tried to power a steel plant with solar power?). Sustainable means that it does not deplete finite resources. Environmentally friendly can be a catch-all, but for now I’ll assign this bugbear to CO2 and global warming. The meaning of affordable is obvious, but may mean dramatically different things to people from different economic strata. Historically in this country, cost was no object. Our per-capita prosperity was off the charts (in global terms) and was completely taken for granted (nolo contendere). With the bursting of the United States’ and the world’s economic bubble, capital cost matters!
Fear is the best way to get attention when
you're trying to win an argument.
Even if a U.S. utility acted to begin construction of a new, large nuclear power plant, few, if any, of them could afford the nearly $6-10B price tag and the 6-8 year lead time to build it. That’s one place where the “right-sized” reactors promoted by American Nuclear Society’s Tom Sanders can play a role. They are smaller, modular, safer, factory-buildable, more affordable, transportable, and adaptable to a wider range of applications and are more proliferation resistant (due to fuel design and utilization). Further, many smaller reactors are less vulnerable to catastrophic damage or sabotage than a few very large ones (fewer eggs in one basket). Promoting use of “right-sized” reactors in the U.S. and abroad would go a long way to restore the United States’ competitiveness in the global nuclear marketplace by providing new and existing U.S. companies with a tremendous opportunity for expansion. A revitalized, export-driven U.S. nuclear manufacturing sector would increase the United States’ ability to influence the management of safety and nonproliferation issues related to the global expansion of nuclear energy. Right now, we have abdicated this leadership role to foreign countries through over 30 years of neglect.
Fear is the best way to get attention when you're trying to win an argument. Groups who oppose nuclear power have certainly mastered in the last 30 years that technique - and to this country’s detriment - by playing to economic, environmental, and safety fears. Many of us, knowledgeable in such matters, have failed to assertively counter that fear with facts and data that we know and can defend. What could happen if the U.S. doesn’t adopt nuclear power as essential part of our energy portfolio is that we will be unable to compete with countries that have cheap, clean, reliable nuclear power - while we're stuck with a bunch of windmills and solar farms producing expensive, unreliable energy and insufficient baseload capacity. The whole prospect of the United States ignoring the very problem-solving technology that we invented is what I fear most about nuclear power. Of course, we hear a lot about the “nuclear renaissance” in this country lately. There are at least 34 license requests before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission right now, but no utility has yet broken ground to actually begin construction (exception: Vogtle?). There are 40 reactors now under construction in 11 countries around the world, none of them in the United States. While China had been focusing on building new coal plants, it has now shifted its focus to nuclear because of the environmental issue.
Nuclear power today provides 70% of our
carbon-free electricity.
Our current reactor fleet of 104 plants is up and running 90 percent of the time. Nothing else even comes close! Nuclear power today provides 70% of our carbon- free electricity. No member of the public has ever died due to radiation released from a U.S. nuclear power plant. 93% of original energy in used nuclear fuel is still recoverable via reprocessing! One individual’s lifetime waste volume from nuclear- generated electricity would fit inside 1 soda can! Think about that the next time you empty the ashes from your fireplace.
Wind and solar provide 4 percent of the US carbon-free energy. Wind and solar operate about one third of the time due to the nature of the source. Producing 20 percent of electricity from wind, as the Obama Administration proposes, will require building 186,000 fifty story turbines, enough to cover an area the size of West Virginia - plus 19,000 miles of new transmission lines to carry electricity from remote to populated areas. 100 new nuclear plants could be built, mostly on existing sites. It will cost roughly the same to build 100 new nuclear plants (which will last 60 to 80 years) as it would to build 186,000 wind turbines (lasting 20 to 25 years). The practical realities regarding the footprint for a nominal generating capacity of 1,500 megawatts would require:
- 3⁄4 square mile for nuclear plant
- 440 square miles for equivalent power wind farm
- 220 square miles for equivalent solar farm
- 1 million PV systems (like the one on my house, at max solar daytime output).
If we want safe, cost-effective, reliable,
non-carbon electricity we must include
nuclear power as part of our overall energy
portfolio.
Just for perspective, The TARP bill was about $700 billion. One nuclear plant ~ $6- 10B. Arguably, the U.S. could have “invested” in up to 90 nuclear power plants (with a 60-80 year production future) if we had put our mind to it.
If we want safe, cost-effective, reliable, non-carbon electricity we must include nuclear power as part of our overall energy portfolio. Failing that, we are going to wake up one cloudy, windless day when the light switch doesn't work and discover we've forfeited our capacity to lead the world because we ignored nuclear power, a problem-solving technology that we ourselves invented.
Final thoughts:
- Power Diversity = Surety
- No single energy source is viable, or secure.
- Government/ Laboratory Leadership is critical.
- We must predictably and consistently provide incentives to individuals and businesses (rationally and long-term so that planning and investment decisions can be made) to diversify to ensure increasing momentum in the nuclear renaissance.
- There will be increasing potential for regional and global conflict over access to conventional energy resources. Failing to provide leadership that has the potential to benefit billions of people is not acceptable.
We have a unique opportunity to individually make meaningful contributions from our respective fields of expertise and interdisciplinary networks to address the larger challenges facing us! This country’s (and the world’s) future well being depends on a reasoned and scientific response to the fact before us. We are morally bound to “reach out” to others so that we can share what we know in order to counter misinformation that hurts our fellow citizens (and perhaps the planet). It’s not too late to start. We have exactly enough time ... starting NOW!
What do YOU think?
Write a comment
Posts: 26
Reply #3 on : Tue February 21, 2012, 02:48:00
Posts: 26
Reply #2 on : Tue April 12, 2011, 09:26:13
Posts: 26
Reply #1 on : Wed June 09, 2010, 10:42:37