The Dubious Appeal of Nuclear Energy
I just posted a piece to Renewable Energy World, in which I recollect my encounters in airports with other college-aged kids of the 1970s who were vigorously gathering support for nuclear energy. I recall how one self-satisfied young fellow quipped, “More people died in Ted Kennedy’s car than in the sum total of all nuclear reactor incidents.”
Now, four decades later, I’m still wondering about the pro-nuclear people. Who are they? What’s the attraction?
If nuclear were cheap, I’d at least be able to understand the appeal. But the amortized cost of building, operating, and decommissioning a nuclear facility is fantastically high. So, if you’re willing to pay increased cost, why not choose any of dozens of flavors of solar and biomass, or wind, hydrokinetics and geothermal? While they may be expensive right this minute, at least they don’t leave you with spent fuel rods that must be isolated from all life forms for half a million years (the year 502,011).
Bottom line: I don’t get it. But, as I’ve mentioned, I don’t understand the appeal of many other phenomena that the human race seems to favor either: auto racing, pro wrestling, rap music, etc. Maybe it’s just one of those things…
Unfortunately, we are not using the best available nuclear technology. As the public is becoming more and more aware, we should be phasing out pressurized water thermal reactors. They are inherently dangerous; it is only by using multiple levels of safety precautions that they have been made acceptably safe. And, all the safety precautions and devices add considerably to the cost. Having to keep a vessel pressurized to 2500 psi is very expensive and adds risk.
As the public is becoming aware, we should be shifting to reactors which use thorium instead of uranium. Specifically, we should be shifting to liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTRs). They operate at normal atmospheric pressure. They can also be designed so that they do not require an emergency cooling system and are walk-away safe. Moreover, they produce only about 1% as much waste as our pressurized water thermal reactors produce; the waste they do produce decays to harmless materials within only a few hundred years. Also, although they use thorium for fuel, they can burn existing nuclear waste as fuel, thereby solving our nuclear waste problem.
NO ONE UNFAMILIAR WITH LFTR TECHNOLOGY CAN COMPETENTLY DISCUSS THE PROS AND CONS OF NUCLEAR POWER!! Objecting to all forms of nuclear energy makes about as much sense as objecting to automobiles because motorists often broke their arms while cranking them before the electric starter was perfected.
Although it is understandable that people are uneasy with our current nuclear technology, the objections to it do not apply to LFTR technology. If we are really serious about solving the very real problem of global warming and other problems associated with burning fossil fuels, then we must push for development and implementation of LFTR nuclear technology. And, until LFTR nuclear technology is implemented on a wide scale, we should push for increased energy efficiency.
For more information, study the following links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU3cUssuz-U&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSzEjWz5T44&feature=player_embedded#at=16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEpnpyd-jbw
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d9133b4906a1905%2C0
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010090111506/life-and-science/energy-and-environment/thorium-cures-the-free-market.html