SOME THOUGHTS ON NUCLEAR ENERGY

We all have likes and dislikes. I hate fission nuclear energy, the kind that uses uranium and plutonium. The combination of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, terrorist potential for bombs, crisis looming on where to store these wastes (for the radioactivity can be dangerous for millions of years), the high cost of construction, the fact that peak uranium might not be that far away and the nightmare that our civilization was on the edge of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) until the end of the Cold War have so alienated me to this power potential that I have done everything within my power to discredit this option.

Mind you, I think fusion (the kind of nuclear reaction that occurs in our Sun and all stars) could well be the solution to our sustainable energy future. I worked at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the seventies on this concept (see Chapter 1 of SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Planet Earth), but abandoned this field because I saw no potential for commercialization in my lifetime. The international ITER effort recently initiated in South France could cost from $15 billion to $30 billion just to show net positive, hopefully in 2018. Half the United Kingdom budget, apparently, just goes to support this initiative. The U.S. has been vacillating, for our Congress keeps talking about pulling out, then, maybe not.

Ironically, many environmentalists have embraced nuclear energy because the process produces very little carbon dioxide. Turns out that a facility which uses uranium from poor ores releases about as much carbon dioxide as a natural gas generation facility, but, in general, nuclear electricity and wind power are much cleaner:

So where are we today on nuclear energy? The 16November09 issue of Forbes has an article on nuclear energy that caught my attention. While no new nuclear powerplant is under construction in the United States, there are 53 new projects being readied around the world. More so, the 370 gigawatts (1000 times a megawatt, where one gigawatt can produce electricity for half a million people) today will more than double to 800 GW by 2030.

A particularly uncertain factor is the cost of fuel: uranium. The price of uranium to produce 1 gW for one year:

$ 6 million 2000

$80 million 2007

$28 million 2009

Of course, oil would cost more than a billion dollars for this amount of electricity production, as we spend in Hawaii. But the cold water for ocean thermal energy conversion would be free. The catch is that the total generation system costs a lot more for nuclear power, and much much more for OTEC.

Anyway, after the uranium (mostly U238, which has to be separated from the fissionable U235) is mined, it is milled into something called yellowcake. Yes, the color is yellow:

Enrichment needs to bring the U235 to around 5% concentration, and there are three ways to do this:

1. An inefficient and soon to be obsolete process called gaseous diffusion. (U.S.)
2. A slightly more efficient method called centrifugation. (France, United Kingdom, and, more recently, Iran)
3. The most efficient technique called laser enrichment…but this is only in R&D (General Electric)

If GE fails, then, the U.S., which already imports 80% of our reactor fuel, will then most probably import all. However, Peak Uranium http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/11/23/so-long-peak-oil-here-comes-peak-uranium/ has been said by some to occur in 2013.

All in all, if it is true that wind power is cheaper than new coal (with carbon storage) and new nuclear, and solar thermal is getting close to competing, then why even consider nuclear fission?

Now, nuclear fusion is another matter. The problem is that this option is probably two generations away from commercialization, unless the heavy-ion fusion concept miraculously can be successful.

Chances are that industrial forces will find a way to orchestrate a resurgence of nuclear fission power (because fusion will not be available, with R&D proceeding, but very slowly, and if successful, will reach maturity around 2100--of course activists will intensely protest, but fail to stop industry). What about renewable energy? A lot of wind farms will come on line, a few solar thermal parks will make inroads and solar photovoltaics will remain too expensive for decades.

The next 25 years of electricity will be coal (especially if nothing much happens in Copenhagen and follow-on global climate change summits) and nuclear, with a smattering (by next year wind/solar will generate less than 2%, going up to perhaps 10% in a decade) of renewables. Only if tens of millions perish one hot summer and Peak Oil results in oil shooting past $150/barrel (which, somehow pulls up all fossil fuel prices) will significant changes occur. Otherwise, coal and nuclear for electricity. Sorry.

-

The Dow Jones Industrials dropped 19 to 10, 452, with world markets almost all up. Gold set yet another all-time high, going up $15/toz to $1215, and crude oil slipped below $77/barrel. The latest rumor is that, in addition to India, China will begin buying gold, and this could double the price of gold. Remember that gold was once, in the early 1980's, at that level in 2009 dollars.

-

Nida is now down to 45 MPH, weakening, and heading towards Taiwan.

-

My only real meeting today was lunch at Happy Day with Paul Yuen and Pepper Shiramizu, completed by a typical end of the day in Hawaii:

I enjoy just watching the sunset. Today, I had a Columbus Special Series salami sandwich with arugula (which I grow on my roof), with a Peter Vella Chardonnay. This is a box wine (5 liters) that has been in my refrigerator for a few months, and just refuses to stop pouring. Still okay. On the side I fried some shiitake mushrooms, sliced hasu (lotus root), and broccalini in butter, shoyu, mirin and sake. Sunset came, and ended, with a Gurkha premium congnac infused cigar and Bas Reserve armagnac as the stars appeared.

-