A New Chance for U.S. Nuclear Energy
Pittsburgh Business Times is reporting that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved Westinghouse Electric’s design for its AP1000 pressurized water reactor. This could lead to the building of new reactors in the U.S. by 2010. Westinghouse reportedly already has a contract with Duke Energy for two AP1000s.
Well, it’s about time that nuclear gets another shot in the U.S. When you consider all the health effects from hydrocarbon pollution, plus acid rain and potential greenhouse warming, nuclear can come out looking pretty good. I have long felt that if we were really serious about energy in the U.S., nuclear would be an important part of the picture.
The big problems with nuclear in the U.S. have been management of reactor construction, extensive legal interference by those opposed, and disposal of nuclear waste. Of these, the first is industry’s fault, whereas the latter two are mostly political (and with waste, somewhat technological).
Regarding management, the U.S. historically had a lot of problems because reactor designs were not sufficiently standardized. France took a different approach, developing a standard 900MW reactor. Such standardization brings both economic and safety advantages, and it’s important that the new AP1000 design, which also may be built in China, be managed in this way.
Protests and legal wrangling have been a big problem in the U.S., and I hope that the government and industry (what little is left of it) can somehow educate the public better about the relative safety of nuclear power. While natural gas is pretty clean burning, most places would probably be far better off with a nuclear plant than a coal-burning one. Of course, one of the reasons nuclear is garnering attention now is because of the rapid rises in natural gas prices. A lot of gas power plants have been built here in Texas since deregulation, and their economics are certainly not as attractive as they once were.
Disposal of nuclear waste is really the biggest sticking point. I think a lot of the protesting would really diminish if this issue was satisfactorily resolved. Compared to Western Europe, the U.S. is in a great position for handling wastes, with much dry and virtually unpopulated land, seemingly geologically stable, but politically it’s been difficult to move forward on a permanent site. Of course, the close majorities in the U.S. Senate in recent years increases the power of even a small-population western state to stall the project.
The French developed a vitrification process for containing some waste, which is an example of how technology could provide an extra margin of safety that might make a permanent site more acceptable. I haven’t looked into the French nuclear industry in a number of years, but their approach in the past seemed much more intelligent than ours, and we could probably learn a lot from them.
I guess that’s really the bottom line. An intelligent nuclear policy is what’s needed in the U.S. I just hope it’s politically feasible.
Here’s a step towards educating the public about nuclear energy. Nobody likes dry reports or propaganda, but how about a good story written by someone on the inside? There is a new techno-thriller novel about the American nuclear power industry, written by a longtime nuclear engineer (me), available at no cost on the net. This book provides an entertaining and accurate portrait of the nuclear industry today and how a nuclear accident would be handled. It is called “Rad Decision”, and is at RadDecision.blogspot.com.
“I’d like to see Rad Decision widely read.” - Stewart Brand, noted futurist and founder of The Whole Earth Catalog, who recently has called for a re-examinatin of nuclear power’s benefits.
I hope you’ll take an opportunity to look at Rad Decision, and if you like what you see, please pass the word.
Regards, James Aach
REVIEWS FROM READERS I DON’T KNOW:
http://cbll.net/weblog/post/index/229/Rad-Decision
http://laweekly.blogs.com/judith_lewis/2005/11/rad_publishing.html
http://www.cobolhacker.com/?p=307#comments
AND comments at the site itself.
Comment by James Aach — January 1, 2006 @ 7:03 pm
Energy Daily has just published a disturbing article on assertions by Thomas Neff, of MIT’s Center for International Studies, that future U.S. nuclear fuel supplies are hardly assured for a whole host of reasons. The looming shortage of U.S. fuel supplies poses a real dilemma for the renewed building of nuclear plants in this country.
The article reports that currently, “Worldwide, uranium production meets only about 65 percent of current reactor requirements,” and that stockpiles that were being drawn down are now nearly depleted. Also disturbing, the U.S. already is getting the vast majority of its fuel from overseas, and there has been a real lack of investment in uranium mining in this country.
These overseas supplies are now being targeted by countries such as China and India, who are also planning major nuclear expansions.
Comment by Gordon R. Vaughan — March 29, 2007 @ 6:19 pm