Question of the Week

I particularly favor development of thorium-based reactors. For more information, see, e.g., http://energyfromthorium.com/

Eugene took some of my words from my mouth. Thorium pebble bed reactors show great promise, with higher thermal efficiencies, simplicity, and a higher degree of safety than presently prevalent technology.

We are way overdue to become the leader in safe, affordable, nuclear power. From about the 70s, we allowed a minority of misinformed zealots to throw huge regulatory expenses and delays into our nuclear power program - effectively halting progress. This time it’s far more urgent. We must be self-sustaining in our energy and we need nuclear power to help get us there.

Count me as another commentor in favor of thorium-base reactors. Educate yourself, and more importantly, your elected officials about the benefits of this inherently safer nuclear fuel alternative.

Nuclear power, Yes. As a leader, No. The USA is way behind the power curve (pun intended) on developing nuclear electric power and thermal reutilization. France, Japan, and China are way ahead of us. Efficient and safe are nice words, but the reality is will and time and $$$$$$$$$. We no longer have it.

We need to severely reduce dependence on petroleum and coal, but nuclear energy still has many issues to resolve before justifying our support. Capital intensity and long periods of construction, safe disposal of wastes, availability of fissionable ores, vulnerability to terrorism due to extreme scale, and prevention of weapons diversion remain to be resolved.

Renewable solar and wind energy needs complementary sources with high availability, but nuclear seems to require base-load operation to amortize it’s high capital costs. And it is difficult to imagine the U.S. being willing to spare scarce capital to pay for Chinese reactors.

I agree with Eugene, and I think that the Liquid Fueled Thorium Reactor shows a great deal of promise. There is a need for reform of the regulations regarding commercial nuclear power. After all, the U.S. Navy has been running reactors for years now on aircraft carriers and submarines.

The nuclear industry has been reseaching safe disposal of nuclear waste for over 60 years, and still does not have a safe disposal method. I’m in favor of further reseach into safe nuclear technology. Also the cost needs to be comparitive to present renewable energy technologies.

Thorium? How about using Hulkium or Supermanium? You technical geeks really make me chuckle. All we need to do is tax energy to the point that no one can afford it and then the problem will go away. Note: by “no one can afford it” I of course am refering to the unwashed masses and not the elite members of society like Nobel Prize Winners, Oscar winners, and lovers of polar bears.

We need to view the nuclear power issue with new eyes. This technology has changed so much that all of the accepted arguments, both pro and con need to be rethought and revised. Even the basic question “what kind of machine should we build with this technology” needs to be reconsidered. The current nuclear safety laws and rules, which assume and force the use of obsolete technology, also need to be dumped and reinvented for the same reason.

As soon as all of the opponents of nuclear energy (or other alternative that they deem as bad) flip a light switch and nothing happens, my guess is that they will all be screaming at the power companies for not having done anything………. Typical scenario.

Thorium, not uranium, should be the fuel of choice for all new reactors. Furthermore, all new reactors/power-generating plants should be of a standardized, efficient, and modern design.
In just a few years, we CAN have most of this nation’s electricity produced from non-fossil fuel power plants IF we make the same committed effort that put us on the moon in fewer than the ten years from when that goal was announced by JFK. When even the so-called environmental groups finally are seeing the light on nuclear power, the time for action is yesterday!

We absolutely need nuclear (fission) energy for the foreseeable future. The existing reactor technologies can be a bridge for the next couple of decades but some of the new pebble-bed fast-breeder technologies need to be developed so that we extract more than a few percent of the available fission energy from the nuclear fuel. Some of these, with proper reprocessing, will lead to better than 90% utilization of available fission energy, stretching the timeline for consumption of uranium resources by a factor of ten.

Disposal of the final waste products needs further research. One possibility that seems not to be discussed would be deep burial in crustal subduction zones. The radioactive material would be “reprocessed” by geologic processes and diluted into crustal material that would take tens of thousands of years to reappear, several half-lives later, mixed in with the trace natural radioactive elements, in the occasional volcanic eruption along the subduction zone.

No Nukes. Let’s look at the Gulf, oil leaks, you clean it up, and maybe you loose a few ducks in the process. Reactor leaks or blows up, well …. Take a look at some of the Chernobyl Kids sites, or look into the cancer rates and some of the pretty flowers growing down wind of Three Mile Island. This stuff works great on a small scale, ships, spacecraft, scale it up and the chances of it getting out of hand more than scale with it, add accelerated age to the infrastructure and technology and it’s a matter of ‘when’ not ‘if’. If you want more nuclear technology make sure it gets built up wind of your house.

That this is even a question to be asked is stunning and a shameful admission of our ‘kow-towing’ to anti-technology wackos armed with lawsuits and petitions…we once were leaders and clearly need to be again. As Jerry pointed out, once folks go to flip a light switch and nothing happens, all heck will break loose. We don’t have to get to that point.

There are basically three fundamental energy sources available to the denizens of earth.
1. Incident solar energy. Includes all forms of solar-driven power generation (solar-thermal, solar-photovoltaic, wind, and even hydro - the sun drives the water cycle that fills the lakes). The source is virtually unlimited in duration, but finite in its annual delivery rate. The only feasible true definition of “sustainable energy usage” requires that total global energy usage must be less than what the sun blesses us with each year. Inherent drawbacks are low energy density and high capital costs per MWhr.
2. Stored solar energy. We call these “fossil fuels.” Accumulation and decay of organic materials, accomplished by organisms that ultimately derived their energy for living from the sun. Finite resource, but very high energy density source, since the solar energy has already been “collected” over several millenia.
3. Nuclear. The only commercially viable alternative to coal for bulk generation of electricity in the U.S. today. Finite resource: once the available fissile materials have been decomposed, there is no more. This period can be extended by intelligent use of breeder technologies, but ultimately there is only so much uranium, thorium, plutonium available on earth. However, it is our best option for a transitional energy source if you buy the crock that we should stop utilizing the fossile fuels that the earth has been amply stocked with, until the someday utopia when we reach “sustainable” energy usage.

Yes, nuclear should provide a significant portion of the future US energy mix. The commercial nuclear industry has matured greatly over the last thirty years. Operational knowledge and experience has grown and led to long, safe runs, high capacity factors and reduced operating costs. We need nuclear and fossil and solar and wind and fuel cells and … With contributions from all the energy sources, I believe it will still be a challenge to keep up with the demand. Some want to remove nuclear and fossil from the mix. We will not meet our energy needs without them. What does the alternative look like? The alternative would seem to require reduction in the US population (any volunteers?), restriction of personal energy use, restriction of personal travel, restrictions on business, restrictions on industry. Some yearn to control our lives in this manner and some just think the world would be a lot better place without people in it.

It’s going to be one heck of a long time before we see renewable energy, such as wind and solar solve our energy problems. Although half the people probably do not want nuclear power, without oil and coal there is no other reliable choice for the long run.

Only idiots (!) would not consider nuclear energy. It is a proven technology AND economically feasible. By the way, the current cost of electricity (based mostly on the price of fossil fuel) is generating a windfall of profits to utility companies running nuclear reactors - just check it out!

The answer to the only reasonable question concerning nuclear energy: what to do with the radioactive spent fuel? Simple solution: dilute the material and we will have no problem with it. Remember: the nuclear fuel comes originally from nature, in an diluted form. So, bring the spent fuel to the original natural (diluted) state and return it to nature.

However … if we really want to resolve our energy problem, simply forbid the use of ice on drinks sold everywhere in this country. Has anyone have the slightest idea of how much energy goes down the drain, per minute, with all the ice wasted in this land? Has anyone ever asked why do we need to fill 3/4 of every soft drink cup with ice before drinking it just to throw most of it away minutes later?

WAKE UP AMERICA!

Nuclear, or similar sources for power generation, for the short term
I still like coal for the immediate future, as global warming cannot be altered by any great degree through human resources. One Volcanic eruption would put us back years.
Global warming billions spent for control, what a terrible ROI
Bet that business plan would be laughed out of existance.
Spend the billions on clean coal technology, and nuclear power.

I absolutely think nuclear power should play a major role in our future energy needs. I think some type of self contained minature nuclear reactor will someday power personal vehicles. Maybe something that would be swapped out every 6 months or so.

Yes, we should pursue using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. However, all the States benefiting from it need to develop their own repositories’ to dispose of the waste or the Federal Government needs to find a way to get it off our planet. We cannot keep sending it to one location in the United States that is currently the subject of a massive cleanup from storing waste created in the 1940’s.

YES! ABSOLUTELY! UNQUESTIONABLY! PERIOD!

Marks hits a nail on the head rather nicely. The only proper long term solution is to use the sun in an energy balanced way, taking account of the planet’s needs.

Nuclear energy seems to be a way to fill the gap whilst we develop ways of getting there. Reducing our huge wastage of fossil derived energy is also essential. I do buy the climate influence argument, but even if you are fixed against that view it makes sense to preserve the energy rich fossil fuels for sensible use over a longer time, rather than throw it away on big engines for shopping trips, shirtsleeves in centrally heated winter and sweaters in the air-conditioned summer. So carbon footprint reduction is the way to buy time to get the nuclear option going.

Gosh, and we could make money by selling both these technology systems to the rest of the world.

Oh, and we had better be prepared to accept that other countries, many other countries, will come to the same conclusion about nuclear energy.

If Bill Gates is on record advocating for nuclear power… I believe I reluctantly agree with him. I’m not clear on whether he truly is an advocate, but none-the-less, he knows if we are going to continue providing the kind of electrical power to provide the capacity we need to continue doing what we all do - we need a quantum leap to get to that next level - and his study and analysis says there is no other alternative on the horizon to do that, except nuclear. I, too, am concerned with the spent fuel - and I noted with interest the concept of “diluting” nuclear waste that Jose mentions. I think more to the point, the half life of nuclear material goes on for thousands of years - we will be accumulating the spent fuel much more rapidly than it can be diluted. We need another economical method to readily dispose of nuclear waste. Fusion may be a more suitable alternative to the previous focus on the fision process.