Nuclear power is still a divisive issue among EcoGeeks. It's clean, at least from a fuel cycle carbon emissions standpoint. But it's a reasonable question whether it is truly cost-effective once all the issues of mining and processing the fuel, and treating and storing the spent material and waste, along with the security and the public safety concerns (which carry their own not-insignificant costs).
There are many who claim that nuclear power is the greenest short-term alternative to coal to reduce carbon emissions from electrical power generation. And, on the other hand, we have seen some countries move to phase-out nuclear power in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster.
However, Fukushima-style boiling-water reactors are not the only way to use nuclear power to produce electricity. For that matter, uranium isn't the only nuclear fuel that could be used. There are other reactor designs and fueling methods have been explored and are under development.
Over the next couple of weeks, we are going to take a look at several alternative nuclear power technologies with an EcoGeek persepctive. We aren't going to draw any final conclusions with this one way or the other. We are advocating neither in favor of nor against any of these alternatives, nor are we for or against nuclear power, in general.
This article is part of a series on alternative possibilities in nuclear power.
Previously at EcoGeek: Lesson of Fukushima: No-Nukes or Pro-Nukes?
Hits: 11941
Comments (21)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by RwFlynn, December 09, 2011
I've always been curious about the potential of nuclear power, but I don't trust those nuclear boilers. This is going to be an interesting opportunity for me to learn something. I'm a little excited to read what's coming up about the different methods we can use to take advantage of such a tempting energy source. Thanks, EcoGeek!
-
- +0
-
-
written by gas processing, December 09, 2011
Hi Mr. Philip,
You pick a really good point here.
I am also support for Nuclear Power but after seeing the Fukushima's disaster I think that if our scientist have discover some more secure way than it will be prove very beneficial for us.
You pick a really good point here.
I am also support for Nuclear Power but after seeing the Fukushima's disaster I think that if our scientist have discover some more secure way than it will be prove very beneficial for us.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Martin, December 09, 2011
Thorium all the way! - The only known way to have stable nuclear power that is actually cheap. - see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ9Ll5EX1jc
Without Nuclear it would be extremely hard to stop climate change getting worse!
Without Nuclear it would be extremely hard to stop climate change getting worse!
-
- +2
-
-
written by Stevan, December 09, 2011
I'm curious, has there been any research in disposing the waste in volcanos or into the Earth's core?
Also, wouldn't pebble bed reactors solve what happened at Fukushima?
Also, wouldn't pebble bed reactors solve what happened at Fukushima?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Ron, December 09, 2011
This will be an interesting series, but I would love it if EcoGeek took the risk and did some advocating! Be provocative and get people talking about the options!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dave K., December 09, 2011
I'm a nuclear green, what nuclear buys you is about 1 million times the energy density, yes you have to mine fuel but very little, yes it makes waste but not much, and as you said there are far better reactor designs that were never developed, mostly because the AEC was more interested in making weapons grade plutonium than clean power. Also there are places that really don't have the R.E. potential to produce their energy needs without some kind of baseload 24/7 power generation. I'm still very big on R.E., particularly solar, but I just think we need both, at least for now, people are not going to turn off their AC, or freeze in the dark.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Madison, December 09, 2011
Looking forward to reading your series on this topic, I'm always interested to hear about advances in nuclear technologies that employ thorium as a fuel stock. From the bit that I have seen it seems like a much safer & cleaner alternative! (From a radioactivity standpoint at least, I have little knowledge of how it is mined and refined.)
-
- +1
-
-
written by James Aach, December 09, 2011
FYI: I'd think the following would be something that would appear to "Ecogeeks" as a learning opportunity. Free anyway:
I've worked in the US nuclear industry over twenty years. If you would like an inside view of daily life at a US nuclear plant and how it would respond to an accident, my novel "Rad Decision" is available free online, with no sponsors or advertising. Just Google the title. The profiled plant and the climatic event happen to resemble Fukushima.
We'll make better decisions about our energy future if we first understand our energy present. Media profiles and academic papers proivde little real understanding for the public regarding how today's nuclear reactors are operated (either well or poorly). Rad Decision's media presence is rather limited (the author has been busy actually doing nuclear work) but those readers who have found it seem to have enjoyed the story and gained some valuable perspective along the way. See their reviews at the homepage.
I've worked in the US nuclear industry over twenty years. If you would like an inside view of daily life at a US nuclear plant and how it would respond to an accident, my novel "Rad Decision" is available free online, with no sponsors or advertising. Just Google the title. The profiled plant and the climatic event happen to resemble Fukushima.
We'll make better decisions about our energy future if we first understand our energy present. Media profiles and academic papers proivde little real understanding for the public regarding how today's nuclear reactors are operated (either well or poorly). Rad Decision's media presence is rather limited (the author has been busy actually doing nuclear work) but those readers who have found it seem to have enjoyed the story and gained some valuable perspective along the way. See their reviews at the homepage.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Tom B., December 10, 2011
These people have some interesting ideas, small scale fast reactors that are fail safe and eliminate the need for long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel. Even If they only reduced the Nuclear Spent fuel rods they would be the next responsible move as a spent fuel storage solution. The fact that they could replace all power production for hundreds of years with no new ore dug from the ground is the icing on the cake. We can only hope that these reactors can actually be built operate as imagined.
http://www.ga.com/energy/em2/pdf/EM2_presentation.pdf
http://www.ga.com/energy/em2/pdf/EM2_presentation.pdf
-
- +0
-
-
written by Weng, December 11, 2011
Thorium is safe for military use and produce nice green color explosion (better color than uranium/plutonium explosions).
-
- +0
-
-
written by wjv, December 11, 2011
I read that Rad Decision online novel. It was pretty interesting and had detailed diagrams of light-water uranium reactors.
I hope I see thorium Molten salt reactors covered in this series. They are the most promising nuclear technology there is, I think.
-Unable to catastrophically melt-down due to passive physics which govern the molten salt mediated nuclear decay reaction. (If the nuclear decay generates too much heat, the salt thermally expands, which passively slows down the nuclear decay rate, until the salt cools down again and the nuclear decay rate resumes normal speed.)
-Very little waste that only lasts ~300 years rather than 10,000s
-Ability to use current nuclear waste as fuel which decays it so it doesn't stick around anymore
-Uses Thorium instead of uranium, which is far more common in the earth's crust and comes from Rare-earth mines which we are digging up anyways for renewable energy technologies.
-A byprodut of this nuclear process is Plutonium-238, which is an alpha emitter (i.e. not dangerous) but is the only feasible fuel for deep space probe missions. So if you like deep space travel, you have to like Plutonium 238. Currently NASA'a stockpile of this is running out in about 10-20 years.
I hope I see thorium Molten salt reactors covered in this series. They are the most promising nuclear technology there is, I think.
-Unable to catastrophically melt-down due to passive physics which govern the molten salt mediated nuclear decay reaction. (If the nuclear decay generates too much heat, the salt thermally expands, which passively slows down the nuclear decay rate, until the salt cools down again and the nuclear decay rate resumes normal speed.)
-Very little waste that only lasts ~300 years rather than 10,000s
-Ability to use current nuclear waste as fuel which decays it so it doesn't stick around anymore
-Uses Thorium instead of uranium, which is far more common in the earth's crust and comes from Rare-earth mines which we are digging up anyways for renewable energy technologies.
-A byprodut of this nuclear process is Plutonium-238, which is an alpha emitter (i.e. not dangerous) but is the only feasible fuel for deep space probe missions. So if you like deep space travel, you have to like Plutonium 238. Currently NASA'a stockpile of this is running out in about 10-20 years.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Darryl Fleming, December 11, 2011
This looks like it could be an awesome thread. I'm super keen on green and nuclear tech.
Pretty much every country that has abondoned nuclear has or is switching to coal and/or gas (see Germany, Mexico and Japan). Their intention is to ultimately build renewable power sources but the path leading there is extremely dirty without nuclear.
Pretty much every country that has abondoned nuclear has or is switching to coal and/or gas (see Germany, Mexico and Japan). Their intention is to ultimately build renewable power sources but the path leading there is extremely dirty without nuclear.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Doc Rings, December 12, 2011
Need Rad Decision in e-Reader format. I know you have it on your blog, but would rather have it on my eReader, too.
Looking forward to the nuclear power series...anything to decrease the 20,000 deaths a year from coal power.
Looking forward to the nuclear power series...anything to decrease the 20,000 deaths a year from coal power.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sjors, December 13, 2011
This was the last time i visited this site. To bad i liked it.
But nuclair? Are you for real?
I really would like NOT to be dependent on big companys for power.
I hope youll see the light some day.
peace.
But nuclair? Are you for real?
I really would like NOT to be dependent on big companys for power.
I hope youll see the light some day.
peace.
-
- -1
-
-
written by cosmic mariner, December 14, 2011
http://www.earthtrack.net/file...es/nuclear subsidies_summary.pdf
NUCLEAR POWER: Still Not Viable without Subsidies
“…This means that buying power on the open market and giving it away for free would have been less costly than subsidizing the construction and operation of
nuclear power plants.”
NUCLEAR POWER: Still Not Viable without Subsidies
“…This means that buying power on the open market and giving it away for free would have been less costly than subsidizing the construction and operation of
nuclear power plants.”
-
- +0
-
-
written by Paul Johnson, December 15, 2011
There are many who claim that nuclear power is the greenest short-term alternative to coal to reduce carbon emissions from electrical power generation.
notice how even the proponants have to qulify it's benefits so carefully..
what is we are looking for long term and safe solution to all our power needs..?
Nuclear fussion is messy dangerous and very costly.. the best estimates indicate that no nuclear power station ever breaks even let allon eproduces anything when you take the WHOLE costs into account..
Nuclear fission is much more potent.. and is being safely locally produced all the time in a marvellous natural power staion called THE SUN. It showers us daily with more power that we could ever need and always has done.. all we have to do is pick it up..
Think about cell phones in the 1980's .. very expensive executive toys that you had to carry a seperate brief case with a battery and you could if you were lucky make a phone call.. forward 3 decades.. and most teens have one in their pocket that goes online, e-mails, and does erm pretty much everything else..
Imagein if we had invested 1% of the time enrgy and RnD into photovoltaics..?
notice how even the proponants have to qulify it's benefits so carefully..
what is we are looking for long term and safe solution to all our power needs..?
Nuclear fussion is messy dangerous and very costly.. the best estimates indicate that no nuclear power station ever breaks even let allon eproduces anything when you take the WHOLE costs into account..
Nuclear fission is much more potent.. and is being safely locally produced all the time in a marvellous natural power staion called THE SUN. It showers us daily with more power that we could ever need and always has done.. all we have to do is pick it up..
Think about cell phones in the 1980's .. very expensive executive toys that you had to carry a seperate brief case with a battery and you could if you were lucky make a phone call.. forward 3 decades.. and most teens have one in their pocket that goes online, e-mails, and does erm pretty much everything else..
Imagein if we had invested 1% of the time enrgy and RnD into photovoltaics..?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Seb, December 19, 2011
The greenest short-term alternative to coal to reduce carbon emission is certainly not nuclear.
1. Energy consumption reduction. People use and waste too much energy. Start here, possibilities are endless.
2. Wind is cheaper, release less carbon per watt and fast to install, so this statement is just a bold lie. Off course, replacing nuclear power plant by millions of wind turbine is not ideal.
3. Solar, tidal and geothermal are well established technologies that are clean, efficient, unlimited... and safe. Subside these please.
4. "Short-term", yes, future generations thank you for having to deal with tonnes of radioactive wastes and hundreds off end of life power plants to deal with. That's this kind of way of thinking to got use to the mess we are in today, shall we dig our tomb a bit deeper?
1. Energy consumption reduction. People use and waste too much energy. Start here, possibilities are endless.
2. Wind is cheaper, release less carbon per watt and fast to install, so this statement is just a bold lie. Off course, replacing nuclear power plant by millions of wind turbine is not ideal.
3. Solar, tidal and geothermal are well established technologies that are clean, efficient, unlimited... and safe. Subside these please.
4. "Short-term", yes, future generations thank you for having to deal with tonnes of radioactive wastes and hundreds off end of life power plants to deal with. That's this kind of way of thinking to got use to the mess we are in today, shall we dig our tomb a bit deeper?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Steve, December 20, 2011
I have strong reservations about the viability of nuclear power, particularly the fusion reactors that create dangerous waste. Yet I would encourage all of of my ecogeek friends to be open-minded to exploring other forms of nuclear power. I have no idea what the technical barriers are to using fission reactors, but if we could produce clean energy reliably with no radioactive waste, that could be a great complement to the many forms of renewable energy.
Bill Gates did a talk on TED (http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html) and advocated for a nuclear technology that could use our current the radioactive waste as fuel. I'd be interested in feedback from nuclear engineers on the feasibility of this proposition.
Bill Gates did a talk on TED (http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html) and advocated for a nuclear technology that could use our current the radioactive waste as fuel. I'd be interested in feedback from nuclear engineers on the feasibility of this proposition.
-
- +1
-
-
written by electronics recycling, February 07, 2012
With regards to the mining issue that evaporates if we mine Helium 3 from the surface of the moon (there is enough fuel there to provide our current worldwide energy requirements for the next 2000 years at present consumption rates).
Also given H3 is used in nuclear fusion rather than fision vertually no radioactive byproducts are produced as waste from the power station.
Also given H3 is used in nuclear fusion rather than fision vertually no radioactive byproducts are produced as waste from the power station.
-
- +0
-
-
written by electronics recycling, February 07, 2012
Comment to Paul Johnson:
Sorry Paul but you have it totally backwards. Fission is the process employed by reactors at present and involves breaking down heavy elements to lower atomic masses. Fusion is the process akin to that in the sun whereby smaller atomic masses (such as hydrogen) are pressed together to produce larger atomic masses, and the release of some of the mass in the form of energy.
Fusion is by far the cleaner version, and if we have the guts to get it, there a plentiful supply of Helium 3 (an ideal fusion material) on the surface of the moon - mining of which would not produce any side effects on Earth.
Sorry Paul but you have it totally backwards. Fission is the process employed by reactors at present and involves breaking down heavy elements to lower atomic masses. Fusion is the process akin to that in the sun whereby smaller atomic masses (such as hydrogen) are pressed together to produce larger atomic masses, and the release of some of the mass in the form of energy.
Fusion is by far the cleaner version, and if we have the guts to get it, there a plentiful supply of Helium 3 (an ideal fusion material) on the surface of the moon - mining of which would not produce any side effects on Earth.
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
DEC 09
"Comment to Paul Johnson: Sorry Paul but you have it totally backwards..."
View all Comments