Solving ‘Fission Impossible’

By Daniel Gross | NEWSWEEK

From the magazine issue dated Oct 29, 2007

« Return to Article

Discuss

Posted By: Bleezz @ 12/24/2007 3:24:04 AM

Comment: The waste wouldn't be a problem if we would invest in Fast Breeder Reactors. Currently, only about 10% of the potential energy of Uranium 235 is harnessed, leaving dangerous waste behind (a minuscule amount mind you compared to coal and gas). Using Helium cooled Fast Breeder Reactors, we could harness nearly 99% of the potential energy, cutting down the radioactive life dramatically and creating much less of it (one ton per year per plant). Even though Plutonim 239 is used in the process, it is extreamly undesirable to those who seek it because of the impurity and the protection already in place to protect it, they'd be better off making their own reactor to breed it from naturaly occuring uranium in desert sand :).
Currently one of the largest problems facing the implimentation of nuclear technology is the large amount of unwarented public protest. It amazes me how much complaining people will do when a nuclear plant is proposed but how everyone seems to see a coal plant as more job opportunites, especially when coal plants emit over 100 times the amount of nuclear waste that nuclear plants release. And what will take its place? solar? wind? both are immensely inneficiant and very expensive, it would bankrupt the United States economy to try to implement either one to supply only 10% of the energy demand. Americans need to get their heads on straight and stop being so hypocritical, nuclear is the solution whether we realize it tomorrow or a hundred years from now.
Posted By: laundrylister @ 11/07/2007 10:35:59 PM

Comment: Thirty years of safe operation? Give me break. TO BE SURE, Americans don't want Yucca and the National Academy of Sciences has just said that investing in reprocessing is a bad idea. This is not an article, but an op-ed.

I guess we need to start planting maize from sea to shing seas, because the author has neither enough imgaination nor enough diligence to read about the ways that we can have a nuclear free and carbon-free future. It is time to do some reading. Try looking at the work of Amory Lovins, Arjun Makhijani, the Union of Concerned Scientists, former Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Peter Bradford, or any of the numerous other experts who recognize that nuclear is the wrong direction.

All of the Republican candidates, bolstered by Christie Todd Whitman, are parrotting this line about France. Sarkhozy may be the new darling of Washinton, but their energy policy would be a poor thing to mimic.
Posted By: laundrylister @ 11/07/2007 10:18:15 PM

Comment: Thirty years of safe operation? Give me break. TO BE SURE, Americans don't want Yucca and the NAS has just said that investing in reprocessing is a bad idea. This is not an article, but an op-ed.

I guess we need to start planting maize from sea to shing seas, because the author has neither enough imgaination nor enough diligence to read about the ways that we can have a nuclear free and carbon-free future. Ken Bossong and Arjun Makhijani offer two visions.

Christie Todd Whitman, whom I used to respect, is a shill for the nuclear industry these days, even a stooge. Every Republican candidate parrots this line about France. The French have a major waste problem on their hands, but at least they use clotheslines and know how to conserve energy in other ways that Americans belive to be unthinkable. Sarkhozy is the new darling of Washington with his obsequiousnes, but we would be foolish to mimic his nation's energy policy. The Union of Concerned Scientists, Amory Lovins of RMI, former NRC Commisioner Peter Bradford, and many others have done a good job of explaing why nuclear power is not the answer. Maybe it is time to do some reading.
Posted By: BJP13 @ 10/26/2007 12:35:44 AM

Comment: Oops. Sorry about the qmarks. Silly formatting.
Posted By: BJP13 @ 10/26/2007 12:34:56 AM

Comment: Oops. Sorry about the qmarks. Silly formatting.
Posted By: BJP13 @ 10/26/2007 12:08:52 AM

Comment: Re Pebble Bed; as I understand it, they may be simple and cheap to build in the short run but have the absolute worst power to waste ratio there is ??? but I agree that we DO need more discussion about advanced reactor design. My personal preference would be for it to include some history of the U.S. science and politics. Just for the absurdity of it???

The science: We built EBR-II, a reactor and fuel process that (1) has been proven to use the laws of nature to fizzle out, so it shuts itself down instead of melting down; (2) can recycle spent fuels and warheads; (3) can prepare and use fuels of mixed elements ??? taking material out of the potential proliferation stream; and (4) eventually leave us with waste that would be dangerous for hundreds instead of upteen-thousands of years.

The politics (and a little accounting): We shut it down. We have not replaced it with a facility where we can continue the testing to change the ???can??? statements above to ???has been proven??? ones. Taxes on energy produced are paid into the federal budget, and in return the federal govt is responsible for the waste. But the voting pubic has never heard of EBR-II, has never voted a politician out of office for closing a nuclear facility, and since (I???m willing to bet) those taxes show up in govt accounting but the responsibility for eventually doing something about the waste doesn???t, we will continue to do nothing.
- Posted By: SuperC142 @ 10/26/2007 20:25:17
  
  Comment: I'm not sure about from where I'm remembering this but, I seem to remember us having some bizarre, nonsensical laws preventing us from recycling spent uranium- forcing the power plants to "dispose" of it instead. Am I wrong (hopefully)? Or does such a restriction actually exist?
  - Posted By: BJP13 @ 10/26/2007 21:20:37
    
    Comment: Such restrictions have existed, and I think are still in force. Not sure. The reason behind that is a bit more clear when you look at the reprocessing/recycling that is done in Europe; individual elements and isotopes are separated resulting in materials that are attractive to anyone wanting to build a warhead.
    
    The "fuels of mixed elements" that I referred to - aka "mixed fuels" - are not suitable for a warhead. Making mixed fuels out of existing warheads - globally - what a wonderful world it would be.
- Posted By: BJP13 @ 10/26/2007 00:13:26
  
  Comment: Ugh. Sorry about the formatting snafu leading to all those unintentional questions marks.
Posted By: WJMaes @ 10/24/2007 9:56:33 PM

Comment: I recommend that folks Google "thorium nuclear energy". Thorium is a better fuel and actually solves most of the problems with uranium. The main drawback is that fuel reprocessing is slightly more expensive. That investment is more than recovered when compared to the cost of spent uranium fuel disposal. India is pursuing this technology, and the US should join them.
Posted By: justellian @ 10/22/2007 7:59:11 PM

Comment: (apologies for the double post - I didn't think my first one went through. I'm done, now.)
Posted By: justellian @ 10/22/2007 7:40:34 PM

Comment: I'm surprised by the lack of discussion in the media regarding pebble bed reactor technology. The Chinese have already got a pebble bed reactor online and seemed poised to build many more. Anyone have any ideas as to why it's not being talked about more?
Posted By: justellian @ 10/22/2007 7:37:31 PM

Comment: i hear so little about the united states' efforts to develope pebble bed reactor technology. it seems like such a no-brainer to me. anyone know why it's getting so little press?
Posted By: maddy @ 10/22/2007 6:38:17 PM

Comment: The folks who worry about the ejected hot water just don't get it....it's the zero greenhouse gases...avoiding SOx, CO2, and the crap from the coal and fossil plants that causes the climate change or global warming. Any nuclear plant (even fossil unit) cannot raise the lake or river temperature by more than 3F. Go to the Nuclear Regulatory site (www.nrc.gov) and LOOK at the rules, regs etc. The hot watercould be used for distric heating, just like they do in the Soviet countries, IF they were sited near cities. The small amount of nuclear fuel burned in 1 day at a nuclear reactor is the size of a THIMBLE, and replaces 25 TONs of coal, and 100,000 barrels of oil. So if the nuclear waste is a problem , it's a small volume compared to the TONs of coal fly ash, tons of CO2 and mercury and toxic metals spewed out by coal and oil plants.
By the way, General Electric has made 1/4 of the current world-wide nuclear fleet and it's fuel. Their innovation in nuclear technology has allowed Japan to build 3 advanced boiling water reactors, and will let the Europeans rule the nuclear world. For more information about nuclear energy go to www.nei.org and learn a little bit!!!
Posted By: JGBHimself @ 10/22/2007 6:13:55 PM

Comment: The problem you appear to miss seeing is that where any new plant is sited may increase the global warming problem, not help solve it.
Nuclear power plants USE large amounts of water, and produce very large quantities of HOT water.
IF these plants were sited in downtown New York, LA, Chicago..., London, Paris, Tokyo, etc..., the heat could, and should ?, be used to heat buildings and homes.
But, no. We will put them in the middle of a SW desert, which probably does not really need the addtitional heat..., and send electricity over low efficiency power lines to cities and use the electricity to run our air conditioners in summer, and furnaces in winter.
As GE was oft heard to say: "Progress is our most important product."
Posted By: JGBHimself @ 10/22/2007 6:10:10 PM

Comment: The problem you appear to miss seeing is that where any new plant is sited may increase the global warming problem, not help solve it.
Nuclear power plants USE large amounts of water, and produce very large quantities of HOT water.
IF these plants were sited in downtown New York, LA, Chicago..., London, Paris, Tokyo, etc..., the heat could, and should ?, be used to heat buildings and homes.
But, no. We will put them in the middle of a SW desert, which probably does not really need the addtitional heat..., and send electricity over low efficiency power lines to cities and use the electricity to run our air conditioners in summer, and furnaces in winter.
As GE was oft heard to say: "Progress is our most important product."
- Posted By: SuperC142 @ 10/22/2007 18:39:20
  
  Comment: @JGBHimself - um... the heat is kind of the whole point... The heat energy is converted into electrical energy. If someone decides to heat their house with it, then it is converted back into heat energy. Are you implying that the heat that is generated on earth is the cause of global warming? I think your understanding of nuclear power plants and global warming need a little brushing up on. Perhaps you might also google "thermodynamics" and "conservation of energy".