Editorial Comment

	Vol. 226 No. 9
PERRY A. FISCHER, EDITOR

Future nuclear? New, but not clear. In discussing future energy scenarios, there are few topics with more high-voltage, “third-rail” potential than nuclear power. So, what the heck, I’ll go ahead and grab it. But this isn’t your grandpa’s nuclear power.

The simple fact is that operating costs for nuclear power are among the cheapest of any system for producing power, at around 2 to 5 cents a kWh. That’s because the cost and amount of fuel needed to produce electricity are relatively cheap.

However, if total life-cycle and R&D costs are considered, nuclear power is probably one of the most expensive forms of power generation. Worldwide, there remain dozens of radioactive sites that have yet to be cleaned up. The cost of that cleanup continues to rise as steadily as governmental resolve to delay it. And then there’s the cost of storing the radioactive waste for a million years.

The idea of turning the waste into glass logs, while a neat idea, has yet to bear fruit, despite the billions of dollars spent on the project. Plant decommissioning will require some sort of mechanical chopping up of the radioactive portions of the plant, followed by slow, careful transport, under escort, to an appropriate facility. Liquid wastes are meticulously transported in expensive, bomb- and crash-proof containers, under guarded conditions, increasing with the level of radioactive cargo.

What the final price tag will be for all of this is not known, since most of it has yet to be achieved, including solving the permanent storage issue. But my guess is that it will be very expensive, well into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

But just as there are direct and ancillary costs and risks, if a country chooses to incur those, its people can also enjoy the direct and indirect benefits. The added risk and cost of nuclear relative to, say, coal, oil or natural gas sources, may well be deemed worthwhile by a nation. And if the same life-cycle costs were included for other energy forms, for instance, the respiratory health costs of burning coal, nuclear might still be competitive. Everything is a trade-off, a value judgment.

For example, what is the value of having a secure energy supply, independent of all other countries? What is the worth of breathing clean air? What’s the cost of the lives lost to secure supply from the world’s richest source of oil and gas, namely, the Middle East? There are many ancillary trade-offs: do not expect estimates of their worth to garner agreement. I’m sure that countries such as France, with 78% of its electricity nuclear sourced, would argue that it’s been a net benefit for its people.

Safety remains a serious concern, dare I say, problem. I recall a conversation with a friend of mine back in 1986, who pointed out to me the extraordinary safety record of the nuclear industry at the time. I agreed with him, but cautioned that it was still very dangerous. One steam explosion or meltdown, and the industry will go from the bottom to the top of the list. He asked, “How can something be safe and very dangerous at the same time?”

My answer was, “Well, although no one has been killed – at least not directly – by a thermonuclear bomb, would you argue that they are not dangerous?”

A week later, Chernobyl blew. Three weeks after, he called to say, “You were right. The preliminary estimates are that the leaking radiation will kill at least 15,000 people.” Absent Chernobyl, the unfunny comedy of errors at Three Mile Island, and a burp from Switzerland’s Lucens reactor, the industry has a good safety record. (Incidentally, I’ve read several statements that would lead one to conclude that only 31 people died from Chernobyl. That is absurd.)

But what if nuclear power could be made at least a little cheaper and, more important, much safer? Well, it can. What is required is that we take the last 55 years of massive investment and government subsidy and call it a down payment. If we put the mistakes of the past – and there were many – under the category of learning curve, nuclear power can be a reasonably low risk, environmentally responsible, and only moderately expensive (we hope) energy source.

Most present-day reactors require an active safety system to avert disaster. The worst (in my opinion) of these is the pressurized water reactor (PWR). These require continuous circulation of water, through the core, at moderate temperature and pressure to extract heat. Besides inefficiency arguments, even with triple-redundant safety systems, pressure pipes are always subject to leaks and corrosion, and a steam explosion within the core could devastate the surrounding land and population. Unfortunately, it is this design with which we have the most experience. And the status quo is always a force unto itself, creating its own momentum, especially when governments and politicians are involved.

The best of the new breed have a high degree of inherent safety. Some of these do not even have a theoretical mechanism for explosion or meltdown. Others are more dangerous, some are even PWRs, but still have advantages over conventional plants. And some are primarily designed for thermochemical hydrogen generation. There are more than 20 different designs in development.

The Pebble Bed Reactor is the best known of the lot. It is a modular design comprising a stack of billiard-ball sized pebbles, each a ceramic coated graphite ball with a radioactive pellet(s) at its center. An inert gas such as helium acts as a coolant and drives turbines directly, at high efficiency. Several of these are under construction. There are also several thorium-based reactor designs. These have several advantages, including inherent safety; and they eliminate the issue of a shortage of uranium fuel some 75 years hence.

Then there’s Japan’s Super-Safe, Small & Simple plant, which might be operational in a remote Alaskan town by 2012. Also in the unique designs category is a molten-lead cooled reactor that burns radioactive waste from conventional reactors, producing both electric power and hydrogen, and leaving only fission products with short half-lives.

The general public is completely unaware of these and other considerable advances in reactor design that could lower the cost of nuclear power and provide a substantial increase in safety. Before these can be implemented, even more government investment will be required, but the benefits could be worth it. Nuclear power generates about 18% of world electricity supply, second only to coal. But if nothing is done, and attitudes do not change, its share will shrink in coming years, especially in the West. Dismantle the present. Invest in the future.