About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Safe Nuclear Power?
Author: BobR    Date: 2011-03-16 10:28:23

As often happens, a crisis reminds people of controversial topics that have fallen to the bottom of the pile due to other crises. When the BP oil gusher was filling the Gulf of Mexico with poison, the cries for getting off oil were resounding. But how? Wind and solar were once again proposed, "clean" coal was politely mentioned then tossed aside, and nuclear energy was considered as a stop-gap. Sure there's no carbon pollution, but what do you do with the waste? The earthquake and tsunami in Japan have reawoken the latent fear in Americans of the dangers of radioactivity.

Whither now nuclear energy?

While the disposal of nuclear waste will always be a point of contention, the safety of the reactor itself has always been the greater danger. They are essentially like a surfer, riding the crest of an atomic bomb, never going over the edge into nuclear annihilation. That is, unless some unforseen catastrophe occurs. That's why location is so important when they are built. Yes, they need to be near a water source, but they need to be in a stable place too. That's why it boggles the mind that the Japanese nuclear plant was built so close to a fault line.

Consider what happened though. From a thought-provoking comment provided to me second-hand:
... the current disaster should actually be considered to show how safe nuke plants are. The point being that it took a 9.0 earthquake, multiple aftershocks, a 25-foot tsunami, and days of power loss to cause the plant to be in the state it's in. Plus, the containment building still seems to be holding.

Of course, that "state" includes three outer buildings exploding, and a fire threatening to release even more radiation than it already has. Yes, it could have been MUCH worse, but it would be quite a struggle to describe any of this as "safe".

What's interesting (and a little disturbing) is that for some time now it's been within the realm of possiblity to make nuclear energy MUCH safer. How? By using Thorium instead of Uranium-235. What makes thorium so much better than uranium? Consider this:
  • Add uranium, plutonium or any other radioactive 'actinide' metal into the mix and the thorium fuel process incinerates these elements.
  • Thorium-fuelled nuclear power stations could not only generate power but also solve the thorny problem of disposing of existing nuclear waste
  • Mining and refining thorium ore is simpler and cleaner than mining and refining uranium ore
  • The thorium fuel process could also be used to manufacture fuel for conventional uranium-fuelled power stations, reducing the need for further uranium mining or plutonium manufacture (other than the plutonium the politicians believe they need for weapons)
  • It is not possible to make weapons-grade materials from thorium

Here's how it would work in theory:
Rajendran Raja, a physicist at Fermilab — the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois — said by telephone that the benefit of adding thorium to the fuel mix would be to create much more fuel using existing abundant resources and to reduce waste.

This could be done by building a high-intensity proton accelerator with the capacity to produce fast neutrons that could convert nuclear waste, thorium-232 and uranium-238 into fuel, he said. But to accomplish this, a proton accelerator would need to be 10 times more power-intense than anything that has been produced to date.

The concept of an accelerator-driven subcritical system, known as ADS, has been around since the 1990s. It differs from conventional reactors which operate at criticality, which is the point at which a nuclear reaction can be self-sustaining. But if a chain reaction gets out of control, accidents like those at Chernobyl could occur, and high levels of radioactive material could be released into the atmosphere.

Subcritical reactors, however, would use neutrons provided by the accelerator to continue the fission. This means that criticality could be avoided by switching off the accelerator, which in turn would switch off the neutrons.

So why haven't we persued this sooner? The last item in the previous list above tells all, and is reiterated by none other than an oil industry site:
Another thorium reactor opportunity is thorium consumes its own hazardous waste. It can even scavenge the plutonium left by uranium reactors, acting as an eco-cleaner. Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA rocket engineer, now chief nuclear technologist at Teledyne Brown Engineering, and closely watched Internet commentator and educator says, “It’s the Big One, once you start looking more closely, it blows your mind away. You can run civilization on thorium for hundreds of thousands of years, and it’s essentially free. You don’t have to deal with uranium cartels.” He’s right; thorium is so common that miners treat it as a nuisance, a radioactive by-product when they dig up rare earth metals. The U.S. and Australia are full of the stuff. So are the granite rocks of Cornwall in the UK. Some beaches in India are loaded with thorium. Not so much mining is needed: all thorium is potentially usable as fuel, compared to just 0.7% from uranium as much of the uranium has already decayed.

U.S. scientists knew in the late 1940s that thorium was a high potential fuel, but weapons priorities pushed uranium and plutonium to the front. Yet by the early 1970s thorium research had produced a highly workable, safe and low cost reactor design that the U.S. put on the shelf. Uranium industry competition with thorium won the struggle for research and development funding.
(bold-face mine)

So with a little research and proper funding, we could have an energy source that is plentiful here at home, does not pollute the air, will not have a core melt down, and does not produce nuclear waste. This could work.

 

62 comments (Latest Comment: 03/17/2011 01:41:49 by BobR)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati