Nuclear Power – alternative energy solution under fire by Tony Green

Nuclear power plant

Prior to the problems with the Fukushima nuclear reactor in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami nuclear power had gained traction as a whole. The expansion of nuclear power as a renewable source of power has been included in the Obama administration’s energy plan. Recently inroads had been made in commissioning nuclear power plants of come on line by the middle of the next decade.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) 104 commercial nuclear power reactors (65 nuclear power plants) in 31 states are currently in operation. These plants supply more nuclear capacity than any nation on earth accounting for 20% of our country’s total power output.

Yet in light of the negative publicity which has been generated calling to curtail our nations plans to expand the use of nuclear power due to concerns about radiation exposure there are some points I feel Americans as a whole are overlooking.

Case in point, with the recent tsunami in Japan the near meltdown has galvanized the anti-nuclear community. I was hoping people had forgiven the nuclear industry in the 30 years since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents.   Bear in mind, the reason for the leak at the Fukashima plant was not a procedure violation or a mechanical failure following by operator confusion of his plants indications which lead to less than optimal response. In short, the reactor breach resulted from an earth quake of unprecedented magnitude, i.e. an act of nature or Force de Majore.

Here’s a thought, when the Chilean miners got stuck in a mine shaft while procuring coal did the masses request all Americans not to use coal to meet our power needs? Coal, interestingly enough, accounts for nearly half of our generating capacity.

Last September a faulty gas line ruptured in San Mateo, California killing four people and destroying an entire neighborhood.  The root cause was likely a pressurized valve which was not maintained properly and over time failed. Was there a public outcry to not use natural gas as a source of power? In the event you were wondering natural gas counts another 20% of our power that is generated in the United States. Why is when these accidents occur no one questions our use of coal and natural gas? Yet, when the same sorts of mishaps occurs in nuclear plants people cite this occurrences as evidence for shutting down our current nuclear plants and scuttling our plans to build new plants.

I was hopeful nuclear power, which is renewable energy source since splitting atoms emits no carbon dioxide, could be part of long term plan to wean our country off of foreign oil and contribute to reduce the green house gas emission.

At this point, I am convinced people in general will never view nuclear power as a viable option in spite of its proven safety record. I might as well get use to this fact although I still do not understand why…

Go Nuclear, Close cycle by Tony Green

Steaming nuclear plant 

Many validated and well researched arguments exist supporting going ahead with nuclear power as a partial solution to our energy woes. Some on the pros include reduced environmental energy production and carbon emissions. Those in opposition suggest the high costs, requirement for waste disposal, environmental, safety issues, and fuel availability are reason enough not to move forward.

In spite of these arguments nuclear power still provides 20% of our nations power requirements. Without a doubt this number would be higher it not for the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island nuclear accidents.

In my view nuclear power works. I may be biased as a result of my experience as an Ex Navy Nuke but I have seen nuclear power plant run safely thanks in a large part to the disciplined attention to detail demanded as part of the training process.

With that said one of the “enemies” of nuclear power still needs to be addressed before the public can but into a growth of nuclear power on the large scale. The issue is of nuclear waste. Since there is material which needs to be disposed of after its use in the nuclear generation process this is referred to an open cycle.

Uranium occurs naturally in two forms: U235 and U238. U238 more abundant but it is not readily fissionable in light-water reactors. Light water reactors are reactors which use water to slow the speed of the neutrons to the level which will result in sustainable fissions.

U235 is fissionable but its concentration is 0.7% in natural uranium. Reactors in general require up to 5% U235 by weight. The enrichment process is how you get from natural levels of uranium to the levels used in nuclear reactors commonly referred to as Low Enriched Uranium (LEU). The process to convert natural Uranium to LEU fuel is known as the nuclear fuel cycle.

Low-enriched uranium (LEU) is defined as having a concentration of U235 of less than 20%. For use in commercial light water reactors (LWR), the uranium is enriched to concentration of 3 to 5%. 

The steps for producing the material begin with Mining and milling. In this step the natural or enriched uranium is removed from the earth in the form of ore then crushed and concentrated. The next step is conversion in which the concentrates are combined with fluorine gas to produce uranium hexafluoride. UF6 is shipped to an enrichment plant.  Once at the enrichment plant the material is processed to increase concentration of U235 isotope in the UF6 in its natural state to 5% which is usable as fuel in light water reactors.

The uranium which is at a useable concentration is it ready for fuel fabrication. The LEU is converted to uranium oxide and formed into small ceramic pellets by fabricators. The pellets are loaded into metal tubes which form fuel assemblies which are shipped to nuclear plants and used in nuclear reactors. Once the reactor lifetime is completed the material which remains produces high levels of radioactivity.

Currently when a nuclear reactor is decommissioned the materials with its core are still highly radioactive. Many of the by-products boast half lives of thousands of years therefore precautions must be taken in order to protect the environment. Most nuclear facilities utilize local places on site to store waste in the short term. In the long term the waste will be deposited to a repository. At the moment the principal location for eventual disposal of nuclear waste is a Yucca mountain in Nevada.

As technology has cleared the way to change our lives technology in this case will be needed to avert having to handle the radioactive material. A pair of possibilities is developing fast fission reactor which produce a reduced amount of waste, or develop the technologies where the uranium used can be recycled which would effectively close the cycle. 

If not the anti nuclear folks could win out in their argument and ensure nuclear plans are not utilized as a possible solution of our increasing power requirements. What a shame that would be.

Nuclear power on the rise by Tony Green

A month ago I read an article detailing plans to add multiple nuclear powered plants in the United States and in China with the intention of bringing them on line by 2015.

Due to the regulatory requirements associated with building a plant ten years can pass from the initial planning to the delivery a fully operational nuclear reactor.
I had mentioned in one of my previous blogs about the future of nuclear power due the requirement for relatively cheap method of generating power which nuclear reactors can provide.

The United States Navy has showcased the fact the reactors involved in its nuclear power program can be operated in a safe manner. This requires a large amount of organization, oversight, procedures, and qualified and trained operators.

The increase in the demand of nuclear power will lead to resources being allocated including research and training programs. The result will be that the infrastructure can be provided to enable full adoption of nuclear power as a viable power source.

The key for adoption for future growth is proper regulation of the industry. It is clear nuclear power can meet the requirements for power needs as long as its production is regulated thus ensuring safety.

The accidents of the past taught us valuable lessons about the effect of poor oversight. We should not forget these incidents, however, it is time to move forward and focus on today’s crisis. Solutions involving nuclear reactors may not as ideal in most people’s minds but out of the box solutions may be what is needed in the future.

So, what are we waiting for? Are we more concerned about history or the reality that your television requires electricity to create a picture when you turn it on?

Photo courtesy of http://www.freefoto.com