The McDonnell Group

Don’t let Fukushima tragedy hinder nuclear power innovation
by This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

There’s no telling how long it will take Japan to recover from the devastation caused by the tsunami in March.  Likely, decades.  What’s certainly true is recovery from the human tragedy will never be fully complete.  

The man-made disaster still in progress at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant is only adding to the misery, yet as we honor the dead and injured, it could be said that nuclear energy may be a victim as well.

Nuclear was emerging from decades of opposition as a viable “green” energy source to take up the slack of renewables in America’s energy future.  Now, after one of the most catastrophic natural disasters ever recorded damaged cold water reactors designed many decades ago, opposition to nuclear is as furious as ever.

A recent Gallup poll indicates that most Americans  -- 58 percent – consider nuclear energy to be safe.  Yet only 46 percent believe nuclear energy is necessary and 48 percent think the dangers are too great for building more capacity.

And that’s disheartening, as advanced technology that promises enhanced national security with clean energy at stable costs -- so tantalizingly close to practical use - could be dealt a serious setback.

Back in the 90’s, there was optimism over the pebble bed reactors (PBR) that use tennis ball-sized graphite pebbles as fuel and helium gas as the coolant.  Their modular design is safer and easier to build.  Using gas instead of water for cooling substantially drops construction costs and environmental concerns.  The nature of the fuel makes it far less radioactive after use than conventional spent fuel rods.  PBR was developed in Germany, but shelved there because of staunch opposition to nuclear power in that country.  Other countries have subsequently been developing PBR for their own programs and one pilot plant is operating in China.

TerraPower uses depleted uranium from existing nuclear plants to power its traveling wave reactor (TWR) technology.  Producing significantly less waste than conventional nuclear reactors, it can also re-use its own waste and can conceivably operate for more than 60 years without refueling.  A concept developed in the 1950’s, TWR is still on the drawing boards but advanced computer simulation tools available today are proving its viability.  Ex-Microsoft chief scientist Nathan Myhrvold heads the company and has solid financial backing.

Equally as intriguing is the sodium fast reactor that, like traveling wave, uses spent fuel generated from first generation nuclear plants and weapon production, emits no greenhouse gases, is designed to shut down rather than melt down in a malfunction, and may be implemented through small, scalable facilities built where waste fuel facilities are currently located.

Until the Dai-ichi catastrophe, it seems the only significant hurdle for any of these technologies was money.  Alternative energy sources are also prohibitively high (currently) and are years away from significant deployment.  Depending on whose numbers you read, the most optimistic scenarios have solar and wind contributing less than half of the world’s energy needs.  Hydropower provides only 2.5 percent, and there’s not a lot of available capacity.  All biofuels combined provide less than two percent of our energy needs. Clean coal may be even more expensive to develop than nuclear, if it ever can be developed.  Natural gas is plentiful and cleaner, but fracturing techniques employed are allegedly fouling water tables.

A monthly meeting hosted by the Silicon Valley Photovoltaic Society on April 13 features a University of Missouri professor who forecasts global calamity from depleted oil fields by 2050 unless nuclear expansion isn’t accelerated by 2030.

All energy sources currently available come at some cost; the point is, our planet won’t be able to supply enough energy for a growing population in the millennia ahead.  There’s no discounting the ingenuity of man to develop stunning advances in power technologies, however, there has to be a place for nuclear among a portfolio of clean technologies until we can get there.

Progress on vastly safer, cleaner and more efficient reactor designs shouldn’t be halted because of failures in thoroughly outdated plants.