The Energy Blog

An Update on Uranium Reprocessing

A March 22 article "Recycling uranium and plutonium: where's it heading?" on the Nuclear Engineering International website explores the status of uranium recycling and its future.

Programs for the recycling of plutonium were developed in the 1970s when it appeared that uranium would be in scarce supply and would become increasingly expensive. It was originally proposed that plutonium would be recycled through fast breeder reactors, that is, reactors with a uranium ‘blanket’ but which would produce slightly more plutonium than they consume. Thus it was envisaged that the world’s ‘low cost’ uranium resources, then estimated to be sufficient for only 50 years’ consumption, could be extended for hundreds of years.  . . .

As things transpired, the pressure on uranium resources was very much less than expected and prices remained low in the period up to 2003.  . . .

Revived interest in nuclear power in the 21st Century, as a clean air solution which contributes to world sustainable development, is encouraging the development of new materials and technologies. In addition, the substantial rise in uranium prices since 2003 and the difficulties with commissioning waste repositories have prompted the beginning of a revaluation of recycling.  . . .

Nuclear Power: A Change for the Better

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush shared his opinions on nuclear power in the Ocala, Fl  Star Banner:

"Change" seems to be the operative word this election season. It's on the lips of political contenders and on the minds of the voters. But politics isn't the only arena where change is in the air. Change is happening in the world of energy as well, specifically when it comes to nuclear energy.

Against the backdrop of a larger discussion about how we will meet our future energy demand while keeping our environment clean, nuclear energy is experiencing a renaissance. Americans are beginning to shed the emotional debate about nuclear energy and are taking a practical look at why it is essential to meeting our future energy demand.

They like what they see. The support for nuclear energy is diverse. It's one of the few issues in Washington, D.C., these days that feels bipartisan. Even former naysayers are coming around to the merits of nuclear.

There are now 104 nuclear power reactors in the United States that are safely producing 20 percent of the nation's electricity - notably, without producing any of the harmful greenhouse gases some believe to be a major factor in climate change. Americans are beginning to recognize that nuclear energy caters to both our lifestyle and our greening mentality. And it offers the most proven means for our country to achieve much needed energy security.

EPRI, INL Announce Plan Focused on Near-Term Increase in Nuclear Energy Production

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the U.S. Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory (INL) today announced the public release of a joint INL/Nuclear Power Industry Strategic Plan for Light Water Reactor (LWR) Research and Development.

More evidence that the nuclear energy renaissance is coming is indicated in this announcement. What I thought was a discrepancy between two statements in the press release, one stating that the first strategy is to efficiently construct and operate dozens of new nuclear power plants, starting in the next several years and that to do this (these) strategies will require significant investment in research and development. The Plan actually states:

"A consensus has emerged (between DOE and NRC) that we are probably adequately prepared for modest growth in nuclear energy, but poorly prepared for large scale expansion."

which clarifies there actual stance. This announcement appears to be nothing more than a continuation of R&D on LWRs which the government had nearly dropped and now feels necessary to continue, and makes the case that the nuclear industry

requires the active engagement and leadership of the Federal Government in a number of strategic areas where industry cannot succeed on its own.

This amounts to another subsidy of the nuclear industry, which may or may not be justified (see pages 3-6 of the Plan for their justification). Their justification relies highly on the fact that only the government has the facilities to conduct the research. But is it fair for the government to pay for the research? The governmenent needs to maintain its role of watchdog over the industry, but to this extent? In any event, I remain convinced that nuclear energy will play a major role in development of a reduced CO2 emissions power industry.

Do We Need Yucca Mountain?

The referenced post, by the World Nuclear Association, presents one view on the need for Yucca Mountain and nuclear fuel recycling as stated by NEG.

Would Yucca Mountain, the nation’s planned repository 90 miles outside Las Vegas, be expected to store the nuclear waste?

Not necessarily, came the answer.

The chief executive of the firm submitting the first nuclear power application in nearly 30 years for a pair of plants in south Texas said that as far as he’s concerned, the waste can stay on the company’s 12,200-acre site for the next century.

“There’s plenty of room to store our own waste,” said David Crane, president and chiefs.executive of NEG Energy Inc.

Later he told reporters: “Whether Yucca Mountain happens or not plays no part in our calculation.”

. . . more

This scenario could not be applied to everyone, but it is in effect what is happening to U.S. waste now. What do you think the answer is? and I don't mean to stop building nuclear plants or too use more conservation efforts. In my opinion they are the best solution, in the interim, until renewable power can provide all the incremental power needed to meet our incremental power needs and to replace aging coal plants. Disposal of waste is by far the greatest question facing nuclear plants.

Shell CEO Presents Two Scenarios For the Future of Energy

The chief executive of Shell has posted this article on Shell's new energy scenarios. I was made aware of it by The Oil Drum, who first posted it at http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3548 and I thought it was worth repeating for your comments. They had a large number, 153, of mostly very insightful comments at the time of this posting. 

The article supports the peak oil theory, as I envision it. They defined it as the time that easy accessible oil will no longer be able to keep up with demand, their estimate being 2015.  I interpret that as meaning that heavy oil, as in the tar sands of Canada and the heavy oil in Venezuela, and oil shale are not significant sources of oil by 2015 and that their addition will cause significant increases in the price of oil which will have an effect on demand. The exact date is not that important, but it is meaningful that they predict a relatively near date, within the next 10 years.

They also predict that A growing number of cars are powered by electricity and hydrogen.  I think they underemphasize this important factor in reducing our consumption of oil, and believe that hydrogen will not play that important a role. I think a very aggressive development of PHEVs, EVs and biofuels combined with North Americas' (USA, Mexico and Canada) remaining reserves of oil should be able to supply all our needs to power our vehicles and have some expensive oil left over to export to other countries before 2100, hopefully by 2050.

The statements that more nuclear power will be required and that carbon capture and sequesteration (CCS) must be required on coal powered power plants in all developed countries are right in line with my thinking.  In the interim period, until renewable power can replace all aging nuclear and coal powered plants, these power sources will be required, no matter how much power is saved by increased efficiency in the home and in industry. From the economic point of view nuclear power has the clear advantage over coal when CCS is required on coal plants. However there is opposition to nuclear in some quarters and will be as long as the threats of proliferation and problems with waste disposal remain issues.  To me the ideal situation would be thorium fueled plants with fuel recycling.  However it will be a very long time before there is any consensus on that.

The complete text of the article, as appears on the Shell website, is given below. The bold facing is mine.

Two Energy Futures

* By Jeroen van der Veer

By 2100, the world’s energy system will be radically different from today’s. Renewable energy like solar, wind, hydroelectricity, and biofuels will make up a large share of the energy mix, and nuclear energy, too, will have a place. Humans will have found ways of dealing with air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. New technologies will have reduced the amount of energy needed to power buildings and vehicles.

Construction on First Westinghouse AP1000 to Begin in China in March

It has been announced that construction is to start on China's first Westinghouse AP1000 reactor in March. The first of four similar units, it could be online in 2013.

in July 2007 the Chinese ordered four AP1000's, two to be built at Sanmen and two at Haiyang. These are the first orders ever placed for Generation III+ reactors, with the potential to take China into a nuclear technology leadership role over the coming years.

Under a subcontract with Westinghouse, Doosan of Korea will supply reactor vessels, steam generators and integrated head assemblies for the four reactors.

The AP1000 technology is an "advanced passive" pressurized water reactor approved by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but it has never been actually used in any operating power plant.

Noted in Passing: Supply Hitches, Demand to Power Uranium Prices

Uranium, a silvery white metallic element used as the basic fuel for nuclear power, is trading at $93 per pound on the spot market this week, compared with just $7 in 2000.  . . .

Nuclear now accounts for 16 percent of the world's energy consumption electricity generated and this share is likely to increase if reactor building firms such as Westinghouse meet their order books.  . . .

A total of 439 reactors are now operating, while another 33 are under construction, 94 are planned (mostly expected to be in operation within eight years) and 222 more are proposed, according to the World Nuclear Association (WNA) web site.  . . . more

EPR, Euopean's First Generation III+ Nuclear Reactor

According to AFP, Agence France-Presse, site preparation is already underway and in two months, workers in Flamanville, France will pour the first concrete for the EPR, or European Pressurized Reactor, the first generation III+ reactor currently under construction touted as the safest and cleanest addition to France's network of 58 nuclear reactors.

It is a PWR (pressurized water reactor) in the 1,600 MW class. PWR technology represents 56% of the world’s operational nuclear capacity (205 million kW out of a total of 368 - as of Dec. 31 2005).

The EPR is based on the most recent technologies: the French N4 reactors in operation at Chooz and Civaux Nuclear Power Plants and the Konvoi reactors in operation in Germany. It benefits from over thirty years' operating feedback from nuclear power plants. AREVA has built around 100 nuclear reactors in 11 countries, representing almost 30% of the total installed nuclear power capacity worldwide.

The first EPR already under construction in Olkiluoto, Finland is scheduled to start commercial operation in 2009.

Contract Awarded to Study Recycling of Nuclear Waste

From an AREVA press release:

The International Nuclear Recycling Alliance (INRA) – led by AREVA (Paris, EPA:CEI) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and including Japan Nuclear Fuel Limited; Washington Group International; BWX Technologies, Inc.; and Battelle -- has been awarded a contract with the Department of Energy (DOE) to evaluate closing the nuclear fuel cycle in the U.S., through the development of a nuclear fuel recycling center and an advanced recycling reactor. The contract was awarded within the framework of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).

GNEP seeks to close the nuclear fuel cycle by recycling used fuel in ways that both minimize proliferation risks and reduce the volume and toxicity of final waste residues. Closing the fuel cycle would conserve uranium resources and enhance energy security.

Under the terms of the contract, INRA will provide three major studies:

• Technology development roadmaps analyzing the technology needed to achieve GNEP goals;
• Business plans showing methods for the development and commercialization of advanced GNEP technologies and facilities;
• Conceptual design studies for the nuclear fuel recycling center and the advanced recycling reactor.

The nuclear fuel recycling center would have two functions: the treatment of used fuel to separate it into recyclable, energy-producing components and final waste materials, and the manufacture of nuclear fuel from the recyclable components of the used fuel. The advanced recycling reactor will be fueled with materials recovered from used reactor fuel. The reactor will transform some of these radioactive materials into a more easily manageable waste form while producing energy.

In my mind it is inevitable that nuclear power will play an ever increasing role in meeting our electrical energy needs. As indicated in a previous post, NRG is leading the way with the first application to build a plant in 30 years, with a construction time almost as short as for a clean coal plant. Recycling of nuclear waste, rather than storage which is the current proposal seems to offer the advantage of recycling the waste as well as being a safer method that minimizes the risk of proliferation. Yucca mountain seems to be locked up in endless battles for approval, not that any method will not have its difficulties. No method will meet the approval of everyone, but we must have a viable method for treating our nuclear waste and recycling is my choice.

NRG to Build First Nuclear Plants in Thirty Years

On Monday NRG Energy, Inc. (NYSE:NRG) and South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC) filed the first application for a Combined Construction and Operating License (COLA) with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)in nearly 30 years. NRG proposes to build and operate two new nuclear units at the South Texas Project (STP) nuclear power station site. The total rated capacity of the new units, STP 3 and 4, will equal or exceed 2,700 megawatts (MWs).

NRG has chosen Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) technology for the new units to be built at the STP site. The 12,220-acre site and 7,000-acre cooling reservoir were originally designed for four units. The two new units will be built adjacent to the currently operating STP units 1 and 2. ABWR technology is certified by the NRC and has an impressive construction and operational track record. This includes setting world records for construction time and bringing the units in on budget.

Four ABWR units have been successfully commissioned in Japan, with another three units under construction in Taiwan and Japan. The Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc. has more than a decade of experience in ABWR operations and has provided their expertise to supporting STP’s planned two-unit expansion.

Who said Nuclear Plants Aren't Good for Us?

Florida Power & Light's (FPL's) Turkey Point nuclear power plant has played a crucial role in saving the endangered American crocodile ( crocodylus acutus). The plant, thanks to its cooling system, has become the main breeding ground for the crocodiles, which were on the brink of extinction 30 years ago. The plant's cooling system, consisting of over 100 km of canals, has created the ideal breeding environment for the animals, which can grow up to 14 feet (4.25 m) long and live for 50-60 years. The reptiles prefer the plant's cooling water canals because the constant water level within the system eliminates the problem of nest flooding and protects the nest from predators. Turkey Point has become home to one-quarter of the USA's entire population of American crocodiles.

I thought this was a desperate attempt by the nuclear industry to get some good press, but crocodile supporters will find it encouraging. As my regular readers should know, I am a supporter of nuclear power, because it is the cleanest (fuel disposal aside & that is manageable) method we have for producing power and is needed for the next 50 years (yes 50 or more) until our renewable energy supplies can take over.  We need to build demonstration plants using the latest technology and also clean coal plants with sequestration so we can realistically compare these technologies.

Nuclear for Oil Sands?

It appears that Canada may be going to nuclear power to replace natural gas for oil-sands projects, as is indicated in this item from World Nuclear News:

Energy Alberta is searching for communities to host the province's largest power station to provide emission-free power for oil sands projects. The company plans to build a C$6.2 billion ($5.6 billion) 2200 MWe twin Candu reactor plant in northern Alberta, and is looking at the town of Whitecourt among others. ...

The costs of natural gas can account for up to 60% of operating costs at an oil sands facility, and the associated greenhouse gas emissions are a further barrier to economic oil extraction. Nuclear could be a way of providing the necessary power. ...

The company is planning to submit an application to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission on 15 June, according to reports. A decision on the location of the plant is expected by 15 September.

Russia Commences Construction of Floating Nuclear Power Plants

SEVERODVINSK (northern Russia), April 15 - Russia has launched the construction of floating nuclear power plants said Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of Russia's nuclear power agency.

Kiriyenko said the first floating nuclear power plant, to be named after the great Russian scientist Mikhail Lomonosov, will have a capacity of 70 megawatts of electricity and about 300 megawatts of thermal power.

Floating nuclear power plants can operate without fuel reload for 12-15 years and have enhanced radiation protection.

Floating NPPs are expected to be widely used in regions that experience a shortage of energy and also in the implementation of projects requiring standalone and uninterrupted energy supply in the absence of a development power system.

Source: RIA Noesti via Peak Oil News & Message Boards

60 Minutes Looks at the Nuclear Energy Comeback

FYI: 60 Minutes will be airing a segment on nuclear energy this Sunday night:

With power demands rising and concerns over global warming increasing, the search is on for an efficient means of producing large amounts of carbon free energy is becoming ever more. One of the few available options is nuclear, a technology whose time seemed to have come and gone, but may now be coming again. For the first time in decades, new nuclear plants are being built, and not just in Iran and North Korea. With zero green house gas emissions, the U.S. government, public utilities and even some environmental groups are taking a second look at nuclear power – especially in France, where it has been a resounding success. 60 MINUTES’ report on the nuclear power option will air this Sunday, April 8, 7PM ET/PT on CBS.

Click here for a preview of Steve Kroft's piece.

Thanks to NEI Nuclear Notes for the tip.

First Early Site Permit for Nuclear Plant

March 8 - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) today voted to approve an Early Site Permit (ESP) for Exelon Generation Company, LLC, the first to be approved under a new licensing process.

The ESP resolves with finality certain environmental, site suitability and emergency planning issues with regard to the possible construction and operation of a new nuclear plant next to the Clinton Power Station in Clinton, Ill. Exelon has not decided to move forward with building a new nuclear plant.

The 20-year permit allows Exelon to "bank" a site for a possible power plant; however, it does not authorize construction of a new plant. Should the company decide to build a power plant, it would need to apply for a combined operating license.

"This is the last major hurdle in the process. We are very pleased with how the early site permit process has progressed," said Marilyn Kray, Exelon Nuclear Vice President of Project Manager, who has led this effort for the company since it began in 2002. for the company since it began in 2002.

Record-Low Production Cost for Nuclear Power

Record-Low Production Costs, Near-Record Output Mark Stellar Year for U.S. Nuclear Power Plants
Nuclear Energy Institute, February 20, 2007

U.S. nuclear power plants in 2006 supplied the second-highest amount of electricity in the industry’s history while achieving record-low production costs, according to preliminary figures released today by the Nuclear Energy Institute. ...

The industry’s average production costs—encompassing expenses for uranium fuel and operations and maintenance—were an all-time low of 1.66 cents/kwh in 2006, according to preliminary figures. Average production costs have been below 2 cents/kwh for the past eight years, making nuclear power plants highly cost competitive with other electricity sources ...

Even when expenses for taxes, decommissioning and yearly capital additions are added to production costs to yield a total electricity cost, nuclear-generated electricity typically clears the market for less than 2.5 cents/kwh. By comparison, production costs alone for natural gas-fired power plants averaged 7.5 cents/kwh in 2005, according to Global Energy Decisions data.

The industry’s average capacity factor—a measure of efficiency—was 89.9 percent last year, according to preliminary figures. ...

Study Says Yucca Mountain Too Costly

Nevada Study Shows Yucca Mountain Project Will Cost Much More Than Storing Nuclear Waste at Existing Reactor Sites
CARSON CITY, Nev., Feb 08, 2007 -- BUSINESS WIRE

A study released this week by the state of Nevada contradicts cost estimates from the U.S. Department of Energy and suggests the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository would actually cost billions more than storing the waste at existing nuclear reactor sites.

The analysis shows that (using that same 3 percent discount rate) it would cost $13.3 billion today to pay for the costs of dry storage at all 100 U.S. reactor sites - "for all perpetuity." Conversely, based on the same conditions, he found that it would cost $38.3 billion to build the Yucca repository by DOE's target date of 2025. The additional cost to store spent fuel until the repository is completed in 2025 is estimated at $5.8 billion.

Nuclear Power on the Move

TVA maps new plan to meet energy demand

Dave Flessner, The Chattanooga Times Free Press, January 28, 2007 via MSNBC

To meet the growing energy needs of the Tennessee Valley, TVA estimates it will need the equivalent of a new nuclear power plant every two years. ...

The U.S. Department of Energy picked TVA's Bellefonte site in Hollywood, Ala., for the new AP-1000. ...

The two new reactors proposed at Bellefonte are among 31 new units being considered nationwide by utility groups ...

By October, TVA and its NuStart partners are due to submit their application to the NRC for a new type of pressurized water reactor -- a Westinghouse AP-1000 design -- at the Bellefonte nuclear plant site. Regulators will have three years to review and sign off on the plans before construction begins. ...

If the license application for the AP-1000 is submitted this year and construction is under way by 2012, any private owners of Bellefonte or similar next-generation plants could qualify for up to $125 million a year in federal subsidies ...

Just an update on what is going on with next-generation nuclear plants, the time frame and subsidies. My position remains the same, that only four of the next-generation plants should be built until the technology is demonstrated.  In the meantime conservation, battery based vehicles, wind power, solar troughs and as necessary IGCC plants and CTL plants with carbon capture should be the basis of our energy policy. In 3-5 years thin-film PV and solar PV concentrators should be ready for prime tme and begin to become a primary source of renewable energy.

Westinghouse/Shaw to Build $8 Billion in Nuclear Plants in China

China National Nuclear Corp. selected the Westinghouse/Shaw consortium to build four nuclear reactors for an estimated US$8 billion, the largest International nuclear contract in history. The 1.1 gigawatt plants will use Westinghouse's advanced AP1000 design, which was only fully certified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission last year.

Westinghouse claims that the AP1000 is:
    -- The safest, most advanced, yet proven nuclear power plant currently
       available in the worldwide marketplace
    -- Based on standard Westinghouse pressurized water reactor (PWR)
       technology that has achieved more than 2,500 reactor years of highly
       successful operation
    -- An 1100MWe design that is ideal for providing baseload generating
       capacity
    -- Modular in design, promoting ready standardization and high
       construction quality
    -- Economical to construct and maintain (less concrete and steel and fewer
       components and systems mean there is less to install, inspect and
       maintain)
    -- Designed to promote ease of operation (features most advanced
       instrumentation and control in the industry)

Safer, Sustainable Energy Investigated

PhysOrg.com reports that In the future a new generation of nuclear reactors will create energy, while producing virtually no long-lasting nuclear waste, according to research conducted by Wilfred van Rooijen, who will receive his Delft University of Technology (Netherlands) PhD degree based on this research subject on Tuesday, 12 December.

Wilfred van Rooijen's research, conducted at the Reactor Institute Delft, focused on the nuclear fuel cycle and safety features of a Gas-cooled Fast Reactor (GFR), one of the so-called 'fourth generation' nuclear reactor designs. These designs have a sustainable character: they are economical in their use of nuclear fuel and are capable of rendering a great deal of their own nuclear waste harmless. The ability to actually build such reactors is however still in the very distant future. ... more

This is further confirmation that a GFR is one of the safest reactors on the drawing board while they reduce nuclear waste considerably.

GE, Hitachi to Join in Nuclear Power Business

General Electric and Hitachi are joining forces in a $2 billion deal that will produce nuclear power ventures in the U.S. and Japan. They hope, through this venture, they will capture more contracts as power suppliers gear up to build a new generation of plants.The two companies which have shared a joint venture in nuclear fuels, are planning to bid on a nuclear power plant that merchant power company NRG Energy Inc. aims to build in Texas, which could be among the first constructed in the U.S. in three decades.

The consolidation will be formed in the wake of both companies losing out in a bidding war for Westinghouse Electric Company, the world's largest designer of nuclear reactors, which was purchased for $5.4 billion by rival Toshiba earlier in the year, and while France's Areva, the world's largest maker of nuclear reactors, and Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. said they would cooperate in this sector.

Hitachi and GE expect to build around 100 new reactors in the next 20 years to keep up with the growing demand for nuclear energy. The deal will create two operations, one dealing with Japan and 80 percent owned by Hitachi, and another controlled by GE and providing services worldwide. The companies are expected to sign the contract by June of 2007.

This deal combined with the Westinghouse deal are of great importance if U.S. industry is to maintain its market share in the nuclear business.

General Electric, Hitachi Form Nuclear-Plant Ventures,  Rachel Layne and Pavel Alpeyev, Bloomberg, Nov 13, 2006

Build More Nuclear Plants

For the first time in its 32-year history, the International Energy Agency (IEA), in its World Energy Outlook 2006 urges governments around the world to help speed the construction of new nuclear power plants.

The IEA report – the first to offer advocacy rather than analysis – comes after the Group of Eight last summer asked the agency to come up with guidance on how governments could bolster energy security and combat global warming.

In the WEO 2006, the profile and significance of the World Alternative Policy Scenario is elevated and presented in the format that can be used as a ‘policy tool’ for governments to change the unsustainable trends of the reference scenario. The Alternative Policy Scenario is be built on policy measures such as energy efficiency and increased use of renewables and nuclear.

VHTR Reactor Pursued in U.S. With Priority

The Department of Energy (DOE) is supporting research on several reactor concepts, priority is being given to the VHTR, a system compatible with advanced electricity and hydrogen electricity generation capabilities. The emphasis on VHTR reflects its potential for economically and safely producing electricity and hydrogen at high efficiency without emitting noxious gases.

Last month, the DOE announced awards of $8 million to three private companies to to perform engineering studies and develop a pre-conceptual design to guide research on the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP), a very high temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactor prototype.

Construction is scheduled to begin at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), a DOE-managed facility near Arco,Idaho, in 2016 and to be completed by 2021.

In addition to producing hydrogen, the reactor is expected to generate commercial quantities of electricity and to recycle radioactive fuel, reducing the amount of nuclear waste compared to that produced by current reactors.

Alternative Liquid Fuels from Nuclear Hydrogen and CO2 Emissions

MIT conducted a study, An Alternative to Gasoline: Synthetic Fuels from Nuclear Hydrogen and Captured CO₂, to determine the extent to which nuclear power can contribute to a transition in the transportation sector.

The study concluded that the concept of alternative liquid fuels produced from nuclear hydrogen and captured carbon dioxide is viable. There is abundant CO₂ for use and the hydrogen can be produced with proven technology.

Combining hydrogen with carbon dioxide captured from fossil fired plants to produce liquid fuel, either ethanol or methanol, is a way of producing fuels that could be used with little modification in the production of vehicles, requires few changes in the infrastructure for distributing fuels and is complementary to the production of ethanol from biosources.

A total cycle analysis revealed that the total reduction in CO₂ emissions will be slightly more than 12% for either ethanol use or methanol use. A second benefit would be to decrease a nation’s dependence on imported petroleum.

MIT Researchers Develop New Nuclear Fuel and Improve Cooling Water Properties

From MIT press release ... MIT researchers are working on several innovations that could make existing (nuclear) plants more efficient and safer to run. These include a new fuel and a way to boost the cooling capability of ordinary water.

New fuel

In a three-year project completed recently for the U.S. Department of Energy, MIT researchers Hejzlar and Kazimi teamed up with Westinghouse and other companies to look at how to make a fuel for pressurized water reactors (PWR), 30 percent more efficient while maintaining or improving safety margins.

Uranium fuel typically is formed into cylindrical ceramic pellets about a half-inch in diameter. The pellets look like a smooth, black version of food pellets for small animals. They changed the shape of the fuel from solid cylinders to hollow tubes. This added surface area that allows water to flow inside and outside the pellets, increasing heat transfer.

Nuclear Saftey Issues

The New York Times reported that nuclear reactors are prone to long shutdowns, primarily due to safety concerns.

An analysis of nuclear reactors by a safety group has found that they are prone to costly, lengthy shutdowns for safety problems regardless of their age or the experience of their managers. The finding could have implications for companies considering building new reactors.

The analysis, by David Labium, a nuclear engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, counted 51 times that a reactor had been closed for a year or more. Thirty-six of those shutdowns were to restore an adequate level of safety by fixing flaws in equipment, procedures or training; 11 were to replace major components required for operations and safety; and 4 were for damage recovery. In all, of the 130 power reactors ever licensed, 41, were closed for at least a year. Ten were closed twice.

The chart accompanying the article tells a different story to me: plants are becoming much more safer, only one long shutdown has occurred since 1997 and none since 2002. The UCC is known for having anti-nuclear tendencies and the NY Times is following suite.

The Case for Nuclear Fuel Recycling

A little noticed item in the popular press was a study by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), Economic Assessment of Used Nuclear Fuel Management in the United States.  This privately funded study concludes that large scale nuclear fuel recycling integrated with a repository such as Yucca Mountain costs about the same in the short term, but is more attractive for long-term nuclear fuel management. The following was digested from their press release and the study.

The recycling relies on existing technology ― with appropriate modifications ― and can provide an operational transition to future technology developments such as Advanced Fuel Cycles and fast reactors. The technology assumed for the study is based on that used at at AREVA’s existing European plants (La Hague and Melox).

The study reports that recycling, as part of a portfolio strategy in which an integrated treatment and recycling plant complements a repository offers specific benefits including:

• Increasing the capacity of Yucca Mountain by a factor of 4 by recycling newly discharged fuel within four years and cooling the vitrified high level waste for 25 years at the recycling facility.
• Providing a comparable cost of disposal while eliminating the need for a second repository during the 50 years of recycling plant operation.
• Creating an effective long term hedge on rising fuel costs by providing 20-25 percent of the annual nuclear fuel needs in the U.S. through recycled products.
• Reducing used fuel inventory at reactor sites in the short term by removing the newly discharged, hotter fuel for recycling.
• Eliminating the need for additional storage at reactor sites while recycling some of the older legacy fuel in dilution with new fuel.

The Evolutionary Power Reactor

The latest nuclear power plant design to enter the race for the first next generation plant in the the U.S. was announced by Constellation Energy (NYSE: CEG) and Electricite de France (EdF). The two companies have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) under which they have agreed to work together toward an agreement allowing EdF to provide assistance to Constellation Energy as part of the development of the U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR). Edf is the operator and developer of the first EPR in France.

"The EPR is the only generation three plus advanced reactor design actually under construction in the world today," said George Vanderheyden, senior vice president of Constellation Generation Group.

The U.S. EPR is a 1,600 megawatt reactor designed for America by AREVA, Inc. (the world leader in nuclear power design and manufacturing).  It is a standardized, advanced design derived from the EPR nuclear reactor currently being built in Europe. The first EPR, under construction at Olkiluoto, Finland, is scheduled to commence operations by 2009. The second, in Flamanville, France, was approved by EdF in May and is scheduled for completion in 2012.

Bush, Nuclear Industry Optimistic for Nuclear Power

In a five minute video-taped address to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on Thursday President Bush said  "There is a growing consensus that nuclear power is a key part of a clean, secure energy future. To maintain our economic leadership and strengthen our energy security, America must start building nuclear power plants."

He identified several steps that his administration has taken to encourage greater use of nuclear energy. These include:

Biofuels, Batteries and Power Plants

I must say that I agree with most of what U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman's said in remarks as reported in the referenced article, but they were too short, as mine are usually, to really reflect viewpoint. Our research dollars spent for biofuels and batteries may be in the right direction, but not enough is being spent soon enough and much too much is being spent on hydrogen. I believe that government spending for batteries and biofuels is a pittance and is worth it if it reduces the time until implementation by the smallest amount.  I also think we should reduce all subsidies for ethanol production as soon as possible by tying them to the price of gasoline. Corn ethanol subsidies should be phased out  as soon as cellulosic ethanol is commercial. Congress needs to appropriate the money for the cellulosic ethanol demonstration plants! I am glad to see that batteries are moving to the forefront, but they are so close to commercialization that I don't know how much government research can be justified.  We will need more power plants powered by either coal or nuclear. I prefer coal with sequestration because they can be built faster and the nuclear waste problem is reduced, but a parallel building program may be required.  No mention was made of conservation.  The greatest amount of conservation occurs with electric vehicles getting their energy from advanced power plants operating at above 60% efficiency. The government has sheparded this development much faster than industry ever would have.  Changes in lifestyle and better building insulation standards are very important also. The most immediate impact would be to raise vehicle efficiency standards immediately! But no matter how much conservation is used we will require more power plants. Renewable energy, although important, is not the subject of this discussion because there is no way it can significantly impact our power production in the next 10 years.

He was quoted that he's "surprised" that oil price increases haven't had a greater impact on the U.S. economy and that he is  "worried" that the economy will suffer if oil prices stay above current levels. He further stated that "we are going to reach a limit and we will see a real impact of increased oil prices on our economy. Whether its $95 or something north of that I don't know. I can tell you I'm worried about anything above the current levels."

He went on to say that the administrations policy to increase research dollars for bio-fuels, hybrid battery technology and hydrogen fuel has the country on the right track. "But this country has been decades in getting itself into the fix we're in now. And it'll be a significant number of years working our way out of it."

He also called for the approval of the Yucca Mountain project to dispose of our nuclear waste. "This country doesn't need four (nuclear power) plants. We need 14 or we need 24." In order to support this kind of construction "will require Yucca Mountain be built."  Bodman said demand for electricity in the U.S. will increase 50% over the next 20-25 years and "the only thing I see meeting that is nuclear power."

US Energy Secretary:Oil Prices Eventually Will Impact Economy, Terry Kosdrosky, Dow Jones Newswire, April 6, 2006

Technorati tags: biofuels, batteries, nuclear, electric power, ethanol, coal, energy, technology

The Nuclear Waste Disposal Debate

EnergyBiz recently had a couple of articles exploring the issues relating to the implementation of nuclear waste disposal technology. The first article, written by three scientists, presented the case for using fast reactors.

Currently the United States has no effective strategy for dealing with used nuclear fuel. Plans for disposing of it at Nevada's Yucca Mountain continues to raise doubts as to whether it might pose safety problems some time in the future. Recycling the fuel is considered a better route by some. It would reduce the waste to a much more manageable size and insure that we have fuel for our nuclear power.

President Bush is asking congress to revive research into the use of fast reactors to address the nuclear waste problem. A conventional 1,000 megawatt reactor produces 100 tons of spent fuel a year that still contains 95 percent of its energy and that must be stored up to 10,000 years. A fast reactor of the same size would generate about a ton of fission products that would have to be stored for about 500 years.  The Department of Energy estimates it may cost $13 billion over a decade to develop a fast-reactor and reprocessing capability.

Cost Comparisons for New Power Plants

Stone & Webster Management Consultants has prepared life-cycle cost calculations for most of the technologies likely to be used in new power plants.  Calculations were made for the following types of plants:

• Subcritical and supercritical pulverized coal,
• Circulating fluidized bed (CFB),
• Integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC),
• GE advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR),
• South African pebble bed modular reactor (PBMR) and
• Gas fired combined cycle power plants. 

The paper, presented at POWER-GEN International in Los Vegas in early December, presents a consistent comparison of the economics and risks of representative designs that are being considered in the power marketplace for projects requiring investments of $1 billion or more.

A brief description of each type of power plant and a list of assumptions, too long to go into here, are given.  Results of the calculations are presented in graphic form for total capital investment in dollars and dollars per kW, levelized production costs (cost of electricity produced) and a comparison of costs for coal plants with and without sequestration. 

China's Massive Nuclear Program May Have Widespread Effects

China's plans to have an installed capacity of 40 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2020, meaning it has to start construction of two or three 1,000 MW plants each year.  This could have severe effects on the price of uranium, especially when considering the other plants that are planned for Asia, which has already tripled since 2004 to $35 a pound.  Means of combating uranium usage include:

• Building fast breeder reactors that generate more fuel than they use
• Designing plants that use less uranium
• Exploration for uranium beyond its borders

They are still developing plans for disposal of their nuclear waste.

Two plants are due to be completed this year and three more are under construction using Chinese designs and bidding is underway to build four units with foreign designs.

China's current nuclear capacity is under 10 GW. By comparison (2002 data from International Energy Outlook 2005) Western Europe had 127 GW the US 99 GW, Japan 46 GW and Russia 21 GW. 

Resource: China Seeks New Nuclear Designs Using Less Uranium, Reuters via Planet Ark, Feb. 22, 2006

Technorati tags: nuclear, energy, technology

Bush Proposes Reprossing Nuclear Fuel

In the budget proposal President Bush has proposed restarting research on reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.  Reprocessing work was stopped by President Carter in the 1970's.

The administration claims that rather than using old technology, a new technology, in which the plutonium would remain bound with other highly radioactive materials would be used, making it more difficult to use in weapons, thus reducing security concerns. The recycling plan would reduce the amount of nuclear waste at US nuclear power plants and encourage the building of more reactors to expand domestic electricity supplies. The amount of commercial spent nuclear fuel destined for disposal at the Yucca Mountain storage site near Las Vegas would be reduced by 80 percent under the proposed program.

A very controversial proposal, although some way of reducing the nuclear waste that will result from building of new nuclear power plants, which seems inevitable at this time, is necessary,   One report said that the waste would have a shorter half life than current waste.  Other reports indicated that the reprocessed waste would be more radioactive than normal nuclear fuel and would require 'fast reactors' to use it.  What do you think?

Culled from various news sources including; Bush requests money for Yucca Mountain, reprocessing in budget, Las Vegas Sun, Feb. 6, 2006

Technorati tags: nuclear, nuclear waste, energy, technology

Westinghouse AP1000 Nuclear Power Plant Design Approved

On January 31st, as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published the final design certification rule for Westinghouse Electric Corporation's "advanced passive" reactor design, the AP1000. The rule certifying the AP1000 design will become effective on February 27th, allowing utilities to reference the design in their applications to build new nuclear plants. 1000 MWe (nominal) reactor.  This reactor incorporates the incorporates the following features:

• Passive reactor core cooling system
• Modular construction to reduce costs and delivery time
• Major reduction in safety related pumps, valves, piping and electrical components
• Direct duplication of many components from existing power plants
• 60 year operating life

The AP1000 is based on proven pressurized water reactor technology.  Its power train in identical in basic design to conventionally design pressurized water reactors, but with many detailed improvements coming from the extensively operational experience gained worldwide on this system. 

A key and innovative feature of the AP1000 safety systems is the utilization of passive cooling using gravity, natural circulation, convection, evaporation and condensation rather than depending on AC power supplies and motor-driven components.  These features assure that the cooling water level will not fall below the top of the core in the event of a severe accident and that no operator action is needed in such emergency conditions for three days.  The natural (or passive) emergency cooling systems also have effected a major simplification in the plant by the elimination of the power driven pumps and their associated lines, valves and controls in the emergency cooling system.

Chinese Pebblebed Reactor Program

  An article in the current issue of Newsweek International gives some insight as to the status of their pebblebed nuclear reactor program which is progressing in parallel to the pebblebed reactor being built in South Africa, which was described in detail in a previous post. China is developing a small commercial pebblebed plant, which will produce 195 megawatts of electricity, which it expects to complete within five years in the eastern province of Shandong. Huaneng Power, one of the country's largest electricity companies, is contributing about half of the $300 million cost.

According to the article the South Africa project has faced delays due to pressure from environmentalists and many experts expect China, which does not foster environmental influences, to finish first.

Pebblebed technology is claimed to be fail-safe —it would not be possible for the reactor to melt down or explode like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. The main coolant for the system is inert helium, which helps make the reactor safer that other reactors that use water as the coolant.  The Chinese pebble-bed reactor doesn't even have a containment vessel, which is viewed as controversial by some. Extracting fuel from pebblebed reactors to use for weapons would be difficult and expensive.

Because the plants would be built in a standard design, that is quite small, they can be largely prefabricated offsite making them less expensive to build. This permits them to be quickly assembled in remote areas lending them to distributed plants, closer to the point of use. In populated areas a group of modules can provide greater capacity. The simplicity of design and inherent safety means that a much smaller operating staff is required than in more conventional reactors.

The article states that the ultimate goal is to improve China's own design and construction capabilities so it will not have to rely on foreigners to build and operate their reactors, but rather to be able to export its expertise in the design, construction and operation of plants.

Resource: China Leaps Foreward, MSNBC/Newsweek International Edition (online), February 6, 2006

Technorati tags: nuclear, pebblebed, electric generation, energy, technology

PBMR Reactor Takes Another Step

From a PBMR press release:

South Africa’s Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) company signs ZAR17.5 million (US$2.6 million) contract with Westinghouse of the USA.

In yet another step forward, South African cutting-edge nuclear vendor PBMR (Pty) Ltd, has entered into a contract for the basic design of automation safety sub-systems for its Demonstration Power Plant at Koeberg in the Western Cape.  The multi-million Rand contract with Westinghouse Electric Company is for the basic design of the Reactor Protection System, the Manual Shutdown System and the Post-event Instrumentation System.

The South African pebble bed modular reactor is accepted as the most advanced reactor design in the world at present and includes many attributes of a Generation IV reactor which criteria demands an inherently safe system as the basis of the engineering and physics design. It is based on proven German pebble fuel technology; contains low-enriched uranium encased in three layers of ceramics which in turn is embedded in a graphite matrix some 60mm in diameter.

The PBMR is described in this previous post. The company press release can be found here.

Thanks to The Atomic Insights Blog for the tip.

Technocrati tags: nuclear, PBMR Reactor, energy, technology

More Proof of Global Warming

Dr Michael Coughlin, head of the National Climate Centre was reported as saying that the world is now hotter than any time since prehistoric times.  He is supported by research using gas trapped in Antarctic ice going back 650,000 years that found that current levels of carbon dioxide in the air are 27% higher than at any tiny time during that period.  This goes along with NASA's report that says that 2005 is the hottest year on record.

Effects that have been attributed to the warming include that the Artic sea ice dropped to its lowest level ever, the record hurricane season and an unprecedented drought that reduced the flow of the Amazon river to its lowest ever rate.  Canada and Australia had their hottest ever weather this year, while India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Algeria suffered heatwaves reaching 50C.

If this isn't strong enough proof that global warming is real, what do you need Mr President?  It certainly should be enough to convince you to take all possible measures to reduce global warming, which should include as its main point the reduction of burning of fossil fuels. The time required for any mitigating measures to have any impact is so great, that all stops have to be pulled out now.  Items that have been repeatedly indicated as being necessary include:

How GE Captures New Energy Markets

An article from Fortune magazine via the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, gives a comprehensive review of General Electrics activities in the energy market. In perhaps the broadest and largest corporate effort anywhere, GE spent $700 million in 2004 on clean-energy R&D--ranging from hydrogen production to solar cells, cleaner coal plants, and biofuels. Their wide variety of activities include:

• Their very successful wind turbine business has sold 5,500 turbines since 2002, with 1,600 to be installed this year.  They hope wind power will eventually supply 20% of U.S.'s total energy.
• They are developing hybrid electric locomotives that they have running on an eight mile long test track, which they will start selling in 2007.
• They have many hydrogen related projects including solid oxide fuel cells for stationary applications, ICE engines modified to run on hydrogen, gas stations that use electrolysis to generate hydrogen, methods of storing hydrogen in man-made nanoparticles or in metal hydrides and thermochemical methods of producing hydrogen.
• GE has been building new high temperature nuclear reactors in Europe and Asia.
• They have teamed with Exxon Mobil and Schlumberger to study how to sequester carbon dioxide.
• They are developing IGCC technology for producing electricity and hydrogen.
• GE is pursuing three ways of using solar cells: developing more efficient solar cells, developing electrochemical cells that produce hydrogen, reducing the size of thermal solar farms from hundreds of acres to tens of acres by improving concentrating solar system efficiency.  An example of their research in solar is the development of nanodiodes--whiskers 1/80,000th the thickness of a human hair--displaying a photovoltaic effect that converts sunlight into electricity.

John K. Reinker, who runs a team of about 60 scientists on hydrogen related subjects, is excited about the sheer scope of GE's energy R&D. "I don't think there is any other company in the world that is looking at so many energy technologies and as a result is able to understand which have the most probability of success." Thomas Edison, GE's original research scientist, would be proud.

More blogs about wind power, hydrogen, fuel cells, solar, nuclear, sequestration, hybrids, coal, alternative energy, renewable, renewable energy, energy

South African Pebble Bed Reactor Moves Foreward

From Mitsubishi press release:

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. has received two orders from PBMR (Pty) Ltd of the Republic of South Africa related to the core barrel assembly (CBA) of the company's demonstration power plant pebble bed modular reactor. One contract calls for MHI to undertake the basic design of the CBA, an integral component of the reactor pressure vessel, and another is for provision of forgings and procurement of items for the CBA. The contracts, together worth approximately US$15 million (1.8 billion yen), have already been signed.

The PBMR is a safe and cost-efficient reactor that uses silicon carbide-coated uranium particles encased in graphite for fuel spheres, making it free from risk of reactor core meltdown; helium is used as the coolant and energy transfer medium to a closed-cycle gas turbine and generator. The first PBMR commercial operation in South Africa is slated to commence in 2013. In South Africa, electricity demand is expected to increase by 30GW (gigawatts) in the next two decades. Strong support coming in from the South African government is prompting expansion of power generation capacity with the construction of PBMR power plants planned at a rate of three units per year. In 2020, the total number of PBMR units is expected to reach 24 and they are planned to produce 4 GW, about 13% of additional electricity demand.

South Africa sees the Pebble Bed reactor as its lowest cost and quickest answer to its urgent needs for more power. See earlier post for detailed description of pebble bed reactors. Thanks to NEI Nuclear Notes for the lead.

Resource: MHI Receives Orders from South Africa for Basic Design and Procurement Activity
For Core Assembly of Pebble Bed Modular Reactors, MHI Press release, December 7, 2005

More blogs about nuclear, pebble bed, energy, technology

Duke Power Preparing COL for 2 Nuclear Reactors

Duke Power has announced that it is preparing a combined construction and operating license (COL) application for two Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) reactors at a site to be named following the conclusion of its current site selection study.  The COL application, which is expected to be submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission within the next 24-30 months, is part of the company's long-term generation planning process, and will allow Duke Power to keep new nuclear generation as an option for meeting its customer's future energy needs.

The AP1000 design is based on the same Westinghouse pressurized water reactor (PWR) technology that has been used in in numerous power plants around the world.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has set up a process by which reactor designs can be certified prior to any actual construction plans. The certification process seeks to reduce site development time by resolving design issues prior to construction. The AP1000's status in this process is "finalizing certification" which should fit in well with Duke's construction plans.  Design certification may occur simultaneously with site licensing or construction licensing. 

Bodman Proposes New Nuclear Power Rules

Energy Secretary Bodman has proposed new legislation to reduce the construction risk and to speed up licensing of four nuclear power plants that could be completed by 2014.  The laws would apply to four nuclear plants planned to be built using new designs by General Electric and Westinghouse.  The legislation would provide insurance against costs incurred because of regulatory delays and rules to make it harder to stop a plant from operating once it has been built.  See this article from the San Diego Union-Tribune for more details.

We will need a large number of electric power plants to be built in the future due to obsolescence and increased demand, regardless of any efforts to conserve or use of renewable energy.  While I prefer clean coal or IGCC plants with sequestration, they probably cannot be built fast enough to meet our requirements.  Besides we need to continue to develop other technologies on a reasonable basis as we will, for all practical purposes, run out of fossil fuels in 50-100 years.  While I have no strong objections to this legislation for the first four plants, it does set a precedent and must be written carefully too prevent it from being too lenient.  I realize there are some who think this is not possible, but now is the time to lobby for responsible legilation, not after the plants have been approved through a proper review process.

More blogs about nuclear energy, energy

About Pebble Bed Reactors

A new (to the U.S.) and sometimes controversial nuclear reactor is the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR).  Proponents point out that the reactor is smaller, less expensive, cleaner and safer than other nuclear plants.  Pebble bed reactors offer the opportunity to reduce the complexity of the plant because the number of safety systems required is reduced significantly due to the inherent safety of the technology.  Rather than depending on the economics of scale to reduce cost, the economics of production volume and simplified design are used.  Opponents of nuclear power say it produces more nuclear waste than existing nuclear reactor designs.  Both sides of this discussion have valid points.

The PBMR is classified as a high temperature gaseous reactor (HTGR or HTR) because it operates at temperatures up to 900°C compared to an operating temperature of typically 340°C in pressurized water reactors (PWR), the most common type of reactor.  The higher temperature results in a higher efficiency, calculated to be up to 44%, about one-third more than conventional reactors . 

The reactor is hopper like vessell filled with graphite pebbles, each about 60 mm in diameter and filled with thousands of Uranium Oxide (UO2) fuel particles with diameters of less than 1 mm.  Each fuel particle is coated with two layers of pyrolytic carbon, silicon carbide, and porous carbon. The coatings retains the gaseous fission products.  Graphite in the form of pebbles or fuel rods is used as a moderator to control the reaction.  Heat that is generated by the fission reaction is transferred to the helium gas that flows through the reactor.  From the reactor the helium goes directly to gas turbines that convert the thermal energy in the gas into electricity.  The gas is then cooled, compressed and reheated before being returned to the  reactor.

Should we Recycle Nuclear Waste?

With the electrical energy consumption expected to double by 2050, we have to install a massive amount of generation capacity by that time.  Nuclear generation will most likely be part of the solution and then what to do with the nuclear waste then become an issue.  The best thing we could do is to conserve, but in my wildest imagination I cannot see conserving that much electricity.  That leaves three major sources of energy to draw from: renewable, coal and nuclear.  Natural gas cannot be used because of its expense and the fact that it probably will be depleting by that time, certainly the US reserves will be, and importing LNG in massive quantities is problematic.   I cannot see renewable energy contributing more than 20-30%.  That leaves nuclear and coal to be the largest contributors.  The EIA sees coal and nuclear remaining at about 50% and 20% respectively, of the total as they do today.  Recent posts on IGCC and environmental controls on conventional plants has shed some light on the problems with coal fired plants.  I want to refer you to an article that poses some strong arguments in favor of recycling nuclear waste rather than storing it in Yucca Mountain.

The author does not make any arguments that storing it is unsafe or impractical, rather that for less money we could recycle the waste and minimize the amount of raw uranium we would need to process.  The final price for the storage might be $100 billion.  He makes the case that recycling the waste, at a cost of $20 billion, into fuel would enable production of $1 trillion dollars worth of electricity.  He is talking about mechanical recycling not breeder reactors as I understand him. Nuclear waste is now recycled in France, Russia, Japan, and Great Britain with no apparent problems.

You will have to read the article for more of the details.  It does not address the environmental issues involved with either storage or reprocessing only some of the technology and the economics.  I am not really informed enough to have a strong opinion, but given that the storage facility is safe, the main problem is transporting the spent fuel to the facility is the my main concern.  I am of the opinion that we will need some nuclear power to meet our needs.  I would prefer coal in that I think the risks are less and even with sequestration the costs are likely to be less.  I don't want any comments on the merits or problems with nuclear power at this time, that is a later debate.

Resource:  "How Harry Reid can Save us &80 Billion and Fuel $1 Trillion in Electricity", Energy Pulse, 9/29/05

Technocrati tags: nuclear energy, nuclear power, energy, electrical power generation, electricity

The Nuclear Fuel Cycle

The layman's explanation of the nuclear fuel cycle from uranium mining, to enrichment, to reactors to reprocessing, to uranium bombs and to plutonium bombs.  This cool site by BBC news on-line is well illustrated and provides a good introduction to how atomic energy works.

Technocrati tags: atomic energy, nuclear fuel, enrichment