Dirty Natural Gas

Anti-Nuclear environmentalists like Amory Lovins and Joe Romm, and anti-nuclear groups such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Ckub keep telling us how green and environmentally friendly natural gas is. Here, from Vanity Fair is wht they are selling.

David Walters Returns to Nuclear Blogging

David Walters has resumed blogging after an absence of several months. This is indeed good news for those of us who appreciate Davids work. David' Daily Kos blog descrives him as

(a) power plant worker, union member and socialist.

This says a lot about David, but is by no means the whole story.

David has two blogs, in addition to his Daily Kos Blog, David has a second blog, Left Atomic. Left Atomic has a banner slogan:

A LEFT-WING PRO-NUCLEAR ENERGY PERSPECTIVE, FIGHTING FOR A SAFE, CLEAN AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FUTURE WHERE GENERATION IS FOR HUMAN NEEDS AND NOT FOR PROFIT.

In case you are still wondering, David us not a Tea Party activist.

It is a myth that the political left has rejected nuclear power en mass. As it turns out most American pro-nuclear bloggers situate ourselves somewhere to left of the American political center. Often we find that our anti-nuclear opponents while posing as Liberals and leftist, are in fact left wing posers, who reject many of the ideas that traditional liberals and leftists regard as important. Indeed one of the reasons why we accept nuclear power, is that we believe that it is an acceptable tool for the creation of a society in which human freedom is important, and common people have access to the material prosperity that is a potential in material high energy societies. Our pseudo leftist anti-nuclear opponents, would limit the production of energy, make energy expensive, and otherwise place artificial limitations on access to energy and to the goods produced by industrialized, high energy societies. A second difference between pro-nuclear bloggers and our anti-nuclear opponents, is the high regard in which we hold science and our respect for facts, and our attempt to hold ourselves to a standard of honesty in debate. David Walters exemplifies all of these virtue.

Not only is David Walters a notable blogger, but he has been active internte commenter who frequently participates in online debates with anti-nuclear types. In order to appreciate David in action I will refer to a debate he participated in last Fall on a pro-renewables Internet site called El Phoenix Sun. David's debate opponent in this instance was Osha Gray Davidson, who reviewed a study titled "Energy Trends" by the public opinion research Neilson Company. The report demonstrated that renewable energy receives wide spread public support, but dis not look at how much the public knows about the down sides of renewable energy such as its reliability issue and cost. In his review, Osha Gray Davidson stated,

The study grouped a variety of energy sources under the heading, “Renewable and Carbon Neutral Sources.”

I don’t know why the phrase “carbon neutral” was included, but it appears to give nuclear power a chance to be included in the pie. Nuclear fuel isn’t renewable, but it also isn’t carbon neutral — unless you ignore carbon emissions that come from mining, transporting, and processing the uranium fuel, and disposing of the radioactive waste (for which there is currently no viable plan — but that’s another story).

Davidson then displayed a pie chart derived from the study which demonstrated public acceptance for various forms of "carbon neutral" energy sources including nuclear. Davidson remarked,

I really don’t think nuclear belongs in this pie under a reasonable definition of “carbon neutral.” Here’s what our pie would look like with the radioactive ingredient removed.

David responded to Davidson's El Pheonix Sun peice

Oh please, of course nuclear is as carbon neutral as any renewable. Especially if you include life time usage including the huge 10x material costs per MW for wind vs nuclear.

It is considered “non/low carbon” by everyone in the energy business and arguing it is not makes you look foolish.

And of course these pie charts based on nonsense questions are…useless. “What people prefer” is irrelevant to how you build a grid, address baseload power issues, etc.

Davidson who had not substantiated his claim about nuclear not being carbon-neutral responded by challenging David to substantiate his claims. In addition Davidson added a gratuitous comment intended as a slur against David.

I know your blog is subtitled “A Left-Wing, Pro-Nuclear Energy Perspective,” but please – don’t give Glenn Beck and his ilk encouragement!

David responded,

First, the Dr. Steven Chu, our Energy Sec’ty has stated repeatedly: “Nuclear provides 70% of our carbon FREE generation…”. He uses the word ‘free’ only because most renewable advocates missue the term as well.

The EIA of the DofE has a list of the carbon out put of all sources of energy, based on lifetime front end to back end cycle. The European energy agency has produced similar results. For one of *many* studies see:

“Life-Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Systems and Applications for Climate Change Policy Analysis,” Paul J. Meier, University of Wisconsin-Madison, August 2002.

Also, The British Energy listing of carbon life cycle output:

http://www.british-energy.co.uk/opendocument.php?did=340

And I could go on…

This, as the majority of recent studies show, CO2 output equals that of wind, based on life cycle analysis. If your readers do *any* good search for this, they will find dozens of studies all of which put nuclear at or near that of wind.

What NONE of the studies show is the massive required backup in terms of fossil fuel, most notably gas fired gas turbines but also coal because of the unreliability of renewables. If you added this, that is, in stead of simply comparing the lifecycle CO2 output of a single, say, wind turbine name plate capacity, to it’s availability, you’d have to raise that number to at least 4 or 5 given that one has to overbuild wind by this factor to get true faceplate capacity.

There simply is no one in the industry: grid operations, manufacturing, environmental regulatory or climate change scientists who would back up YOUR unsubstantiated claim that nuclear is not low-carbon. I believe the burden of proof is on you. . . .

The EIA also has data on the material usage for building wind turbines vs that of nuclear. All the numbers I’ve seen *bar none* show that in terms of aluminum, steel and concrete wind uses from 4 to 10 times the amount than nuclear. Wind advocates don’t like to point this out, of course.

Then David added a response to Davidson's Glen Beck slur,

The problem is that your writing actually backs up the Glen Beck Know-Nothings because you fail to provide any evidence of your claims thus giving, on a silver platter to idiots like Beck, that renewable energy advocates don’t know what they are talking about with regards to energy. (I doubt HE could actually articulate this in any event but others of his ilk can).

Davidson responded,

Thanks for providing your sources. They’re helpful in some respects, but they don’t do anything to bolster your original claim that “everyone” agrees that nuclear power is a low carbon source of energy. Clearly, the authors you cite share your view. They don’t speak for everyone, however. Even more important are the nuances and caveats they contain.

First, I’ll just point to a couple of sources that disagree with the ones you site.

“Nuclear Power – The Energy Balance,” by Jan Williem van Leeuwen and Philip Smith.

“ Nuclear Power and Climate Change,” Amory Lovins.

Both of the complete citations you provided (Meier and the British Energy study) exclude a critical factor: the GHG emissions associated with spent fuel disposal. I didn’t see any reference to this omission in Meier (although I may have missed it). And the BE study refers to it obliquely, saying only “The final route of disposal for high level radioactive waste in the UK is currently under consideration.” Translation: “Since we haven’t solved the disposal issue, let’s just assume that whatever is done won’t emit GHGs.”

Zero information does not equal zero emissions.

In the US, the solution – burial at Yucca Mountain – was a massive project that emitted an unknown quantity of GHGs. Now that the Obama administration has rejected the Yucca Mountain solution, a new plan will have to be devised, and estimates for CO2 emissions are, of course, not factored into either of the studies cited.

I don’t believe an objective source would claim carbon neutrality based on partial data. Then again, I’m not so sure the British Energy study you cite is objective.

British Energy is one of the largest nuclear power companies in the UK, if not the largest, operating eight plants with a 9,000 MW capacity. They commissioned the study by AEA Technology, a private research company whose links to the nuclear industry has been a source of controversy in the UK.

As well informed energy writers should know, Jan Williem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith claims have been the subject of numerous critiques, most notably by Martin Sevior, an Associate Professor, School of Physics, University of Melbourne. Amory Lovins fallacious claims about nuclear power, were throughly examined by David Bradisn. Bradish's summery of his 6 part critique together with links to the previous 5 parts can be found here. Lovins began an attempt to respond to Bradish on Gristmill (Bradish provides links), but failed to respond to comments on the second of 4 promised posts, and failed to offer the final two responses, as well as a promised response to Robert Bryce. A year after the Bradish-Lovins controversy, I reviewed it and concluded,

There can, however, be no doubt that Lovins, by his refusal to respond to numerous critics, and his failure to provide promised responses, has damaged his credibility.

There are thus clear grounds for challenging Lovins claim to be an energy expert.

Thus Davidson rests his response to David Walters on the shoulders of two discredited sources. And David, who is no ones fool pounced.

Osha (I assume this is your name?) as Bill Woods pointed out, Storm van Leeuwen was wildly discredited and if you notice, few, if any, cite him and his team anymore.

My sources, including British energy which is a state surface, the DofE etca are all widely regarded as objective sources. The two you cited are *professional* anti-nuclear activists.

If you look at any set of objective studies, from universities, primarily, but other sources as well, no one seriously doesn’t consider nuclear to be low-carbon and in fact the worlds governments are generally in agreement about that. Just about at every level, ‘fossil’ use can be replaced with nuclear energy, from mining to lighting the guard shack at a spent fuel depository. Certainly reprocessing can be totally nuclearized so there is essentially zero-carbon from nuclear.

Since the mining and transport of materials for wind is way higher than nuclear, would we consider this a net increase in carbon out put? of course. But this is statistically irrelevant as it is for carbon output of nuclear. What is not, as I noted previously, included is the amount of fossil fuel back up needed for wind and solar. Is this included in *any* of the studies you site? No.

But I will take wind as it’s presented: low carbon at the point of production and minimal at the manufacturing level. Same as nuclear, essentially.

Not that I want to give advice to anti-nuclear writers, but clearly the issues with nuclear are not over ‘carbon output’. I should recommend you continue along these lines, the people are far smarter than that. The real issues with nuclear as economic (financing it) and spent nuclear fuel (recycling, etc). You could have a serious discussion here if you focused on what is, not what is fantasy.

Davidson not willing to invest more in a loosing cause, bowed out without admitting the defeat he had suffered.

David, It’s time for me to move on, so rather than respond to the arguments you make above, I’ll be a gracious web-host and let you have the last word.

Thanks for writing and taking part in the exchange. It’s been interesting, and I appreciate your efforts to fight global warming, even if we disagree on the means.

Best,
Osha

Kudos to David Walters, and mazel tov upon his return to nuclear blogging.

White Paper Draft: Deployment and Lowering Post-Carbon Energy Costs, Part 1

Estimates about how much energy must be produced to assure an 80% reduction of CO2 emissions by 2050 differ and it is not necessary to reach a plausible figure in order to formulate the post-carbon deployment problem. The problem is not simply to replace 80% of present carbon based energy production with post-carbon energy systems. Most people on earth use far less energy than people in North America and Western Europe do. It appears to be the aspiration of the peoples who live in less energy intensive societies to enjoy standards of energy use similar to those found in Europe and North America. In order for this to be possible, a global energy use would have to be greatly expanded. The rapid growth of the Chinese and Indian economies, coupled with their rapid growth in energy consumption suggests that the global energy demand in 2050 will be substantially higher than it is in 2010. In order for any global carbon mitigation program to be successful, it must take into account likely future global energy expectations. Thus not only will 80% of present fossil fueled energy generating technologies have to be replaced with post-carbon energy generating technologies, but a very large amount of post-carbon energy relating facilities will have to be built to answer new energy demands.

This massive deployment of new energy sources will create several problems. First is the production problem. Truly massive numbers of new energy sources must be built. The second problem is the source distribution problem. It is not enough to produce large numbers of energy producing units, they must be distributed to final energy production sites, and set up to actually produce energy. If the energy is not consumed on site then it must be distributed off site, and an adequate energy distribution system, one which can be counted on to reliably deliver electricity to the customers must be constructed. If energy customers expect reliable energy, a reliable backup systems have to also be built.

The entire system must be deliverable at reasonable costs.

In order to produce enough energy generation units, the it is very likely that those units will require mass production in factories. In addition to insuring the rapid production of large numbers of generation units, factory production has significant potential for lowering labor costs. It should be noted that major renewable components of renewable energy sources already are largely factory produced, with final assembly from often large components in the field. Field assembly can usually be assumed to cost more than factory assembly.

Most renewable energy systems rely on factory assembly of major components. There is a growing trend in the nuclear industry to factory assemble modular kits, each component weighing up to 40 tons. Major components of large reactors, such as steam generators and pressure vessels weight much more. Pressure vessels can weigh over 1000 tons.

Large components of renewable are often transported by truck to final assembly sites, but even trucks cannot carry large components like entire wind towers, so the towers are halled by trucks in manageable pieces. Wind tower bases are built of concrete, and may cover a 60' by 60' area. Foundations can require 25 tons of rebar, while the concrete in the foundation of a 1.5 MW wind generator will top out at a500 tons.

Most of the components of wind generators are built in factories and arrive at the assembly site on trucks. Building wind generators then becomes a matter of local assembly of factory built parts. Although wind generators require several times the material input of reactors, their overall cost is far less, because their factory manufactured parts cost less and it cost less to assemble them into a wind generator. Were this the end of the story, we would be forced to conclude that nuclear power is not cost competitive with wind. It is not the end of the story. Winds are unreliable, and the average wind generator produces electricity equal to one third of its rated generating capacity. In contrast the average nuclear power plant produces 90% of its rated capacity. When the superior efficiency of nuclear power is included in the cost equation, nuclear power turns out to be less expensive.

Can nuclear power manufacturers learn something from the wind industry's use of factory manufacture? In 200o the United States Department of Energy commissioned a study of potential designs for small factory manufactured reactors. Now it is possible to factory manufacture a large reactor in the form of factory built kits designeds to be assembled locally, just as wind mills are. While there are some real cost savings to be had by the kit approach, assembling the large reactor, still may require as many as 20 million hours of labor.

The 2003 DOE report on factory constructed small reactors was titled, DESIGN AND LAYOUT CONCEPTS FOR COMPACT, FACTORY-PRODUCED, TRANSPORTABLE, GENERATION IV REACTOR SYSTEMS. Research described in the report focused on three reactor types that were assumed to have potential for factory manufacture. They were the Westinghouse International Reactor, Innovative & Secure (IRIS) a reactor rated at 1000 MWt, that was expected to produce about 345 MWs of electricity in full power operation. The IRIS was at the upper range of small reactor which run from 100 MWe to 400 MWe.

The IRIS, a Light Water Reactor (LWR) was not a true Generation IV reactor design. Rather it was a surrogate that was chosen because detailed plans of the IRIS were available from Westinghouse. Light water reactors require a number of massive components. For example, the pressure vessel of a giant economy size LWR is a massive steal object that can weigh as much as 1000 tons. The pressure vessel is but one of a number of large and heavy steel object required to make a LWR work. In reactors the size of the IRIS those objects are smaller than those found in regular size reactors, but they are still very large and heavy. If the whole IRIS power producing unit were treated as a single factory producible object, researchers calculated that it would weigh over 7000 tons. The IRIS was also larger than a football field. Transporting such a large and heavy object from a factory would be a very difficult undertaking and transportation would probably be limited to ships and barges, and possibly even then with difficulty. If our requirements included truck or rail transportation, then clearly the URIS would not work out well. If the IRIS were to be factory built as a kit, we would have to ask if there was any cost advantage to building an IRIS kit as opposed to building a larger reactor from a kit.

Clearly then the IRIS is not the nest candidate for factory construction. A less powerful candidate, the Modular Pebble Bed Reactor (PBMR) was designeds to be transported as a kit. No consideration was given to transporting it as a single unit. Indeed while the PBMR does not require as much steel in its pressure vessel as the LWR pressure vessel does, the PBMR pressure vessel is twice as large as a LWR pressure vessel for a given unit of power output. The Chinese plan to factory build PBMRs kits, but their most recent estimate is that it cost as much per unit of power to build a PBMR from a factory produced kit, as it costs to build a Generation II or III LWR from a Factory produced kit.

From the perspective of 2010, the DOE's third choice for the factory built small reactor was a strange choice. It was a liquid Lead-Bismuth cooled fast reactor. The Report noted,

Liquid metal breeder reactors hold particular promise for future energy supply since they offer sustainability of energy production through effective utilization of fertile and fissile materials. They also can be used to recycle nearly all of the actinide radioactive waste produced by current nuclear reactors, and consequently use the waste for energy production. Many breeder reactors have been designed and a few have been built and operated. However, most designs have an inherent problem with positive coolant voiding reactivity coefficients; thus, they may present more risk than many would prefer to accept. Results from our calculations indicate that proper choices of thorium, plutonium, and uranium fuels, along with some changes in geometry, permit a PbBi cooled reactor to operate with a negative PbBi voiding reactivity coefficient, so that a reactor with considerably more inherent safety than previous designs can be designed and operated.

One significant advantage of PbBi as a coolant is that the reactor spectrum is relatively hard, and this permits significant quantities of actinides to be used as fuel, which eliminates the need to dispose of them as waste. The nuclear characteristics of this design also permit operation for at least five years without refueling, or reshuffling, since the conversion ratio can be maintained very near unit y. The time between refueling is limited by performance of fuel materials rather than by the ability to sustain the chain reaction. Proliferation resistance is improved relative to the reactors in current commercial use since the Pu-239 inventory can be held constant or be diminished, depending on fuel management choices.

In order to accomplish the size limitation for reactor components, the proposed design is constrained by a reactor vessel size that will be transportable on a standard rail car. This limits the height and width to about twelve feet, the length to about eighty feet, and the weight to about eighty tons. This should be adequate for producing 300 to 400 MW electrical, depending on optimization of primary and secondary system performance, while satisfying all licensing requirements.

There is, in fact very little interest in building such a reactor today, although there is a lot of interest in building very similar sodium cooled small reactors that are in many respects similar in design. Compared to LWRs and PBMRs, Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors (LMFBRs) are quite compact. The report found,

It is determined that a PbBi cooled fast reactor that produces 310 MWe can be designed with primary system components that are all rail transportable.

This is a definate move in the right direction. But are we considering a paper reactor, one that would require a lot of money hard work and time to bring to production. The Russians who had experience with PbBi cooled reactors built for for military purposes, are working on a 100 MWe PbBi cooled fast reactor, such reactors are however, unlikely in the United States.

In 2010 there are several proposals to build sodium cooled small (100 MWe to 400 MWe) and mini (under 100 MWe) sodium cooled fast reactors. Most of these reactors will fall in the Mini category, but one plausible candidate with a very credible design, the ARC-100 would produce 100 MWe, and thus would be a small reactor. The ARC-1000 is based on a proven reactor design. This size reactor would have train and/or truck transportable major components, would be large enough to be a primary source of power for the grid, if the ARC-100 cost could be kept low enough. It is not clear, however, that the ARC-100 would be the lowest cost Generation IV reactor candidate. There would inevitably be complaints about ARC-100 safety, but in fact its probably can be made sufficiently safe, making the ARC-100 safe enough might add to its heft and cost. In addition safety mandated modifications to the ARC-100 design, might impose performance penalties. There should be no complaints about nuclear waste from the ARC-100. Indeed the ARC-100 would be a waste eater, that would be started with nuclear waste, of fissionable materials from nuclear weapons. One of the ARC-100 limitations might be that the supply of nuclear waste might not keep pace ARC-1000 start up demand.

The ARC-100 is fairly complex, and the complexity would add to manufacturing and operation costs relative to simpler designs. Some of the fuel reprocessing technologies used by the ARC-100, might not work as well as Argonne National Laboratory veterans hope.

Thus while the ARC-100 might well be a good reactor design, it might not be the ideal factory manufactured reactor candidate.

Let's make a list of qualities that the ideal factory manufactured reactor should possess. It should be:

1. Very safe, and safe at a low cost

2. Should dispose of the most dangerous components of existing nuclear waste

3. Be small enough and light enough for its major components to be truck or train transportable.

4. Produce its own fuel.

5. Be undesirable as a nuclear proliferation tool.

6. Be manufactured quickly and at low costs. Be capable of being placed into operation within 6 months of being ordered.

7. Be either air or water cooled.

8 Be capable of being produced in very large numbers over a relatively short period of time.

9. Be more fuel efficient than conventional reactors.

10. Reprocess its fuel on site and at low cost.

11. Reduce the problem of long term nuclear waste by at least 99% , or entirely eliminate it.

Most people would say that it is impossible for any one type of reactor to do all of this. In fact, one little known and poorly understood type of reactor offers all of these features. Only one class of reactor is capable of accomplishing all of these requirements. I will discuss that reactor and its performance options, in the next part of this paper.

The 7th Carnival of Nuclear Energy with more Blasts from the Past

First a word of thanks to Jason Ribeiro of Pro-Nuclear Democrat, who created the new Nuclear Green Banner. Jason recently set out to tell us how to improve our narrative of the nuclear power story in "Stories not Data. Can Nuclear Learn Something from the Invisible Gorilla?"

A true horror show, The Movie Gasland, and a PBS Interview with Gasland Director Josh Fox caught Jason's attention. Gasland focuses on the effects of hydraulic fracturing of shale rock formations as a natural gas production method. Fox has done an admirable job of exposing the natural gas clean energy myth.

Kirk Sorenson is one of the Senior Nuclear Bloggers on the internet and an authority on LFTR/MSR technology. Kirk is both an Aero-space and a Nuclear Engineer, and he usually lays out the facts, but he is hip enough to have been featured in a story on Wired Magazine. Kirk has offered us a couple of interesting posts on fission products and spent nuclear fuel this week. The first is titled, What’s in Spent Nuclear Fuel? (after 20 yrs), and features a discussion of various actinides and fission products produced by the nuclear process. in Picture of Neutron Poisons Kirk introduces a hall of mirrors in which neutron poison xenon-135 whose wide neutron cross section gave fits to the designers of first generation reactors is revealed for the first time to be the enormously bloated neutron grabber it really is.

Meredith Angwin alway has a big and lively tent at Vermont Yankee. This week he offers us her death defying tritium drinking act in Canadian Tritium Study and What Does It Mean for Vermont Yankee. In addition Meredith offers us a guest post by Guy Page, Renewables and Vermont. Guy is a decided kill joy at our carnival, because he is trying to expose the joke, that the renewable freaks are trying to play on the good people of Vermont.

Pro-Nuclear Bloggers have participated in two lively debates on the Energy Collective this week. The first deals with a freak show post, titled The Jevons Paradox: Time to Send it The Way of the Dodo? The topic relates to Amory Lovins argument that energy efficiency can serve as a substitute for nuclear power in the 21st century. Numerous critics have accused Lovins of ignoring a well known economics theory, Jevons' Paradox. The EC post claims that Jevons Paradox is out of date, but pro-nuclear bloggers including yours truly find big flaws in the argument. The most interesting thing about the debate is that it marks the comming out as a pro-nuclear blogger, of Jesse Jenkins, a well known energy and environment writer. Welcome on board Jesse.

The second EC debate was triggered by a post by Dan Yurman, How to open running room for small reactors. Dan discusses regulatory changes that will facilitate the development of small reactors. Michael Keller casts a skeptical eye on the small reactor concept, and irrpresible nuclear critic Stephen Gloor piles on.

Dan also offers us us an account of the ARC-100 small reactor project. The ARC-100 is actually a Generation IV sodium cooled fast reactor. The ARC-100 is based on decades old EBR-II reactor technology, which increases its likelihood of success.

"Uvdiv" over at Capacity Factor offers something of a follow up to Dan's post.

Over at NEI Nuclear Notes, Mark Flanagan highlights an important political race for nuclear energy in Nevada. Will Senator Harry Reid be able to hold on to his position, thereby making sure Yucca Mountain never happens? Or will Sharron Angle be able to defeat the long-time incumbent and disrupt the Senate leadership? Too early to tell but make sure to stop to see the discussion.”

Nuclear Fusion is either touted the next big thing in energy, or as living somewhere on an ever reseeding horizon that is 50 years in the future. One thing is certain, if nuclear fusion ever becomes a practical option, Brian Wang will be the first to tell us about it. Brian recently described for us a patent granted Tri-Alpha Energy for a field reversed configuration system.

Brian also discussed prospects for a near term increase in uranium production. Kazakhstan is likely to see an increase in uranium production, but a 40% increase in taxes on mine profits, is likely to block a proposed expantion of Australia's huge Olympic Dam Uranium mine. Finally Brian reports on a proposed 16 GW buildout of nuclear power in Vietnam by 2030.

So far in our carnival we have seen serious people doing serious work, but what about fun? Dr. Buzzo of Depleted Cranium offers a look at the handy work of the European Union Renewable Energy Clown College, in The Realities of Sahara Solar Power. The clown have proposed for laughs that Europe generate electricity in the Sahara Desert of North Africa, and transmit it to Europe via a an undersea cable. This is a very bad Idea, Dr Buzzo tells us.

Barry Brook has been offering us a multi-part series titled "Take Real Action on Climate Change." Part 1, which served as an introduction went up on June 21. Barry added Part 2, The FAQ today.

The Sovietologist is back from his death defying trip to Chernobyl, and in Chernobyl Exclusion Zone tells us,

the overall radiation hazard in the vast majority of the zone is nothing to get worked up about, in my view.

Yours truly has decided to offer a plan for Global Nuclear Deployment by 2050. So far I have drafted sections on nuclear safety, and the nuclear fuel supply, and an appendix on the Indian Nuclear system.

Finally journalist Steve Hedges has opened up a Dredge Report type Internet site and blog, devoted to nuclear energy. Steve's site is called Nuclear Townhall. Nuclear Townhall has also announced a debate of the Week, Should Atlas Shrug? The debate focuses on the question of whether or not The Vermont Yankee and Oyster Creek Nuclear Plants should be shut down.

Blasts from the Past

Blogger NNadir has shutdown his great Daily Kos blog act after several years. But that blog's archive still up on Daily Kos, and what a treat it is. Nuclear Green reviewed that archive this week, in order to familiarize its readers with NNadir's truly remarkable contributions.

Jim Holm is not exactly a blogger, but he has a great act at coal2nuclear.com, and is having a great deal of influence on thinking about the future siting of nuclear power plants. Jim's basic idea is to recycle old coal fired electrical generating plants and use as much of the left over equiptment and facilities. A lot of people, including (I have been told) Babcock & Wilcox seem to like the idea. LFTR and IFR advocates like the idea, and it is quite likely we are going to see small reactors popping up at old steam fired generating facilities in a decade or so.

Our final blast comes from professor Bernard L. Cohen, a famous university of Pittsberg Health Physicist, who investigated the aftermath of the Three Mile Island accident. Dr. Cohen has placed the entire text of his book, The Nuclear Energy Option online, and it is a great resource to the community that supports nuclear energy and for exposing anti-nuclear freak shows.

The End of the Fossil Fuel Era

We are witnessing the end of the fossil fuel era. As of yet few people are aware of the swift foot falls od doom, but it is comming and faster than anyone would believe. I will quickly present two witnesses to the doom of the fossil fuel era. First is the video "Gasland" from a recent PBS program. .Gasland reveals the technological bankruptcy of the natural gas industry, as it attempts to wrest natural gas from stubborn shale formations. Gasland reveals the extent that the natural gas industry has failed to control toxic pollutant byproducts of the fracking process, which it now uses to produce natural gas. Gasland producer Josh Fox states that hydraulic fracturing or fracking “was exempted by the Bush-Cheney Energy Policy Act of 2005 from the United States’ basic environmental regulations, including the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act. Across the country, in states such as New York, and Pennsylvania, where drilling is slated to take place in the Delaware River Basin and New York City’s watershed in the Catskills, or in states where it is already occurring."

Fox adds "Natural gas companies have installed hundreds of thousands of rigs in 34 states, drilling into huge shale fields, tight sands or coal bed seams containing gas deposits trapped in the rock. Each well requires the use of fracking fluid – chemical cocktails consisting of 596 chemicals, including carcinogens and neurotoxins, as well as one to seven million gallons of water, which are infused with the chemicals.”.

Fox continued, “Considering there are approximately 450,000 wells in the U.S., Fox estimates that 40 trillion gallons of chemically infused water have been created by the drilling, much of it left seeping or injected into the ground.”

As bankrupt as the Natural gas technology is only exceeded by the moral bankrupcy of anti-nuclear environmental groups like Greenpease and the Sierra Club who are acting as cheerleader lobbyists for the natural gas industry. Anti-nuclear environmentalist Joe Romm did not flinch in the slightest, when he breathlessly announced

I asserted it now appears likely that, thanks to unconventional supplies, natural gas alone could meet a great deal of the Waxman-Markey CO2 target for 2020 — without requiring gobs of new power plants to be sited and built or thousands of miles of new transmission lines.

Environmental Guru Amory Lovins long has advocated natural gas fired micropower generators, claiming that they are cheaper than nuclear power plants. Lovins has never admitted that there are any bad environmental consequences to farking. The only explanation for why environmentalists would accept the carbon emissions of natural gas, and the environmental consequences of farking, is their ideologically driven opposition to nuclear power.

Here then is Josh Fox's Gasland:

Watch the full episode. See more NOW on PBS.

The unforlding environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is the second nail in the coffin of fossil fuels. As with natural gas, the easily tapped oil resources in the United States are tapped out. The remaining resources are reactively small fields, and deep underwater oil pools, that are exceedingly difficult to recover. It is the difficulty of that recovery which has lead us to the present situation, and it appears that things may well get a whole lot worse before they get better.

Hat tip to Jason of Pro-nuclear Democrat.

White Paper on Global Nuclear Deployment Draft: Appendix 1: The Indian Nuclear System

Homi J. Bhabha, a Parsi physicist, was the father of the Indian nuclear system. A well regarded cosmic ray researcher, he founded the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in 1945. Bhabha was a friend of Indian political leader, Jawaharlal Nehru, and in 1946 the two began to collaborate on the creation of future Indian nuclear plans. In 1948 Bhabba became the founding director of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission. Nahru trusted Bhabba to develop a comprehensive nuclear program, and he did until his death in 1969.

Bhabba's quickly realized that India's uranium resources were small, while it had much larger thorium resources. In order to assure indian strategic energy independence, Bhabba decided to build India's long term nuclear future on a thorium fuel cycle, rather than the uranium fuel cycle. There is little doubt that Bhabba envisioned India as not only a nuclear powered state but a nuclear armed state as well. Yet he placed priority on the development of a nuclear power program. India did not truly become a nuclear armed state, until it conducted nuclear weapons tests in 1998, long after Bhabba's 1969 death.

Bhabba envisioned a three stage nuclear plan. In the first stage conventional reactors would produce reactor grade plutonium (RGP) as a bye product of power production. In the United States, RGP is regarded as a nuisance, but Bhabba saw it as an opportunity. When enough RGP had been accumulated, Bhabba saw that it could be used to fuel sodium cooled fast breeder reactors. In the second stage of Bhabba's plan, a fast reactor technology would be developed that would breed both thorium and uranium. Fast reactors run on plutonium, and in Bhabba's plan, the Indians would produce at least on gram of plutonium for every plutonium gram burned. Breeders operate on something called a neutron economy. There have to be enough neutrons available to produce fuel for the continuing nuclear process. In addition extra neutrons can produce surplus fuel that could be used in other reactors. It was Bhabba's plan to use the extra neutrons to convert thorium into U-233. Now u-233 makes excellent fuel for conventional reactors, and indeed in heavy water reactors a pure thorium-U-233 fuel cycle has a very good nuclear cycle. So good that it can at least break even in nuclear fuel production. Bhabba's third stage was to use specially designed Heavy water reactors as thorium converters, that is to produce enough fuel from thorium to keep the process running for along time.

The Bhabba plan committed India to heavy water technology, so early Indian reactor development was based on collaboration with the Canadians who had with the British, developed Heavy Water reactors during World War II. Eventually in 1974 when India tested its first nuclear device, the Indians had a parting of the way with Canada, over proliferation related issues, and the Canadians stopped providing the Indians support for its nuclear power development.

By 1974 the Indians had built one small heavy water CANDU power reactor, and were in the midst of building another. Although they were not entirely prepared to do so in 1974, the Indians took over the design and production of their own reactors. The started with the Canadian small CANDU reactor whose design they had inherited, and gradually modified it to improve it. While doing so, their technology got better and better. In fact by the end of the 20th century, the Indians were producing small PHWRs at very competitive costs. By then they had build a small sodium cooled fast breeder test reactor, which they used to research their combined uranium and thorium fuel cycle. At first they had a lot of problems, but as time passed, they began to master the very challenging Liquid Metal Fast Breeder technology.

Today the Indians are building a mid size commercial fast breeder prototype, which is expected to go on line next year. It is expected to be followed up by six more commercial fast breeders to be completed by 2023. While this is going on, a second generation of Indian commercial fast breeders is under development. Indian plans call for well over 100 fast breeders to be completed by the mid point of this century.

In addition to its very ambitious fast breeder development program, the Indians are developing their third stage Thorium fuel cycle heavy water converter, the AHWR-300. The prototype is expected to go on line in 2018.

In order to supply the plutonium to run so many fast breeders, the Indian plan is to build many foreign reactors. Reactor manufactures are also in the nuclear fuel business, and along with the reactors expect to supply their fuel for a long time to come. Since Indian uranium supplies are limited foreign reactors mean fairly assured fuel supplies. When that fuel has been used, the Indians plan to extract RGP from it, and then use the RGP to start their fleet of FBRs, while using the remaining "depleted uranium" to breed more plutonium in their FBRs. The need to find sources of imported uranium explains why India is buying foreign reactors as if they were going out of style. In fact, Indian PHWRs would probably cost less and require a less expensive industrial base, but uranium supplies would be less certain.. The expansion of the Indian industrial base, required to build foreign reactor has an economic side benefit. India expects to produce large reactor components for the global as well as the local market.

The purchase of foreign reactors does not mean that India has abandoned Homi Bhabha's three stage plan. Quite the contrary, that plan is being expanded and elaborated. It has lead India in the second decade of the 21st century to be among all nations to have the clearest path forward into the post carbon era. However, as good as Homi Bhabha plan was, in the 21st century it is not without its flaws.

The most conspicuous flaw is the plan's complexity. Currently the plan calls for the use of three distinct reactor technologies, each with its own path of development. In addition to its complex reactor technologies, the Indian plan calls for multiple, expensive and complex fuel reprocessing technologies. Although a simpler plan was not possible in the 1950's, this was no loner the case in 1970 after Oak Ridge National Laboratory had demonstrated the potential of Molten Salt Reactor technology. Not only was a thorium breeding MSR possible, but it could be started with RGP and then switched over to U-233, replacing both fast breeder and AHWR in Bhabba's plan. In addition the Thorium Breeding Molten Salt Reactor, the LFTR offered technically superior, less complex, and less expensive fuel reprocessing system, that could take place in the reactors "hot cell," where the diversion of fissionable materials would be completely unlikely. In addition the MSR technology "bag of tricks" offers other potential paths for proliferation avoidance. Those several proliferation avoiding methods could be used individually or simultaneously. A LFTR based plan, would most likely to have proceeded more rapidly, and to cost far less to develop, as well as costing far less to build and manage, than the Bhabba three stage plan.

But there should always be a Plan B, in case Plan A does not work. The argument in this White Paper is that Plan A for post-carbon energy should involve the mass deployment of LFTRs. Plan B would be the Homi J. Bhabha three stage plan.

NNadir Blogger Extraordinair

NNadir stopped blogging on Daily Kos about a year ago. His Daily Koss blog should be regarded as something of a treasure. He occasionally drops in to Energy From Thorium to read and comment on a discussion, but that is not his forte. I have attempted to induce him to blog on Nuclear Green, but so far he does not seem interested. Yet in addition to his Daily Kos Blog, Nnadir kept a second blog on Democratic Underground.com and there continues the threads he followed on his Daily Kos blog.

Nnader is probably an acquired taste. Yet he has a great deal of value to say, more perhaps than any other pro-nuclear blogger. His reach is far as well, For example he discusses “Oh. Oh. 'Renewable' Energy Journal Publishes Data on the Carbon Cost of Um, 'Renewable' Energy.”

“The values in table 7 in grams of CO2 per kwh:
Coal: 975.3
Oil fired 742.1
Gas fired 607.6
Nuclear 24.2
Wind 9.7–123.7
Solar PV 53.4–250
Biomass 35–178
Solar thermal 13.6–202
Hydro 3.7–237
For so called "renewable" energy schemes, the range is derived from the fact that renewable energy does not produce the same amounts of CO2 everywhere but is dependent on location.”

We also find, "The Operational Lifetime of Wind Turbines in Denmark: Government Data."

No “nuclear blogger” has written more on nuclear fuel reprocessing and about fission products than Nnader. For those of you who debate nuclear waste issues, reading NNadir on reprocessing and fission products is a must. Naadir typically is more interested in the Uranium as opposed to the thorium fuel cycle. But he has written about thorium. Thus it is not surprising that he is more interested in the reprocessing of fuel from conventional Light Water Reactors, and the use of fast breeders, than he has been in Molten Salt Reactors and thorium breeding. Nnadir is firmly in the nuclear camp and is a supporter of conventional nuclear technology. In an essay on , The Status of Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycles,

“One may cavil about nuclear energy, but it is well understood that all of the usual - and largely ideological - objections aside, nuclear energy has the lowest external cost of all forms of scalable, continuous energy. By "external cost," we mean costs to the environment and human health - precisely the costs that are not paid "at the pump" or "at the outlet." Believe it or not, the external cost of nuclear energy is not only lower than all fossil fuels (by a large margin) but it is also lower than many more popular - if economically and energetically insignificant - renewable energy strategies. In fact, nuclear energy is safer than both solar energy and biomass energy, albeit in the former case, by a trivial margin. Depending on the nature of back-up and availability (and to some extent geography), nuclear energy is slightly less safe than hydroelectricity and wind power. However wind power is not continuous and hydropower is pretty much tapped out.”

In this essay, NNadir tells us a truth so simple that it has often been overlooked, yet is very important,:

In fact, so called "nuclear waste" is remarkable only in the sense that no one has ever died from it.”

This is what I would call called cutting to the chase.

Nnadar has extensively covered Indian fast breeder technology:

The Light of Day: India's Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactor: Some Technical Comments. (Pt 1)

The Light of Day: India's Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactor: Some Technical Comments. (Pt 2)

The Light of Day: India's Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactor: Some Technical Comments. (Pt 3)

The Light of Day: India's Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactor: Some Technical Comments. (Pt 4)

The Light of Day: India's Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactor: Some Technical Comments. (Pt 5)

The Light of Day: India's Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactor: Some Technical Comments. (Pt. 6)

The Light of Day: India's Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactor: Some Technical Comments. (Pt. 7)

To that list add,
Continuous Plutonium Recycling In India: Improvements in Reprocessing Technology.

As you begin to see, NNadir covers his topics in very considerable depth. He is facinated by Plutonium.
See also the Plutonium Vector

Neptunium also gets attention: More On the Element Neptunium, a Constituent of So Called "Dangerous Nuclear Waste."
NNadir also pays a great deal of attention to Fission Products. He informs us that “Supply of Rhodium in Used Nuclear Fuel To Exceed World Supply From Ores by 2030.”

And reveals that “Indians Publish A Method To Recover High Purity Palladium From Used Nuclear Fuel.”

Cessium is best known as a radioactive nuclear weapons fallout danger as NNadir reveals in:
Every Cloud Has A Silver Lining, Even Mushroom Clouds: Cs-137 and Watching the Soil Die.

Cessium in discharged reactor fuel comes in for a lot of NNadir attention:
Profile of a "Dangerous Nuclear Waste," Cesium. Part 1.

Profile of "A Dangerous Nuclear Waste:" Cesium Part 2.

Profile of A "Dangerous Nuclear Waste:" Cesium, Part 3.

Profile of a "Dangerous Nuclear Waste:" Cesium, Part 4.

Profile of a "Dangerous Nuclear Waste," Cesium, Part 5.

Other fission byprodycts include Technetium,
Unalloyed Fear: Technetium, an Element of "Dangerous Nuclear Waste" (Pt.2)

Deliberately Eating "Dangerous Nuclear Waste:" Technetium, Part 3.

And Tritum:
Profile of Radioactive Substance Associated With Nuclear Power: Tritium.

Clearly then NNadir was and continues to be a valued member of the pro-nuclear community who has made an outstanding and enduring contribution to us with his blogs.

Toward a White Paper on a Mass Global Deployment of Nuclear Power: Fuel

It is my intention to present a draft of a White Paper, which will lay out a plan for a global deployment of nuclear power plants in sufficient numbers to insure the goal of an 80% reduction of global CO2 emissions can be accomplished by 2050. The first section of this draft focused on nuclear safety. This section will focus on the role of deploying Generation IV molten salt and sodium cooled reactors in meeting the goal, and the role of Reactor Grade Plutonium drawn from nuclear waste, in starting the breeding process. In addition to the use of RGP, a drawdown of nuclear weapons grade HEU and Pu-239 to start Generation IV reactors is both possible and desirable, but this possibility is not addressed in the body of this paper.)

Finding fuel for a post-carbon energy future

Energy policy should be guided by well thought out goals, and be based on rational and realistic plans. Unfortunately, both American and International energy efforts have not bee based on well thought out goals, or rational and realistic energy plans. The problem is especially serious because of the frequent inclusion of renewable energy goals in the formulation of over all national and international energy goals. In order for goals to meet minimal standards of plausibility, it should be demonstrated that a realistic plan for the implementation of the goal must exist. A realistic plan would be one which would address objections, which could in fact be carried out to successful conclusions.

Climate scientist have argued that it is imperative to lower global Carbon Dioxide emissions by 80% before 2050. In addition, the rapid economic development of nations such as India and China suggest that Global energy demand will increase, at the very time when there appears to be an need to decrease global energy production from carbon based fuels. Shifting global energy production from fossil fuels, while at the same time filling the energy demands of several billion people from developing countries is an enormous and extremely problematic task, which must be done.

Nuclear power is a promising candidate to bridge at least part of the energy gap. However, any account of a massive global deployment of nuclear reactors as a major or the major post carbon energy source faces a number of challenges. Critics can be expected to raise issues related to the cost of nuclear power, the magnitude of the task, the time requirements for nuclear construction, the availability of sufficient nuclear fuel the proliferation issues, the problems related to the management of nuclear waste, nuclear safety issues, and the potential dangers of nuclear terrorism. A successful nuclear global deployment plan should foresee these objections and demonstrate that no single objection or set of objections points to an insurmountable problem. A goal for a nuclear deployment plan would be the inclusion of a demonstration that no set of objections could motivate rational objections to the global nuclear deployment scheme.

Of course, all renewables deployment schemes, should also face the same level of scrutiny, with questions focusing on capacity factors, cost, the use of fossil fuel powered renewable backup systems, grid stability, redundancy, and the cost and efficiency of energy storage schemes. Efficiency advocates need to explain why Jevons Paradox and/or the rebound effect would not apply to efficiency based carbon mitigation plans. Unfortunately to date, renewable/efficiency based post-carbon energy plans to date appear to be singularly lacking in candor in identifying and addressing their problems.

Senior Collell poses a problem for a uranium powered future

Marcel Coderch Collell, a distinguished Spanish technocrat, has reviewed the possibility of replacing much of the worlds fossil fuel generated electricity by 2030. He argues that the limited nuclear fuel supply mans that nuclear power cannot play a predominate role in a post carbon energy order. He is extremely critical of the French Model: Electricity from Nuclear and/or renewable power.

He describes the French Model

The French model: electricity, nuclear or renewable One of the first options to consider would be to follow the French model progressively increasing the reactor park to ensure that by 2030, or maybe a little later, much of the world's electricity is predicted to generate fossil fuels out of nuclear origin, since it does not require, in principle, some technical innovation. Thus, power generation would not produce broadcasts, because it was nuclear or renewable. This would save huge amounts natural gas and coal, and oil-well with a consequent reduction emissions, and could force down, or at least not to contribute upwards of prices of fossil fuels and expand its availability in time.

But there are, according to Senior Collell, problems with the French Model.

But leave aside the logistical difficulties (and financial) would be a nuclear construction program of this size and evaluate how much fuel would be needed to fuel a reactor park of this magnitude, and which could be another limiting factor. Surely it would be, mainly, of building thermal neutron reactors with a Third Generation quasi-cycle Open fuel (MOX fueled with uranium enriched with some plutonium). In the best case, not expected to be operational by 2030 the Fourth Generation of fast neutron reactors with closed fuel cycles (which is expected to reach 60 times the performance thereof, by the massive use of plutonium) and, therefore, in the coming decades should be the main nuclear fuel.

Senior Collell then suggests that in order to follow the nuclear French model by 2030,

4,740 new 1GWe reactors would have to be built and [one] put in operationevery two days for the next 25 years

Senior Collell then suggests that this buildout would be very difficult in a business as usual world.

An optimistic estimate of construction times (five years) would mean having 950 teams of technical specialists, workers and machinery simultaneously working full time. This is hard to imagine, despite talk of standardising designs. In the previous period of nuclear construction (1963-88) only 423 reactors were built, at a rate of 17 per year.

He also argues that fuel shortages would constrict the depolyment of such a large reactor fleet.

A simple calculation suffices to show how an extension of the French model would collide with a scarcity of uranium. This is old news, given the serious doubts that already exist regarding the availability of uranium even to feed a few more reactors than now exist. In 2004, 365 GWe of nuclear capacity consumed about 67 kt of uranium (approximately 180 tons of uranium perGWe per year), of which 36 kt came from currently operating mines, while the rest came from recycled nuclear weapons and other secondary sources (that is, from prior production). Supply forecasts for the reactors currently in operation (plus foreseeable growth) put uranium mining production at 50 kt per year in 2015, with a significant shortfall developing in 2010, by which time Russia's nuclear weapons will have been dismantled and their uranium will have been consumed, . . .

If we assume linear growth from the current 365 GWe to 4,959 GWe in 2030, uranium demand would be around 400 kt in 2015 and 700 kt in 2030. This means multiplying by eight today’s estimates of production capacity in 2015, and multiplying by fifteen for 2030

Senior Collell sees these facts as casting the nuclear build out on the horns of a dilemma.

Let us suppose, however, for argument’s sake, that it were possible to achieve a production capacity of 700 kt/year by 2030. In the context of this analysis, two questions are raised: first, the CO2 emissions that would be generated in this phase of the nuclear cycle. Given the amount of uranium necessary, it would almost certainly be necessary to make use of hard rock deposits and low concentrations ore. There are fortunately multiple flaws in this delima argument. First the rock does not have to be moved. Uranium miners are increasingly adopting a mining technique called in situ leaching. When in situ leaching is practiced on uranium ore, the primarily the uranium is extracted, and the rock is left in place. Let us ignore for the moment these problems.

The problem that Senior Collell is pointing to is the limitation of the Light Water Reactor. Light Water Reactors were first developed as a means of powering American Nuclear submarines. In American Nuclear Submarines LWRs are small, they provide reliable power for 15 years, after which their cores can be replaced. There are also expensive, but nothing can serve as a substitute. Large power reactors can be even more expensive and there are very fuel inefficient. Part of the problem has to do with the flaws in the Uranium cycle. In LWRs as little as 0.3% of the potential fuel gets burned, and the rest falls into a category called "nuclear "waste." The problem is that uranium is relatively cheap, so it cost less to separate out the good stuff, the U-235 and use it for nuclear fuel. In LWRs a tiny fraction of the fuel gets converted to fissionable Pu-239, and a fraction of that gets burned as nuclear fuel. Unfortunately Pu-239 is not very good fuel in LWRs. When enough u-235 and Pu-239 is "burned" in a :WR, the fuel ceases to sustain a chain reaction, and has to be replaced. The now used fuel, still contains a significant amount of U-235 and an even larger amount of plutonium isotopes. Many of the plutonium isotopes are not fissionable, and plutonium produced in Light Water Reactors is not of weapons quality. It is also not very good nuclear fuel in Light Water Reactors.

The new French model of the future from Grenoble

Another French Model, one not contemplated by Senior Collell, is offered by Scientists of the Reactor Physics Group at Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Grenoble, France, together with other associates, have made important contributions to our understanding of the fuel management problems that would be faced in a Global Nuclear Deployment. The RPG were until very recently among the handful of world scientists who understood the potential of Molten Salt Reactor technology. They are among the most important and far reaching energy thinkers in the world, yet outside of the narrow circle found in the Energy from Thorium Discussion Forum, their work is almost unknown in the United States. Scientists from the RPG wrote a number of papers examining the potential problems of a Global Nuclear Deployment. "Molten Salt Reactors and Possible Scenarios for Future Nuclear Power Deployment offers a good introduction to their work. as a means of further enhancing the intellectual legitimacy of the Energy from Thorium approach to climate change mitigation, and to further enhance American Awareness of the work of the LPSC on Molten Salt technology. LPSC researchers use the term Thorium Molten Salt Reactor. Energy annalists associated with the Energy from Thorium approach to climate change mitigation use the term Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor or LFTR. In Future Deployment they write:

The worldwide demand for primary energy is constantly increasing and, if it is to be satisfied, solutions must be thought out and the extent to which the responses are adapted to the issue must be examined. There are not so many options once it is agreed that recourse to fossil energies should be as reduced as possible in order to limit green house gas emissions. Fission based nuclear energy is, along with new renewable energies and, in the longer run, fusion based energy, one of the primary energy sources capable of contributing significantly to satisfying the demand. The scenarios studied in our group show the potential, and limitations, for a worldwide deployment of nuclear power, and demonstrate that the different reactor types are quite complementary. This study shows that fissile matter availability comes as a strong constraint if a fleet of reactors able to breed their own fuel is to be started. In addition, such breeder reactors will not be deployed industrially before the next 20 to 25 years so that any transition towards extensive and sustainable nuclear power production will have to call on second or third generation light water reactors, which will have to be built.

We have considered three main reactor types:

• Pressurized water reactors of the second generation (PWR) and third generation (EPR - European Pressurized Reactor). These reactors do not breed their fuel. PWRs are currently in operation while EPRs will begin production in 2010 in our scenarios.
• Fast neutron reactors with a liquid metal coolant (FNR). These are fourth generation reactors that are based on the ²³⁸U/Pu fuel cycle. Their breeding ratio varies with the scenario considered. FNRs begin production in 2025 in our scenarios.
• Molten salt reactors (MSR). These are fourth generation reactors based on the²³²Th/ ²³³Ufuel cycle, with a neutron spectrum that can be anything from thermal to fast. These begin production in 2030 in our scenarios.

Our studies show that an intensive nuclear power deployment is feasible but that it requires careful handling of fissile matter resources and of nuclear wastes. The scenario that combines the three reactor types is by far the one that gives the most flexibility in the deployment of nuclear power; if necessary, it could accommodate more intensive production than we have set in our scenarios. The three reactor types complement each other strikingly; the use of natural fissile matter is optimized (figure 3); the volume of trans-uranians produced is minimal; the option to stop, then restart nuclear power production remains open so that decisions are not irreversible. Intermediate scenarios, with a greater or lesser contribution of FNRs as compared to MSRs can be considered in order to satisfy regional or other criteria but, with these studies, it appears that the ²³²Th/ ²³³U fuel cycle will be needed early on.

Figure 3: Evolution of natural uranium resources for the three scenarios considered.

Figure 4: Amounts of plutonium and 233U present in the fuel cycles of the reactors for the three scenarios considered.

The French Scientists from the University of Grenoble offered a more detailed analysis of the fuel management problem elsewhere. In "Scenarios with an Intensive Contribution of Nuclear Energy to the World Energy Supply," H.Nifenecker, D.Heuer, S.David, J.M.Loiseaux1, J.M.Martin, O.Meplan, and A.Nuttin, maintain that

If carried out with PWR or BWR reactors, the important nuclear power deployment will make heavy demands on natural Uranium resources. Resources are, presently, estimated to be around 20 Million tons. Assuming PWR or BWR reactors, the cumulative needs in 2050 could reach 16 million tons. This shows that breeding reactors are necessary to meet the needs or, alternately, that Uranium would have to be extracted from sea water, at a significant cost.

These considerations may, however, probably exaggerate the Uranium shortage. It is by no means certain that the cost of extracting Uranium from sea water would exceed the cost of breeding. On the other hand, there are reasons to suspect that the cost of LFTRs and other Molten Salt Reactors might be significantly lower than the cost of Light Water Reactors. Certainly when the large global thorium stock is added to recoverable uranium there will be no shortage of nuclear for a long time to come. Alvin Weinberg relates how the possibility of a future global uranium shortage was understood by the founding fathers of the Nuclear age, including Enrico Fermi, and Eugene Wigner. It was understood even then that nuclear breeding technology would have to be introduced as a part of a global deployment of nuclear power.

In "Intensive Contribution," the French team reviewed

two possible breeding cycles:
* The U-Pu cycle using fast reactors
* The Th-U cycle using thermal reactors

This analysis was expanded with typical French thoroughness in "Scenarios for a Worldwide Deployment of Nuclear Power," if anyone is interested. Both "Intensive Contribution," and "Worldwide Deployment" came to the same conclusion, that a deployment of Light Water Reactors can only be sustained until 2030. Lets call this the conservative case. Conservative, in that it is based on very conservative estimates of global uranium resources. While far more generous estimates of Uranium resources are justifiable, their actual existence is by no means certain. A really plausible plan should make conservative assumptions. If generous assumptions do not pan out, then the plan can be altered in to reflect a better than expected resource picture.

The nuclear intensive plan would assume a nuclear build out to 3387 GWe of electrical generating capacity by 2030. This is, in itself an enormous and extremely daunting build out, and indeed suggests that a major revolution in nuclear manufacturing technology will be required. Fortunately many of the components of that revolution are already understood, and none of them represents a serious impediment to technological change. Factory production of reactor construction kits, together with on site labor saving machines, and new materials savings reactor designs can be expected to improve reactor manufacturing, labor, time and materials efficiencies during the next decade, and to be reinforced by a learning curve. Such a large build out will probably require a shift of many reactor manufacturing activities from the final manufacturing site to factories. The recycling of old steam plant locations as nuclear power stations sites, will also save money and time for the buildout.

Thus while ambitious, the 3387 GWe buildout by 2030 is still not impossible, but the goal must be set soon. Both "Intensive Contribution," and "Worldwide Distribution" then looked at the U-Pu fast reactor cycle. By 2030 an enormous amount of reactor grade plutonium will become available. This RGP can be put to use both in the production of nuclear power and in the breeding of more reactor fuel. Doing so would serve as at least a partial solution to what is commonly seen as a major problem for nuclear power, the so called nuclear waste problem. Indeed the reuse of nuclear fuel turns "nuclear waste," into an asset. "Intensive Contribution," argues that given the supply of plutonium for LWRs and fast breeders, a buildout to 9000 GWe by 2050 is possible.

"Worldwide Deployment" looks at a number of added options including burning recycled RGP in LWRs. This delays, perhaps for a hundred years, but does not prevent the eventual draw down of fissionable materials that are tied to a non-breeding nuclear economy. A better use of the RGP is

Thus the transition to some form of nuclear breeding will be inevitable, if a long term commitment to nuclear power becomes a matter of policy.

Fast sodium cooled reactors are conventionally viewed as the preferred method of nuclear breeding, although various Molten Salt Reactor breeding options exit, and include many attractive features that are more than competitive with what liquid sodium cooled breeder reactors such as the Integral Fast Reactor. IFR backers claim higher breeding ratios, but there are reasons to doubt that high breeding ratios are compatible with optimal safety.

"Worldwide Deployment" also reviews a gas cooled fast reactor option, but did not like it as well as the sodium cooled concept.

There is a significant problem with the start up charge of fast breeders. Fast neutron reactors require much more fissionable material to maintain a chain reaction. If anything the French team underestimated the amount of plutonium required to maintain a high breeding ratio in a Fast Breeder Reactor. A research report from the S-PRISM design team, indicated that the RGP in 40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel (about 400 tons of RGP) would start 22 IFRs capable of producing 33,440 MWe output. This would suggest that the IFR would be a useful way to use and with a low conversion ration, use up RGP, but not a major adjunct to fighting AGW. A higher breeding ration is possible, but report author, Allen E. Dubberley of GE Nuclear Energy, and his associates, did not discuss the safety problems related to the high breeding ratio.

The problem with the entire sodium cooled fast reactor scheme is stated simply by Lawrence M. Lidsky and Marvin M. Miller of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

The LMFBR was chosen over other breeder reactor designs because it was, in theory, capable of very short fuel doubling times, shorter than that of any competing reactor design. The doubling time is the time required to produce an excess of fuel equal to the amount originally required to fuel the reactor itself. In other words, in one doubling time there would be enough fuel available to start up another reactor. In the absence of mined uranium, only a short doubling time would, it was believed, allow nuclear power to grow fast enough to compete with alternative sources of power. Unfortunately, the theoretical advantages of the LMFBR could not be achieved in practice. A successful commercial breeder reactor must have three attributes; it must breed, it must be economical, and it must be safe. Although any one or two of these attributes can be achieved in isolation by proper design, the laws of physics apparently make it impossible to achieve all three simultaneously, no matter how clever the design.

Lidsky and Miller conclude,

Strong support for plutonium recycle, with its associated technical risks and societal costs, in the face of increasing evidence that alternative strategies are superior, is clearly counterproductive.

The Lidsky and Miller superior alternative strategies involve the the employment of Molten Salt Thorium Breeders, that is LFTRs,

Thorium fuel cycles have also been promoted on the basis of lower long-term waste toxicity and greater proliferation resistance, . . . The initial rationale for introduction of the thorium cycle was the perception that it was more abundant than uranium, and that it could be used to breed U-233, an isotope with superior properties for use in thermal reactors.

The principle safety problem with Sodium cooled breeders is the possibility that a bubble in overheated sodium would lead to an uncontrolled increase of power, which interm enlarges the size of the bubble. I should here, in the interest of fairness, note that I have this week come across papers from Argonne National Laboratory which reports findings from simulation studies which suggest that Integral Fast Reactors are safe even in configurations which produce high void worth ratios. If IFRs are in fact safe despite high void worth ratios, then they can probably be pushed to higher breeding rations, but it should also be pointed out that current ANL IFR designs emphasize low breeding ratios, and in fact appear design at a ratio that is equivalent to the anticipated breeding ratio of the LFTR.

The new Indian Fast Breeder is expected to produce new fuel at a 1.12 breeding ratio, far less than its theoretical maximum. Such conservative ratios may at least partially be motivated by safety concerns. It should be noted that a 1.12 to 1 breeding ratio is quite good by LFTR standards, and would be quite satisfactory if a fast breeder could match thermal Molten Salt Breeder's start up charge. In fact as many as 12 MSBRs can be started for every LMFBR, and if the LMFBRs could breed at its theoretical maximum, they could over time produce more fissionable materials than the MSBR, were it not for safety concerns related to higher breeding ratios.

Unlike the sodium cooled LMFBR which the laws of nature appear to frown on, the face of nature positively shines on Molten Salt Nuclear technology, which is an extremely "Green" energy source. Small breeding start up charges, mean rapid scaleability of reactor production and start up. Small start up charges mean that te availability of fissionable materials will not be a factor in determining how many and how fast future MSRs are built.

In addition, low breeding ratios may be viewed as a desirable proliferation control measures. In hugh ratio breeders, breeding surpluses can be viewed a potential proliferation tools through diversion. In a 1 on 1 converter, fuel diversion for weapons purposes will lead to reactor shut down, an undesirable consequence that would decrease the likelihood of proloferation.

Given even conservative estimates of American reactor fleet growth before 2050, the United States will have produced more than enough RGP by then starting up a fleet of breeding capable MSRs capable of supplying 80% of its energy needs. In the absence of Molten Salt reactors, LMFBRs breeding at the reported Indian Breeding ratio of 1.12 to 1 would be helpful, but would probably lead to a somewhat slower nuclear deployment of nuclear power. If the report of IFR safety at higher breeding ratios is correct then the IFR might improve the fast reactor picture. It is likely that ambitious goals such as a 80% reduction of CO2 emissions by 2050 could not be meet by use of conventional nuclear alone. Were MSRs unavailable in 2050 there would likely to be significan consequences in terms of energy prices and availability in a post carbon world. .

(I plan to include an account of the proposed Indian nuclear system as an appendix to this section of the White Paper describing the ambitious and complex long term Indian nuclear program. In addition I plan to discuss Molten salt fast breeder options in a second appendix.)

Toward a White Paper on a Mass Global Deployment of Nuclear Power: Safety

Nuclear energy poses the well known risk of proliferation and of catastrophic accidents of the scale of Chernobyl whose consequences would last far into the future, afflicting generations who will not have experienced the benefit of the energy. Hence four criteria must be considered in proceeding to a low or zero-CO2 future:

• Cost
• The speed with which the transition can be made (since the climate change problem is now widely recognized to be urgent)
• Potential new severe burdens or risks on future generations not deriving from CO2 emissions
• The problems of security associated with a re-organized energy system. - Annie and Arjun Makhijan

In this statement, the Makhijanis set out in digest form the substance of the anti-nuclear argument. It is the purpose of this White Paper to set out arguments that contradict the four Makhijani anti-nuclear contentions, and to argue that a speedy and relatively low cost mass global deployment of nuclear power generating facilities is possible without "Severely burdens or risks on future generations," and while lowering rather than increasing security problems associated with nuclear weapons.

The Makhijanis presented their list in an essay titled, "Low-Carbon Diet without Nukes in France." This essay was intended to demonstrate that France could transition to a post-carbon and post-nuclear energy system, without paying an unacceptable cost. There are several reasons why the Makhijani transition would in all likelihood be a failure. First it relies to a very large extent on energy efficiency, without enquiring into the potential obstacles the transition to a high efficiency energy system would face, and without any attempt to assess the cost of of that transition. For example, the Makhijanis' favor heating with ground source heat pumps, but they also favor co-generation. This is an either/or choice, however. Ground source heat pumps while energy efficient entail high capital and repair costs, making their widespread adoption by home owners unlikely. One of the more astonishing aspects of the Makhijanis' post-nuclear, post carbon-plan, is the extent to which it is not really post carbon. Rather that simply eliminating the use of carbon based fuels, the Makhijanis would attempt to use them more efficiently. Most Danish power plants are either wind turbines or co-generation facilities, and Denmark has a much higher per-capata carbon emission rate than France. Thus, the assumption that co-generation can be substituted for nuclear power, without carbon penalties is questionable at best.

The cost to French electrical consumers under the Makhijani system is also open to question. The environmentally correct electricity in Denmark is over twice as expensive as the nuclear generated electricity is in France. Danish electricity is the most expensive in Europe, and the effect on the French economy of high priced energy would require further investigation.

If the cost of French electricity does not rise in the Makhijani system, then we have to ask if the consequence of greater efficiency would not be a rebound in electrical demand, or even an overall demand growth. Amory Lovins has suggested that efficiency would curb consumer demand for electricity, but this Lovins idea has meet with withering criticisms by Robert Bryce and David Bradish as well as many other critics. Critics argue that Lovins' appeal to energy efficiency is confounded by Jevons Paradox, a well established economic principle that sates that on a macroeconomic level, energy efficiency triggers a rise rather than a decline in energy use. In addition on a microeconomic level, economist have observed a rebound in energy use following the adoption of an energy efficient technology. Despite statements that he would answer Bryce and Bradish's criticisms two years ago, Lovins has never done so. Thus, at the very least the Makhijanis need to demonstrate that the critics of Lovins overestimates of the benefits of energy efficiency would not also make a valid case against his claims about the benefits of energy efficiency for French society.

It should be noted then that in a plan which calls for filling the gaps in efficiency and renewable energy generation by the use of fossil fueled generating facilities, any short falls would have to be filled with carbon-emitting energy sources. Thus to the extent the Makhijani plan proves defective in practice, it will produce rather than eliminate unacceptable levels of CO2 emissions. Similar problems would effect non-nuclear carbon mitigation schemes proposed by Amory Lovins.

Amory Lovins claims:

The nuclear industry is eager that the public does not understand this argument . . . Amory Lovins

But what does Amory Lovins mean by the term "the Nuclear Industry?"

There is no such thing as "The Nuclear Industry". There are several businesses that produce reactor designs, and in some cases, build reactors. There are parts suppliers, and construction companies, many of which build many other things besides reactors. There are uranium mines, uranium enrichment facilities, and fuel fabricators. There are reactor owners. But arguably in many cases business that do these things, do many other things as well. Reactor manufacturers may also manufacture wind generators, steam generators for coal fired power plants, and natural gas fired gas turbines. Uranium miners may also mine other materials at the same mine, and may operate mines from which no uranium is produce. Uranium enrichment facilities may be own by national governments. Power reactors may be owned by agencies of national governments. Thus the term "the nuclear Industry" reifies complex, and diverse realities.

In so far as nuclear energy must play an important role in sustaining modern, materials oriented civilization, the challenges which confront nuclear power, are challenges which confront human society. There are those who question the value of the continued existence of a high energy, wealthy civilization. I am not one. I will only say, that there are moral penalties for not sustaining a high energy, wealthy civilization, and for not making the benefits of that civilization inclusive to all of the people on earth, and I find the moral costs unacceptable. In addition, I would argue that the means exist by which, if we choose to use them, a civilization with access to high levels of energy can be sustained on earth for millions of years. The challenges which confront nuclear power then, are the challenges which must be meet, if a high energy, wealthy civilization, encompassing all the people on earth, is to be created and sustained.

The challenges confronting nuclear power are:

* assured nuclear safety

* An assured nuclear fuel supply throuh the efficient use of nuclear fuel

* the recycling of fission products into industrial use

* making energy produced through nuclear power available at a low cost

* developing the technology that will makes meeting the first four goals possible

* Achieving the first five goals rapidly, and deploying the technology world wide as quickly as possible

* Severing potential links between massive use of civilian power reactors and the spread of nuclear weapons.

Assured Nuclear Safety

Ralph Nader tells claims that in 1964 he attended a conference at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Over lunch Nader claims that he began asking nuclear engineers some questions. "They couldn't answer them, or the answers weren't satisfactory," Nader claims. "'What could happen if a system goes wrong?' Nader asked. They avoided any such descriptions or said, 'we've got defense in depth' -- and other jargon." "Defense in Depth" was the name of a very successful but expensive approach to nuclear safety that was proven to be effective when, at Three Mile Island, safety systems designed to implement the "defense in depth" safety philosophy prevented a single human casualty. By describing a discussion of things things that he did not understand as jargon, Nader revealed his lack of willingness to understand nuclear safety. As Gomer Pile use to say, "surprise, surprise surprise."

There were of course, other people at ORNL who could have the answered Nader's 1964 questions, had he been willing to listen. If Ralph Nader wanted to talk to people who could answer his questions about what could go wrong in reactors and under what conditions, he could have talked tp George Parker, or he could have talked to my father. Needless to say, Nader did not seek out nuclear safety experts to answers to his questions. Certainly Alvin Weinberg, who was a friend to Ralph Nader's sister, Clair, would and could have answered Nader's questions about nuclear safety, and would have made himself available to Ralph if Claire had indicated to Weinberg that Ralph wanted information on nuclear safety. It is quite possible that Nader talked to someone in Oak Ridge who did not answer his question, but English, but Narder was not interested in what he had to say. alternatively Nader's informant, that day gave him lucid information in plain and simple information, Had Nader sought out answers to his nuclear safety questions in 1964, he would have found them, but Nader wanted answers that made nuclear scientist look bad, not reliable and accurate information.

There is logic, which is the science of right reasoning, and then there is green logic, which makes relies on crazy arguments about energy. According to green logic, if energy source A kills thousands of people, it is safe, but if energy source B has kills only a handful of people during its history, it is too dangerous to use. Furthermore, according to green logic, energy source B should be shut down because it is too dangerous, and replaced by safe energy source A.

Energy source A is the use of natural gas as an energy source, which Source B, is nuclear reactor generated power. Comparative Assessment of Natural Gas Accident Risks, is a study of risks related to natural gas use by Paul Scherrer Institute. The study authors consulted no less than 23 comprehensive accident databases, most world wide. Major accidents identified in these data bases and identified from several other sources, were aggregated into a single database that included 18,400 accidents.

A total of 6404 energy-related accidents correspond to 34.8% of all accidents or 49.5% of man-made accidents. Among the energy-related accidents 3117 (48.7%) are severe, of which 2078 have 5 or more fatalities.

The data base recorded over 100,000 energy related casualties in all energy sectors excluding nuclear, and 31 energy related casualties in the nuclear sector. Of the non-nuclear casualties, 2043 were due to natural gas related accidents. An objective observer from another planet might conclude that of all energy sources listed in the study, that people who valued risk avoidance would chose nuclear power. Yet Greenpeace, green energy maven Amory Lovins, and Green advocate Joe Romm all call for the replacement of nuclear with natural gas fired energy sources. Greens site the alleged danger of nuclear power as a principle reason for the switch from nuclear to natural gas.

Nuclear power technology is by far the safest of energy technologies. Based on experience, based on actuarial evidence, fatality risks for nuclear power plants in OECD nations is far lower than for fossil fuels. According to the report "Sustainability of Electricity Supply Technologies under German Conditions: A Comparative Evaluation published by the Paul Scherrer Institute

representative PSA-based results obtained for nuclear power plants in Switzerland and in USA show latent fatality rates typically of the order of 0.01 per GWe year. The corresponding immediate fatality rates are practically negligible.

Even the latent PSI risk estimates are controversial because they are based on assumptions for which inconsistent data sets are available. The latent casualties from nuclear plant operation is predicted on the basis of he so called linear no-threshold hypothesis (LNT) which suggests that adverse health effects can occur the LNT hypothesis predicts that variations in background radiation levels would effect human health. But assessments of the health of people who live in high background radiation areas fail to support the conclusion. Health Physicist Bernand Cohen, found evidence that increasing levels of background radiation from naturally occuring radon, were associated with decreasing cancer rates. Thus the LNT hypothesis appears to have been falsified, Yet it remains politically correct. Even if we assume. If the LNT hypothesis is not assumed, the fatality rate from the operation of nuclear plants in OECD countries drops to 0.0.

Despite powerful evidence of the safety of the previous generation of nuclear technology. reactor manufactures have continued to develop even safer reactor designs. The probability of a casualty producing nuclear accident occurring with Generation III+ reactors approaches once during the life of the universe. To expect greater safety, is to take an excursion into the realm of the absurd. The high levels of nuclear safety achieved by current reactor designs, comes at a high cost. Extremely safe Light Water Reactors are expensive to build. The challenge for future nuclear safety developments is to continue providing the current high level of nuclear safety, while dramatically lowering nuclear construction costs.

Nuclear safety operates at many levels. Reactor safety is the primary level of nuclear safety, and the defenses against accidents in a reactor may feature both redundancy and a many leveled safety defense system. The current generation of Light Water Reactors have high levels of safety built in to their designs. Nuclear safety engineers have calculated that the General Electric Evolutionary Simple Boiling Water Reactir is so safe, that it would experience a core meltdown once every 29 million years. In contrast the Yellowstone Super volcano, which is capable of killing milllons of people with an erruption, erupts every 600,000 to 800,000 years. It has been 640,000 years since the last erruption of the Yellowstone super volcano. Thus the likelihood of a major reactor accident and its consequnces, ought to be placed in the context of far more likely natural disasters.

Steps that can be taken to prevent reactor accidents include:

A. good design based on an up to date understanding of reactor safety,
B. An exhaustive follow through of all safety related reactor features in the procurement of manufactureing materials and replace ment oarts, The actual manufacture and maintence of the reactor, and reactor operations
C. systematic faults detected in procurement, manufacture and operationals, with a prompt and complete follow up.
D. Redundant or fall back systems in the event of the failure of a reactor system.
E. Automatic system response that rely ion the laws of nature, rarher thn opeartor intervention.
F. Reactor siting consistent with reactor safety issues. Experimental reactors placed in remote locations.
G. Reactor staff should be both well trained and highly motivated to follow all safety guidelines.

The second level of nuclear safety is accident mitigation. These would include those elements of reactor design that would tend to diminish the effects of a nuclear accident on the public. Mitigation would include both internal reactor design features, and design features of the reactor facility that would tend to mitigate the effects of a major nuclear accident. Mitigation defenses can be in depth. Hence in the event of a core meltdown in a light water reactor, the reactor pressure vessal would pose a significant defense against the escape of solid fission products. The reactor containment dome would form another layer of defense against fission product release, while the isolation of the reactor would lead to the dissipation of radioactive gases, and the precipitation of solid radioactive particles escaping the reactor containment facility prior to contacts with human communities.

Accident mitigation would include, the automatic shutdown of a reactor after a partial system failure, the automatic initiation of back up cooling and/or emergency cooling in the event of a primary cooling syetem failure. The design of reactor monitoring panels and system alerts to give clear and concise information about what is happening, without creating an overwelming flow of information. Staff training in accident management. Well defined accident response procedures to be included in staff training. The management of initial recovery after accident related shut down, Well defined accident cleanup and recovery procedures.

A third level of defense would be the management of public consequences after a nuclear accident. These wouldinclude the notification of the NRC, as well as Federal, State and Local officials. Steps which might be taken to manage the consequences of a serious accident include evacuations, bans on the use of potentually contaminated food and.or water. Provisions for safe sheltering of at risk populations, andthe distribution of KI pills, as well as other pre-planed interventions by the federal, state and local governments.

Normal accounts of nuclear safety defense in depth stop at this point. There are however other levels of nuclear safety, A forth level would be a well informed public. Nuclear safety is a genuine matter for public concern. The public should demand the safest nuclear technology possible, and both support nuclear safety research and for monitoring of observance of safety rules and procedures by demanding that reactor operators comply with them, and that the NRC vigorously enforce them.

One of the great flaws of the anti-nuclear movement has been to disimpower the public on nuclear safety issues. Figures like Ralph Nader, failed to avail themselves of opportunities to learn more about nuclear safety. Had Ralph Nader really wanted to understand the safety concerns that Alvin Weinberg discussed with Claire Nader and with Ralph himself, had Ralph Nader tried to understand what the ORNL nuclear safety engineer was telling him about defense in depth, the history of the first nuclear era might have ended differently. Had there have been a public outcry for nuclear safety in the 1970's rather than an anti-nuclear movement, the owners of the Three Mile Island reactor, would not havebeen allowed to get away with the safety errors they committed. Had there been a public outcry for safety research, staff safety training, and safe design of reactor control panels, there would have been no Three Mile Island accident. By convincing the public of the ill intentions of safety advocates within the nuclear community, and by convincing the public that nuclear safety was impossible, and therefore it had no stake in the development of nuclear safety improvements, the anti nuclear movement, disempowered the public on nuclear safety issues. It is up to the public to take its power back from the anti-nuclear movement, and assert its right to demand the highest levels of nuclear safety possible. Such a public demand would be a fourth level of nuclear safety defense.

The fifth level of of nuclear safety defense is nuclear safety research, and safe reactor design coupled with the actual replacement with reactors designed to current safety standards by reactors designed with even higher levels of safety. Nuclear safety is something that happens in time. Nuclear safety has a history. It has evolved during its history, and can be expected to continue to do so. It is perhaps unfortunate that the Light Water Reactior emerged early on as the predominant power reactor type. Light Water Reactors have inherent safety flaws. Those flaws can be largely worked around, by engineering reactor modifications, but those modifications are expensive. To much of the history of nuclear safety has been the history of increasingly expensive safety developments for the light water reactor.

Reactor scientist have known since the 1940's that it is possible to eliminate the very possibility of the most serious of reactor accident, the core melt down. Reactors designs developed over 50 years ago posses inherent safety feature that far surpass those of light water reactors. Furthermore one of those two advanced reactor designs, the Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor,relies on an abundant nuclear fuel, Thorium, which it uses so efficiently that it will provide sustainable nuclear power for millions of years to come. Because of its efficient use of the Thorium fuel cycle, the LFTR also virtually eleminates the long term nuclear waste. Developing and implementing the LFTR reactor designs would not be inordinately expensive, or require an extensive period of time. The development cost for either reactor design would cost less than the cost of two light water reactors, or less than the cost of the imported oil the United States consumes in one week. The manufacturing cost for the LFTR would also be lower that the current cost of building Light Water Reactors. Thus at a relatively small cost the United States could acquire a fifth level of nuclear defense, one which would make the most serious reactor accident impossible, and solve other problems related to the use of nuclear energy in the generation of electrical power.

Nuclear researcher Ralph Moir and famed nuclear physicist Edward Teller reviewed the safety features of Molten Salt Reactor technology. They concluded that Molten Salt Reactors had outstanding safety characteristic. Some time ago I wrote an essay on LFTR/Molten Salt Reactor safety from the prospective of a system of barriers to radiation release. My agenda was to argue that LFTR safety could be achieved through a system of barriers to the release of radioactive materials. This argument assumed that a fuel spill was the over riding safety issue. However, the classic texts on MSR safety (Gat and Dodds) do not examine MSR safety primarily in terms of a system of barriers. Gat and Dodds believed that

The Ultimate Safe Reactor (USR) is a special concept of a molten-salt reactor with prime and complete emphasis on safety. The USR uses a processing frequency, yet to be developed, that is about an order of magnitude higher from that contemplated for the molten salt breeder reactor (MSBR). The MSBR had a ten-day inventory turn around in the fuel processing. The USR uses a one day or less of turnaround of the fuel inventory. This rather fast turnaround reduces the build up of all fission products with half-lives of a few days or longer. The reactor is an epithermal spectrum reactor and uses no moderator per se in the core. The clean core consists solely of a low-pressure vessel. Freeze valves are used throughout. The prime circulating pump is sized to assure no critical cold slug accident can occur. Furthermore, the USR uses the Th-U fuel cycle with a breeding ratio of exactly one. Thus, the USR has all the safety benefits that are passive, inherent and non-tamperable and, in addition, has proliferation-resistant attributes and simplified waste that is free of fissile material, which can be transported in any arbitrary size or quantity from the processing part of the plant.

Beyond the ultimate safe reactor Gat and Dodd argued that there could be an absolute and ultimate safe reactor:

The absolute and ultimate safe reactor (A+USR) is a special concept of the USR which utilizes natural convection to transfer the heat from the core to the heat exchanger. The A+USR has no safety-related mechanical operating parts nor any externally-actuated controls, it becomes the ultimate in PINT-safety. The reactor responds internally and inherently to a change in power demand via its temperature response.

Frequent processing of the fuel increases the fuel inventory in the processing part and puts high demand on the performance of the processing units. The removal of the fission products from the fuel stream occurs at low concentrations, which requires precision and sophistication. In an actual plant, an optimization between performance, inventory and safety is needed.Thus Gat and Dodd saw MSR (and LFTR) safety in terms of reactor design features, that prevented accidents from happening, and prevented bad things from happening in the rare event of an accident. Gar and Dodds, argue, in effect that absolute and ultimate safety can be manufactured into Molten Salt Reactors, and can be implemented through low cost mass production manufacturing methods.

As a consequence of the Gat and Dodds argument is that an elaborate and costly system of barriers is not required. to assure absolute and ultimate nuclear safety. Mass produced, factory manufactured features can in most cases be low priced. Thus from the Gat and Dodds perspective LFTRs can be more safe at trivial costs than LWRs can be with the massive expenditure of money on safety features. This leads us to consider drastic, cost lowering changes in the way reactors are built.

Even the worst sort of reactor disaster, say an aircraft attack on a reactor, would not cause a massive release of radioisotopes, because the nuclear fuel would be continuously cleaned of radioisotopes. Since an attack on a reactor no longer poses great danger for a civilian population, the reactor holds little value as a target for terrorist. Furthermore, Moir and Teller suggest the underground siting of Molten Salt Reactors. This underground reactor could not be damaged by aircraft attacks or even massive truck bombs.

It would appear then if Molten Salt Reactors could be brought to market, there would appear to be little doubt about its safety. The Molten Salt Reactor is capable of producing power at a safety level that will satisfy any rational person.