We need to boldly go into the uncharted energy future where no one has gone before. Climate scientists tell us that about 70% of our energy resources, currently derived from fossil fuels, need to find substitutes. For many current energy uses including,
Seaborn transportation
Industrial process heat
Peak, backup and load following electricity
renewable substitution seems unlikely, and current nuclear technology is too costly and inefficient. Disruptive innovation, disruptive technology is called for.
Recenty the Reactor & Fuel Cycle Technology Subcommittee of the “Blue Ribbon Commission” wrote,
No currently available or reasonably foreseeable reactor and fuel cycle technologies including current or potential reprocess or recycle technologies have the potential to fundamentally alter the waste management challenge this nation confronts over at least the next several decade.
No blue ribbon. No ribbon at all. Look again.
Posts
5 comments:
Recenty the Reactor & Fuel Cycle Technology Subcommittee of the “Blue Ribbon Commission” wrote:
No currently available or reasonably foreseeable reactor and fuel cycle technologies including current or potential reprocess or recycle technologies have the potential to fundamentally alter the waste management challenge this nation confronts over at least the next several decade.
Charles Barton wrote:
No blue ribbon. No ribbon at all. Look again.
Won't work, Charles. There is no blindness as great as that caused by a lack of vision, and by not wanting to see existing solutions just waiting to be developed into commercial products.
It's disappointing that the Blue Ribbon Commission came to such a conclusion. Even using existing reactor technology without reprocessing dramatically less waste would be created when compared to traditional fossil fuels such as coal.
I think that nuclear propulsion could do very well for seaborne transportation. It has already proven itself to be effective for years in many military ships and a number of civilian icebreakers. This could certainly be applied to the large container ships which typical run on diesel and burn enormous amounts of fuel.
The primary issue with using nuclear power for marine propulsion is the cost and international regulatory issues. The latter is easily the most difficult of the two and I am unsure of how it can be reasonably solved. The former, however, can be alleviated to some degree. One of the biggest drivers in nuclear reactor building costs is the uncertainty that you will actually be able to complete construction and open the reactor, even after you get approval to build. The general public's knee-jerk reaction to anything with the word "nuclear" or "radiation" in it is simply too strong, and, unfortunately, based on a great deal of misinformation and bad science.
Donb, I do not expect it to work. In fact i predicted the Commission's failure when it was appointed. the point is to get the message out.
George Monbiot's piece mentioned in your earlier post is really about the same problem.
Never thinking long term. Punting on first down. Blue ribbons for everyone, just for participating.
Nothing we do today about fourth generation reactor technologies is going to fundamentally alter anything over only a few decades. We live with energy systems much more than several decades old in the makeup. So it is historically obvious we have to plan on timelines longer than a few decades.
Classic political equivocation:
Anti-nukes are happy because they they think there is no solution in sight to the "waste problem".
The technically literate can't complain, because they know that existing waste options (direct burial and recycling) are both fine, and that won't change any time soon.
Post a Comment