Blue Ribbon Commission Hearings: Makhijani and Knowledge Pollution

The so called Blue Ribbon Commission on the American Nuclear Future held two meetings on May 25 and 26. The Tuesday meeting featured Lobbyists of various strips, including a number of well known nuclear naysayers. But even the naysayers may have something to contribute. Arjun Makhijani, for example offered an account of the issues posed by used nuclear fuel in a once through fuel cycle. Makhijani, a well known nuclear naysayer, reviewed some, but by no means all of the facts, and the his selectivity was telling. Among the options which Makhijani failed to discuss, were recycling so called nuclear waste in CANDU type reactors, and using fissionable waste as LFTR start up charges. Makhijani clearly demonstrates that there is a large amount of fissionable material is still found in used nuclear fuel. Residual U-235 is about 0.68% of the total used fuel material resources, but that is already a concentration high enough to power Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors. In addition the used fuel contains about 0.99% plutonium isotopes, a majority of which are fissionable and can also be used as PHWR fuel.

In addition, while points to the fast breeder nuclear disposal option, Makhijani fails to note that in addition to LMFBR option and the the potential use of so called nuclear waste as PHWR fuel, the fissionable materials in used nuclear fuel can be used as start up charges for various types of Molten Salt Reactors.

Makhijani notes that the the existing american nuclear fleet can be expected to produce 100,000 tons of used nuclear fuel during its operational life. This would be the equivalent of 700 tons of U-235, and a 1000 tons of plutonium isotopes. Used as start up charges for LFTR one to one converters, this would potentially produce enough sustainable energy to power the entire United States economy at current high energy levels. No wonder Makhijani chose to ignore the MSR/LFTR fissionable byproducts disposal option, despite well documented proposals for Oak Ridge, and Moscow.

In addition to his neglect of promising options for the disposal of the potentially most dangerous constituents if used nuclear Makhijani vastly exaggerates the problems posed by nuclear fuel reprocessing, and the dangers posed by its consequences. For example, claims that fuel reprocessing would add one cent per kWh to electrical costs. But in fact the picture is more complex than that. In LFTR one to one converters, the cost of the start up charge is a one time expense. Once conversion begins, LFTR fuel related costs would decrease dramatically. One thousand tons of reactor grade plutonium, could potentially start LFTRs capable of producing 1000 GWs of electricity, enough to supply about 80% of American energy. Since there would be very little subsequent fuel costs given the LFTR, even Makhijani estimated 8 trillion dollar cost for processing the plutonium out of used nuclear fuel be offer quite a bargain.

A further problem with Makhijani's account is related to his claim that ~12,000 to 14,000 nuclear bombs could be constructed from spent nuclear fuel. This assumes an error that is widely voiced by nuclear critics that the plutonium found in used nuclear fuel is easily weaponizable. First, while it has been demonstrated that fuel grade plutonium can produce nuclear explosions, this is not the same thing as saying that reactor grade plutonium is weaponizable. It has been argued that heat and radiation from a RGP device would rapidly render it inoperative. A strong case can be made that it is not. in addition, even a device made from RGP would require testing.

Thus given the great expense and difficulty of plutonium extraction from used reactor fuel, which Makhijan himself outlines, the reliability problems associated with RGP weapons, and the questionable yield, even if such a weapon worked at all, would be nuclear proliferators are likely to prefer lower cost, more predictable and reliable nuclear options. South Afriuica demonstrated in the 1970's and 80's that a low cost uranium enrichment program was possible, and could lead to the development of of reliable and predictable nuclear weapons. The successful South African proliferation model, as well as those followed by Pakistan and North Korea, suggest that focus on plutonium in used nuclear fuel as a proliferation too is highly misguided. Rather than focusing on the unlikely proliferation path that plutonium isotopes in used nuclear fuel provide, proliferation prevention efforts should focus on successful proliferation paths that are already in place. if we are incapable of stopping proliferation by low cost, tested methods, it is foolish to focuse on higher cost, and far more problematic proliferation methods. The entire proliferation issue as outlined by Makhijan is nothing but a canard habitually used by the anti-nuclear lobby.

in addition to his choice to ignore several promising technologies that could potentially disposed of most or even all fissionable materials and other actinides in used nuclear fuels, Makhijan chose to downplay the potential of fast breeder reactors. He does so by ignoring fast breeder programs in Russia and india, that are very close to yielding commercial prototypes. In particular the Indians plan to bring commercial fast breeders into serial production during this decade, and similar goals are possible for Russia. The Indians plan to bring as many as 320 fast breeders online by 2050, and use their surplus fuel to power Generation III+ PHWRs. Although Makhijan is undoubtedly aware of Indian plans,he focuses instead on,

Japan’s commercialization date for sodium-cooled breeders is now2050.

And instead of focusing on promising Molten Salt Reactor technology, Makhijan suggests

If we are going to develop long-ter nuclear technologies, why not focus on nuclear fusion, which has almost none of the disadvantages of fission?

In fact one of the most promising schemes for fusion development, the so called fusion-fission hybrid, uses molten salt technology that similar to that which would be also used in the LFTR, and indeed at a significant level of investment the LFTR can be ready for serial manufacture in factories within 10 years, so it would not be even a particularly long term project.

Arjun Makhijani, despite his pose as a voice of science and reason, is thus another agent of knowledge pollution, who seeks to spread doubt and confusion about important issues.

The Blue Ribbon Commission has its work cut out for it, if it is to get past the Knowledge polluters.

Indian Nuclear Plans

The World Nuclear Association has published a long new account of the advances in the Indian nuclear program. Things are now moving very fast and three dozen reactors reactors are either planned or under serious consideration. Indian plans include light water reactors from Russia, France, and the United States, in addition to a locally designed Light Water Reactor.

Why the plunge into foreign Light Water Reactors, after India has painstakingly developed its heavy water reactor technology? The reason becomes obvious when we learn that the Indians are now expanding their fast breeder reactor plans. The WNA tells us

Longer term, the AEC envisages its fast reactor program being 30 to 40 times bigger than the PHWR program . . . this will be linked with up to 40,000 MWe of light water reactor capacity, the used fuel feeding ten times that fast breeder capacity, thus "deriving much larger benefit out of the external acquisition in terms of light water reactors and their associated fuel". This 40 GWe of imported LWR multiplied to 400 GWe via FBR would complement 200-250 GWe based on the indigenous program of PHWR-FBR-AHWR. Thus AEC is "talking about 500 to 600 GWe nuclear over the next 50 years or so" in India, plus export opportunities.

Oh wow, talk about ambitious! As i keep saying the Indians intend eat every ones lunch by running their industries on low cost thorium power. Even though foreign reactors are more expensive than Indian designed reactors, they fit into Indian plans, because they produce lots "spent fuel". In other countries "spent fuel" is considered a problem, and is called nuclear waste. In India spent light water reactor fuel is fuel for fast breeder reactors. And fast breeders will produce both electricity and the start up fuel for Advanced Heavy Water Reactors. The AHWRs will be breeders too, so as long as India has thorium, it will have nuclear fuel.

Unlike China, India does not have a legacy of coal, and further unlike China, India is not cursed with a large domestic coal supply. The Indians have known for 60 years that the key to their energy future would lie with nuclear power, and have doggedly pursued a nuclear development program. Along the way the Indians were able to develop really low cost but good quality reactors. Locally designed and built Indian reactors cost 40% less than Chinese reactors. And needless to say both cost a whole lot less than American and European reactors. The Indian reactor price advantage could begin to tell in 20 years when India and China start their post carbon energy program in ernest.

Current Chinese plans for post-carbon energy call for an everything but the kitchen sink approach. And even the lowest carbon Chinese energy plan calls for over 40% of Chinese electricity to be generated by fossil fuels in 2050. The Chinese expect to be building 4th Generation reactors by 2050, but it is far from clear what role they will play in Chinese nuclear plans.

The Indians clearly have charted a route to a high energy, low cost nuclear future. The Chinese as of yet have not. Of course Indian plans, though good, could be even better. The Indians are committed to do a lot of fuel reprocessing, a decision the Chinese appear to be also following. Both nations are involved with expensive approaches, and current fuel reprocessing technologies tend to loose too much plutonium, Indian reactor and fuel processing costs could be lower, provided the Indians adopted Molten Salt Reactor technology. A LFTR would include fuel reprocessing technology with each reactor unit, and would not produce plutonium. LFTRs need not produce plutonium at all. The Indians are probably years away from doing that, but a rapid program ofLFTR development in the United States could lead to lower post carbon electrical costs and would keep our industrial economy competitive with India.

The transformative potential of nuclear power or a cruel hoax?

The title of Michael Tobis's post on the Energy Collective today tells the story, The Cruel Hoax: Growth and Equity Cannot be Sustained Tobis tells us. Tobis claims:

the 2.5 % growth for 50 years amounts to a 3.4 fold increase in wealth for us. If the population does not increase, that means the 11-fold increase in the prior calculation (for others to catch up only to 2008 levels in the west) has to be multiplied by 3.4 to catch up to the west, plus another factor of 1.4 to account for the increased population.

As a consequence, the impact per unit of wealth has to decline by a factor of 11 * 3.4 * 1.4 = 52.9 .

In order to support business as usual without increasing net impact or abandoning any claim to international equity, impact per unit wealth has to decrease by more than a factor of fifty. Even that may not be sustainable: that is what is needed to fulfill the implicit promise of a growth economy to the rest of the world for another fifty years without increasing the RATE at which the earth is damaged. And even so, the growth idea implies continuing reduction in impact per unit of wealth thereafter.

Contrary to Tobis, from the viewpoint of energy, the long-term economic growth of the human economy is sustainable. The largest single terrestrial energy source remains completely untapped, while 99% of the second largest potential energy source is now wasted. The potential energy from these sources would be great enough to sustain the entire current population of the Earth at Western European levels of energy consumption for hundreds of millions of years. The energy sources are thorium and uranium, and every year enough energy from both are thrown away, to sustain the entire planet at energy levels that Mr. Tobis seems to think are impossible to sustain. While the use of oil as an energy source is not sustainable, the use of thorium and uranium can be and they can be substituted for oil as an energy source.

In 2007 Sparton Resources Inc., investigated fly ash samples taken from the Ajka Power Station in west- central Hungary. It was reported that a 20 million ton ash pile contained between 92 and 154 parts per million U3O8 (yellowcake). U2O8 is recoverable from fly ash using low energy, low cost recovery technology. Assuming that 0.1 pound of uranium is recoverable from every ton of fly ash, this means that 1000 tons of uranium could be recoverable from the Ajka ash pile. If efficient energy extraction technology were use to extract the energy from the 1000 tons of uranium, it could run 1000 nuclear power plants for a year. Those power plants would produce 2 and a half times the electricity now produced in the United States during a single year. Sparton did not even bother to assess the amount of thorium in the Ajka ash pile, but we can presume that if the average proportion between uranium and thorium holds, there would have been enough thorium to power another 3000 large reactors for a year. 3000 reactors would produce enough electricity to supply the entire population of India at near American levels of electrical consumption for a year.

It should not be assumed that it would be impossibly expensive to extract electricity from uranium and thorium. India is building a commercial fast breeder reactor that it expects to be finished by 2013. The technology has already been tested an earlier small prototype. The new Indian reactor will efficiently extract 100% of the energy from uranium at a cost of six and a half cents per kWh. Later serial produced Indian fast breeders are expected to produce electricity at a cost of four cents per kWh.

I have argued that Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, capable of efficiently extracting 98% of the energy in Thorium, could be manufactured in factories at a cost as low as one dollar a watt of generating capacity. I might be wrong about this cost estimate, but so far no one had demonstrated that my estimate is impossible.

The ability to produce abundant, low costs energy is the key to maintaining human material well-being. When I was a young man, considerable concerned was expressed because human society faced a shortage of mercury. "How can human society survive, once the mercury runs out," people wondered. Yet substitutes were found. Mercury no longer goes into thermometers, but people still get their temperature checked.

The Indian government has already paid for the development of the fast breeder nuclear technology that will allow for low cost efficient conversion of uranium and thorium into electricity in India. The Indians estimate that building their fast breeder reactors will cost about $1.20 per watt of electrical generating capacity. This is almost half the capital cost of wind generators in the United States. If the Indians can build reliable post-carbon generating capacity at $1.20 per watt, a lot of electricity and energy intensive industries is going to relocate to India during the next 40 to 50 years. The same Indian technology that lowers power costs with use uranium and thorium several hundred time more efficiently, than uranium is used in current nuclear technology.

A lot of now poor Indians are going to see revolutionary changes in their standard of living and quality of life in the next fifty years. The future material prosperity of India is not a hoax. I can only conclude that Michael Tobis simply does not understand the potential of nuclear power.