Nuclear energy is going to become very important to us in the near future and we will have to
become conscious participants in planning and managing its expanded role in our economy.
We need to know soon if we can manage radioactive material safely, and if we are a mature
enough society to honor our moral commitment to maintain a clean planet and a radiation-
free America.
We currently generate 2,000 tons of high-radiation waste every year. If we must
triple our nuclear capacity to supplant lost oil and gas energy capacity, we will
generate 6,000 tons of extremely hazardous nuclear waste annually. That's enough
to fill a Yucca-sized waste containment site in 12 years. Can we build a new Yucca
every twelve years just for nuclear waste? Do we have a choice?
Where is the national conversation on this strategic issue?
- As of April 2004, America has 104 working nuclear reactors that generate 21% of her
2004 electrical energy requirements, or 8% of her total energy consumption.
- Approximately 10% of these reactors will go "off line" within 20 years.
- Electrical demand increases 1.8% per year.
- For the electric power sector in 2003, coal-fired plants accounted for 53% of
generation, nuclear 21%, natural gas 15%, hydroelectricity 7%, oil 3%, geothermal
and "other" 1% (DoE Country Analysis Brief).
- 18% of our electrical power (from oil and gas) is at risk and these plants must be
replaced by coal-fired power plants or nuclear power plants.
- Coal will be a necessary partial solution for several decades. But coal mining requires
tremendous amounts of fuel energy, almost all of which comes from oil.
- Oil (40%) and gas (23%) make up 63% of America's total energy consumption.
- Transportation alone consumes 27% of America's total energy consumption.
- The point here is that the demand for electricity is going to at least double as the
transportation infrastructure weans itself from oil-based fuels and begins to use
hydrogen (made by electrolysis via nuclear generated electricity).
- As oil and gas are exhausted, America will need to triple the amount of coal she burns,
triple the number of nuclear reactors she has, and triple the amount of hydroelectric
power she harvests, just to maintain her current energy demand.
- Can America build another 220 nuclear power plants in twenty to thirty years?
- The case has yet to be seriously made that a nuclear power plant generates
more energy during its useful life than it cost to build, manage (including
nuclear waste management), and decommission.
- A BBOE is the energy equivalent of a billion barrels of oil. America currently
consumes about 20 BBOE annually. It takes 100 reactors to produce 8% of 20 BBOE;
1 reactor contributes 0.016 BBOE/year.
- For purposes of discussion, we may eventually determine that a single
reactor lasts 50 years, costs 0.3 BBOE, generates 0.8 BBOE, and nets 0.5
BBOE during its useful life. If the net energy contribution of a nuclear power
plant is only 0.5 BBOE (and it might be less than that), then we will need to
build 10 nuclear reactors every year to net an annual 5 billion barrels of oil
energy equivalent (assuming we are burning 3 billion tons of coal a year to meet the
remaining demand). We need to know these numbers with precision and they need to
be part of an open national conversation on nuclear energy.
- Compounding our energy problems is transportation, which represents 27% of
America's total energy consumption. Conversion of oil to a variety of transportation
fuels is very efficient; conversion of nuclear power to electricity and then hydrogen
results in an almost 50% loss. So the nuclear/hydrogen replacement for today's
oil/gas energy economy would require an immediate increase to 127% to cover the
loss from energy conversions, or an increase from 20.0 BBOE to 25.4 BBOE annually.
- What does a jet engine running on hydrogen look like?
- The availability of nuclear fuel (see below) is constrained; America has already mined
approximately 3/5's of all of its proven reserves (at US$ 130/kilogram). What is a
more realistic estimate of our proven reserves at higher cost breaks?
- Nuclear power is very dirty the way we've implemented it to date. Perhaps we can
have nuclear power without despoiling the environment, but we have yet to
demonstrate this.
- It takes 5 years to build a nuclear power plant and bring it on-line.
- It costs $2 billion to build one nuclear power plant.
- Annual operating costs are $xxx
- The number of engineers and support personnel ? What would be needed to tool up
an industry from 100 nuclear plants to 400 or 500?
- At best, however, current nuclear technologies look like another stop gap; a
technology that can help while we look harder (meaning a sustained commitment to
large Research and Development budgets) for the long-term solution.
- Breeder reactors create additional fuel; if this process can be leveraged on a large
scale, part of the long-term solution may be breeder reactors.
- Fusion seems to be the ideal, but we're bungling our efforts right now with puny
investments, negligible support, inadequate international collaboration.
Energy / Nuclear / Resources
Energy Information Administration / Dept of Energy
Common Dreams / Mark Hertsgaard
Energy Bulletin / Matthew Wald
Washington Post / George Will
GeoTimes / Susan B. Mockler
|
