To the few antinuke stragglers still lost in the 1980's, it seems that a great sellout has occurred--- the old "anti" passion is not around anymore, and a few words to the left-behinds may be in order.
Something very important has happened.The modern world is about to need nuclear generated electricity in a big way, just to survive. Most of the major players, on both sides of the old issue realize this now.....
Even Al Gore........
Wall Street Journal, 3-28-07
By William Tucker
Al Gore recognizes that any solution to global warming is going to require a revival of nuclear power. He was edging toward that in his House of Representatives testimony last week -- yet downplayed the idea on the following grounds: "Nuclear power plants are the costliest to build and they take the longest time and at present they come in only one size -- extra large."
This is a curious notion. At present, the U.S. Navy has 10 giant aircraft carriers and 50 submarines that run on nuclear power; the average reactor generates about 200 megawatts (MW). The French Rubis class of submarines still operates on 48 MW. Although these reactors are enough to provide power for the lifetime of a submarine or drive a 100,000-ton aircraft carrier, they are small by commercial standards.
When Adm. Hyman Rickover "beached" a submarine engine at Shippingport, Pa., in 1957 to create the first country's civilian nuclear reactor, it produced only 60 MW of electricity. Dresden 1, built privately in 1960, was 210 MW and Indian Point 1, built by Con Edison in 1961, produced 275 MW.
Once the technology was established, reactors quickly grew to the 500-1000 MW range for one simple reason -- bigger is better. The principles of thermodynamics dictate that a single 1,200 MW generating station operates much more efficiently than two 600 MW plants. The same thing holds true for coal plants, nuclear power's chief rival in the electricity field. Both coal and nuclear plants are now built to the 1,200-1,500 MW range for economic reasons.
Yet all this hardly suggests that nuclear reactors "come in only one size -- extra large." Many research reactors produce only 5 MW. We've never reached the point where nuclear electricity runs cars or airplanes -- as early dreamers suggested -- but in theory it's possible.
"Mini-reactors" are now being suggested in many remote locations -- just as wind and solar energy are thriving where other power sources are not available. In Galena, Alaska, far up the Yukon River, Toshiba has proposed a 10 MW reactor to replace the town's diesel generators, which now produce electricity at ten times the normal price. The Russians have started building "floating reactors" as small as 3 MW to transport into isolated outposts of Siberia, where weather conditions make construction of power plants impossible. Both Canada and Venezuela are considering small reactors to cook the oil products out of the ground at remote tar sand deposits.
One of the most promising technologies is the "pebble bed modular reactor," in which nuclear material is reposited in tennis ball-sized graphite-coated spheres that sit in the reactor vessel as in a giant gumball machine. Each pebble is a "mini-reactor" with all the necessary components and a collection of them produces enough power. "We've found the optimum size to be around 250 MW," says Prof. Andrew Kadak, who has been working on a design at MIT.
Since balls can be inserted and withdrawn individually, the reactor never has to shut down for refueling. Temperatures do not climb high enough to cause a meltdown and proponents say this eliminates the need for an expensive containment structure -- although environmentalists dispute this. South Africa is scheduled to complete a 200 MW pebble bed reactor by 2012.
In his public testimony Mr. Gore seemed to be convoluting several things, suggesting somehow that nuclear plants are too expensive and take too long to build because they only come "extra-large." This is not true.
Nuclear plants take more time to build and are more expensive than comparative coal plants, but they are not prohibitively expensive. The Japanese are now building reactors in five years at competitive prices. Higher construction costs are more than compensated by lower fuel costs and higher capacity ratings. America's existing nuclear plants are now operating so profitably that Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal recently proposed a windfall profits tax because the state's reactors were making too much money.
And this is all before environmental considerations are factored into the equation. In three years of operation, a 1,500 MW coal plant will spew three million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere -- the prime source of the world's carbon emissions. An identical nuclear reactor will produce only a few bundles of highly radioactive fuel rods that can be safely stored in a nearby storage pool. Yet coal currently pays for none of these environmental damages. A carbon tax of roughly $10 per ton would level the playing field and make nuclear power far more competitive.
The reason building nuclear plants has been expensive and time-consuming is because of exaggerated popular fears of the technology. The public is now coming around. Seventy percent now consider nuclear plants acceptable, meaning new plants will probably not become bogged down in endless court delays.
The only reasonable scenario for avoiding global warming is to substitute nuclear power for coal as our prime source of base-load electricity, supplementing it with wind and solar electricity for our spinning reserve and peaking-power needs. If Al Gore were to support a nuclear-solar alliance -- a joint effort by the carbon-free technologies to impose a tax on carbon emissions -- we could take giant steps toward solving the problem.
Mr. Tucker is author of "Terrestrial Energy: How a Nuclear-Solar Alliance Can Rescue the Planet," forthcoming by Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Tags Indian Point Entergy Green Nuclear Butterfly Riverkeeper Al Gore An Inconvenient Truth Robert F Kennedy jr Solar Nuclear Renaissance
