To Nuke or Not to Nuke

4 a.m Wednesday on March 28^th, 1979 marked the death of the Nuclear power expansion in the US. A stuck pilot-operated release valve on Three-Mile Island allowed a meltdown to take place, which successfully changed the destiny of nuclear energy, to one filled with fear and intimidation. Sound the trumpets, because this day could possibly mark the end of the human race due to climate change…

Ok, so maybe I’m blowing it a little out of proportion, i.e. it may not be solely responsible for the end of the human race, but in fact, nuclear energy is one of the most efficient, clean, and safe energy generating utilities we have at our disposable in this modern age.  Let me just quickly explain how nuclear power works:

The primary focus of generating nuclear power is by maintaining a 1/1 ratio of fission chain reactions. What this means is for every fission reaction, 1 neutrino is released, which is a by-product along with heat, and this neutrino hits another atom fission occurs and then it 1 neutrino again, and so on and so forth. Any more than 1/1 you will have an uncontrollable nuclear reaction with a worse case scenario, nuclear meltdown. Anything less than 1/1 the reaction would stop.

As long as this is maintained, nuclear power can be generated efficiently. They control the reaction using a completely automated system that regulates the chain reaction by raising and lowering control rods made of neutrino absorbing materials typically silver, cadium, and indium. This helps to slow or speed up the chain reactions depending on the 1/1 ratio. Energy is generated, when fission occurs, it releases a tremendous amount of heat that boils water this water is then lead away from the reactor and turns turbines generating electricity. 

Your typical nuclear power plant generates between 500-1300 MW. To make this easier to understand your typical US household uses about 11 MW/hours per year. As you can see, nuclear power generates a ton of electricity with very little environmental cost. It has an extremely low carbon output because its main fuel source is fissile U-238 and it’s only by-product is nuclear waste and water vapor. Although nuclear waste is still a debatable issue because we still do not have a good solution for its disposal. The cornucopian in me however, believes that our technology will improve to the point where we could dispose the waste safely, or recycle what we already have.

 Let me just say, that our stocks of Uranium and Plutonium in the world could theoretically sustain energy production for the next 500 years before we would ever run out. Also the oceans around the world are full of uranium fragments that could sustain us indefinantly if technology advances enough that we figure out how to extract it.

To me, this seems like a great alternative to coal power plants, generate tons of CO2, or even hydroelectric which are responsible for destroying hundreds of rivers throughout the US. However, people are still tentative, opposition parties typically cite the three mile island disaster as a reason for not expanding US nuclear power. Along with the Three Mile Island disaster, the media and governments tend to oppose nuclear power because of threats of terrorism and war. They are afraid that extremist groups may target nuclear power plants or even try to steal the raw fissile material in an attempt to make a dirty bomb. All of these assumptions however are false.

Advancements in the safety of nuclear power plants have improved significantly from 1979. They are encased in thousands of tons of concrete that could successfully mitigate any radiation leaks. Their systems are completely automated now so there is no chance of human error, which was the cause of Three Mile Island. Also, even if someone bombed a power plant the control rods could be lowered instantaneously and any damage to the plant would immediately cause the reactor to shut down. Nuclear power is honestly one of the most efficient and safe alternatives to other power generating facilities.

Here is some food for thought from a study done by Mark Jacobsen entitled Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution and energy security. If you converted the entire fleet of on road vehicles in the US to Battery Electric, electric cars. Meaning all cars would be powered by electricity, the space needed for nuclear power plants, to power all of these cars would be 0.045%-0.061% of US land spacing, this would be about 9%-13% less space needed if you used only Wind power to fuel all cars.

If you look at a Cost-Benefit analysis of alternative energies to fossil fuels, Nuclear energy always ranks low. This however is a somewhat skewed number because all of the studies take into account war, terrorism, and threats of nuclear energy into account. So, when they look at potential mortality from each alternative, of course, nuclear will be low. But if you get rid of these stereotypes, nuclear power emerges as one of the most efficient power generating utilities that we have at our disposal. So I ask is it time we stop living scared and start pushing for more clean nuclear energy? My answer, most definitely yes. 

A follow up post will come next week to dive into more issues facing Nuclear Energy in the US.

Sincerely,

That Guy